2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 11:03AM

alastair wrote: »

So... That's a "no" then. Not an equivalence.

If one wears rose tinted Clinton glasses it is a no.
I think the supporters of both the main candidates are seriously deluded if they cannot see how bad each of the respective candidates are.
Problem is some people are afraid to say both choices are really awful.

alastair · 15-10-2016 11:08AM

RobertKK wrote: »

If one wears rose tinted Clinton glasses it is a no.
I think the supporters of both the main candidates are seriously deluded if they cannot see how bad each of the respective candidates are.
Problem is some people are afraid to say both choices are really awful.

It's an objective "no". You were asked to demonstrate that there was the same behaviour on the Hillary base's side, and you can't. No rose tinted glasses required to see the reality of the situation.

A litany of erroneous distraction doesn't really substitute for acknowledging the answer is a simple no.

One choice is clearly idiotic. The other is uninspiring. Hillary is far from the cartoon you paint, but Trump does his damnedest to live up to the cartoon portrayal he's earned - as do his supporters at every rally he attends.

Pro Hoc Vice · 15-10-2016 11:14AM

RobertKK wrote: »

If one wears rose tinted Clinton glasses it is a no.
I think the supporters of both the main candidates are seriously deluded if they cannot see how bad each of the respective candidates are.
Problem is some people are afraid to say both choices are really awful.

No it is a no because you do a trump you ignore the question go on about the same discredited rubbish and hope nobody gets that you just tried very badly to deflect. If you think no one can see through your agenda you are sadly mistaken.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 11:18AM

alastair wrote: »

It's an objective "no". You were asked to demonstrate that there was the same behaviour on the Hillary base's side, and you can't. No rose tinted glasses required to see the reality of the situation.

A litany of erroneous distraction doesn't really substitute for acknowledging the answer is a simple no.

One choice is clearly idiotic. The other is uninspiring. Hillary is far from the cartoon you paint, but Trump does his damnedest to live up to the cartoon portrayal he's earned - as do his supporters at every rally he attends.

I will tell you next week when I am in the US if her base are saintly.

Hillary is far from cartoon, Wikileaks show what she said in private, her emails and I do question people who accept donations from countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, when you say they are pro-women and against ISIS. When these said countries are then accused by the same person as spreading extremist ideology and funding ISIS. Then they get called allies, when their own country is fighting ISIS.
Something very strange about it all.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 11:26AM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No it is a no because you do a trump you ignore the question go on about the same discredited rubbish and hope nobody gets that you just tried very badly to deflect. If you think no one can see through your agenda you are sadly mistaken.

Trump is not going to win.
He is going to lose, he is no threat unless something massive happens to Hillary.

The only agenda I see is people are focused on the loser and seem to think the biggest policy issues in the US is sexual policy, when the country has far bigger issues that affect real people, like the spiralling cost of healthcare for example.
Foreign policy, one can decide who is far more hawkish.

The biggest deflection in this election is the focus on non policy issues by both sides and the media.

Suryavarman · 15-10-2016 11:29AM

I haven't been posting as much the last couple of days so I haven't had a chance to comment on the sexual assault allegations against Trump yet.

I'm genuinely shocked that posters that attacked Hillary for attacking people that claimed Bill raped them aren't attacking Trump and his surrogates for the same. It's almost as if it wasn't Hillary's actions that people disagreed with but the fact that she did them. It's almost as if their hatred of her is irrational. Perhaps the prospect of a female POTUS scares them.

Now that there's new stories of Trump sexually assaulting women coming out everyday, can we start speculating about his links to NAMBLA again? There's a greater chance of him donating to NAMBLA than there is of him winning the Presidential race at this stage after all.

alastair · 15-10-2016 11:30AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I will tell you next week when I am in the US if her base are saintly.

Hillary is far from cartoon, Wikileaks show what she said in private, her emails and I do question people who accept donations from countries like Saudi Arabia or Qatar, when you say they are pro-women and against ISIS. When these said countries are then accused by the same person as spreading extremist ideology and funding ISIS. Then they get called allies, when their own country is fighting ISIS.
Something very strange about it all.

Did anyone claim the Hillary base were saints? The issue is whether they're as offensive as those Trump supporters that are easily found at his rally's. They're not. No need for you to report back on your findings from your holiday, they're obvious enough already.

Hillary is unarguably opposed to ISIS, and has policies that are clearly far more pro-women than any other presidential candidate in my recollection. No amount of slapdash guff about her 'friends' the Wahhabists (or is it the Muslim Brotherhood - it seems to change?) changes those facts.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 11:31AM

Suryavarman wrote: »

I haven't been posting as much the last couple of days so I haven't had a chance to comment on the sexual assault allegations against Trump yet.

I'm genuinely shocked that posters that attacked Hillary for attacking people that claimed Bill raped them aren't attacking Trump and his surrogates for the same. It's almost as if it wasn't Hillary's actions that people disagreed with but the fact that she did them. It's almost as if their hatred of her is irrational. Perhaps the prospect of a female POTUS scares them.

Now that there's new stories of Trump sexually assaulting women coming out everyday, can we start speculating about his links to NAMBLA again? There's a greater chance of him donating to NAMBLA than there is of him winning the Presidential race at this stage after all.

I think they are all a disgrace and only bring shame to the US.

Calina · 15-10-2016 11:42AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I think they are all a disgrace and only bring shame to the US.

But you have posted primarily and mostly complaining about Hillary Clinton. Your comments about Trump are, comparatively, quite limited and really appear to be limited to saying "oh he's awful" when it's pointed out to you that he is guilty of a load of if not most of what you accuse Hillary Clinton of.

From that, I can only conclude that you thoroughly dislike Hillary Clinton and it disappoints you that you have to admit the alternative is actually significantly worse.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 11:47AM

alastair wrote: »

Did anyone claim the Hillary base were saints? The issue is whether they're as offensive as those Trump supporters that are easily found at his rally's. They're not. No need for you to report back on your findings from your holiday, they're obvious enough already.

Hillary is unarguably opposed to ISIS, and has policies that are clearly far more pro-women than any other presidential candidate in my recollection. No amount of slapdash guff about her 'friends' the Wahhabists (or is it the Muslim Brotherhood - it seems to change?) changes those facts.

Hillary handed Libya to terrorists including ISIS and didn't bother getting her allies who she talked to in the UK, France and Middle East to do anything to stop it when Gaddafi was removed.
A bomb first then ignore the vacuum left, somehow thousands and thousands of ISIS members replaced Gaddafi.
I will call her pro-woman when she is not a hypocrite on the matter.
The facts have not changed, I would be accused of repeating everything every time if I had to post all the facts all of the time.

I do think the basket of deplorables and these people being irredeemable was a huge mistake by Hillary, while lying at the same time she will be a president for all of the people.
The irredeemable comment was possibly worse than deplorable.
I find people who attends her rallies just as offensive as those who attend Trump's rallies.
One would have to be stupid enough to care that much for the respective candidate and it would say you are a pawn in their chess game, as both only care about themselves and not the people.
The people are just a means to an end goal.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 11:50AM

Calina wrote: »

But you have posted primarily and mostly complaining about Hillary Clinton. Your comments about Trump are, comparatively, quite limited and really appear to be limited to saying "oh he's awful" when it's pointed out to you that he is guilty of a load of if not most of what you accuse Hillary Clinton of.

From that, I can only conclude that you thoroughly dislike Hillary Clinton and it disappoints you that you have to admit the alternative is actually significantly worse.

Yes the person most likely to be president, and the most dangerous candidate in my opinion.
I think both are terrible choices.
I dislike Hillary the most. If anyone likes either of these people there is something wrong.

Pro Hoc Vice · 15-10-2016 11:58AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump is not going to win.
He is going to lose, he is no threat unless something massive happens to Hillary.

The only agenda I see is people are focused on the loser and seem to think the biggest policy issues in the US is sexual policy, when the country has far bigger issues that affect real people, like the spiralling cost of healthcare for example.
Foreign policy, one can decide who is far more hawkish.

The biggest deflection in this election is the focus on non policy issues by both sides and the media.

I agree the election is devoid of the real policies. My view is that is an issue to be laid solely at the feet of Trump.

Health care has been an issue for years while ACA may be flawed it's a step in the right direction at least Obama has got the issue on the agenda

Christopher Reeve and his serious injury showed even the very rich with the best insurance could end up broke because of health care costs and that was over 20 years ago.

Pro Hoc Vice · 15-10-2016 12:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes the person most likely to be president, and the most dangerous candidate in my opinion.
I think both are terrible choices.
I dislike Hillary the most. If anyone likes either of these people there is something wrong.

So it's ok for you to have an opinion but there is something wrong with me (not that I am wrong) but something wrong with me because I disagree with you. Nice to know but I tell you I believe Clinton is a far better choice on all levels.

oscarBravo · 15-10-2016 12:04PM

So it looks like Donald lied about giving $10k to 9/11 charities.

John Oliver's comments about rock bottom being waaaay above us are ringing very true right now.

Itssoeasy · 15-10-2016 12:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes the person most likely to be president, and the most dangerous candidate in my opinion.
I think both are terrible choices.
I dislike Hillary the most. If anyone likes either of these people there is something wrong.

Well Robert it's clear significant groups of Americans appear to like one of the candidates.And the American people will have to make a decision on November 8th as to who is the more electable of two of the worst big party candidates in a presidential election in a long time.

Suryavarman · 15-10-2016 12:23PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary handed Libya to terrorists including ISIS and didn't bother getting her allies who she talked to in the UK, France and Middle East to do anything to stop it when Gaddafi was removed.
A bomb first then ignore the vacuum left, somehow thousands and thousands of ISIS members replaced Gaddafi.
I will call her pro-woman when she is not a hypocrite on the matter.
The facts have not changed, I would be accused of repeating everything every time if I had to post all the facts all of the time.

There you go again criticising Clinton for doing something Trump supported.

I love how you somehow think that Clinton herself started the Arab Spring and that there was no war there until America intervened.

I do think the basket of deplorables and these people being irredeemable was a huge mistake by Hillary, while lying at the same time she will be a president for all of the people.
The irredeemable comment was possibly worse than deplorable.
I find people who attends her rallies just as offensive as those who attend Trump's rallies.
One would have to be stupid enough to care that much for the respective candidate and it would say you are a pawn in their chess game, as both only care about themselves and not the people.
The people are just a means to an end goal.

Anyone who supports Trump at this stage is an irredeemable, deplorable person. The man is a narcissist and is openly misogynistic and racist. It is likely that he has sexually assaulted many women and has bragged and joked about it on multiple occasions.

Trump is only a better choice than Clinton if you think that women, Muslims, Hispanics and black people should be treated like second class citizens.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 12:31PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

So it's ok for you to have an opinion but there is something wrong with me (not that I am wrong) but something wrong with me because I disagree with you. Nice to know but I tell you I believe Clinton is a far better choice on all levels.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, sure it is what we all do every day.

The next four years will show who is right on Hillary. It would be nice for me to be wrong, but I see disaster written all over her presidency.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 12:35PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

There you go again criticising Clinton for doing something Trump supported.

I love how you somehow think that Clinton herself started the Arab Spring and that there was no war there until America intervened.

Anyone who supports Trump at this stage is an irredeemable, deplorable person. The man is a narcissist and is openly misogynistic and racist. It is likely that he has sexually assaulted many women and has bragged and joked about it on multiple occasions.

Trump is only a better choice than Clinton if you think that women, Muslims, Hispanics and black people should be treated like second class citizens.

Did Trump support abandoning Libya to terrorists? Which is what the policy towards Libya ended up being?

I think people who support any of these people are simply stooges, because the candidates are the real deplorables and irredeemables, and one of them will be president.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 12:38PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well Robert it's clear significant groups of Americans appear to like one of the candidates.And the American people will have to make a decision on November 8th as to who is the more electable of two of the worst big party candidates in a presidential election in a long time.

Yeah Americans have to decide which body part they want amputated in most cases.

Pro Hoc Vice · 15-10-2016 12:38PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, sure it is what we all do every day.

The next four years will show who is right on Hillary. It would be nice for me to be wrong, but I see disaster written all over her presidency.

Maybe yes maybe no, if Clinton follows some of her examples while First Lady and senator maybe just maybe there maybe some republicans and democrates coming together to try and make society better for all.

I know for a fact Trump does not have the temperament to do that from what he has done over past few years, we do know Clinton may just reach across the aisle. She may be the first president of one of the major parties who has a sizeable number of the other side movers and shakers voting for her.

No matter who is president the very same people calling Clinton a warmonger will be baying for blood at the next attack. America has been divided on the issue of intervention in global conflict for over 100 years.

Pro Hoc Vice · 15-10-2016 12:42PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yeah Americans have to decide which body part they want amputated in most cases.

No it does not. For someone who hates both why are you wasting your time on this thread. Usually if a person thinks both are **** he turns off, so I take your claim with a large pinch of salt.

aloyisious · 15-10-2016 01:17PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Well the wikileaks showed an email which said "the less Bill the better" due to his "sex life".
Hillary plays Tammy Wynette as she stands by her man.
She has been accused by other women of being an enabler of sexual abuse that her husband is accused of.
Her supporters are really supporting death and destruction and are intellectually challenged if they cannot see what a disaster she was as Secretary of State.
Then her hypocrisy and that of the Clintons, accepting money from Saudi Arabia for their foundation, despite in an email saying Saudi Arabia are the most responsible for the spread of extremist ideology in the world.
Then two years ago saying Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS, while her husband accepts $1 million from Qatar.
The morals of Trump and the Clintons are the morals most people would not accept.
These people are an absolute disgrace and I think both Trump and Clinton want the job for the money it brings, the influence and neither should be anywhere near the Irish designed and built White House.
Their supporters are deluded on both sides.

Hell of a lot of truth in your's.

Hillary being a politician know's the rules of the game and how to avoid the **** landing on Pennsylvania Avenue. She'd also know a lot of the players, just still not some-one I'd have in for afternoon tea. She know's War is a continuation of politics by other means and trying to avoid bodybags with US service personnel. Clinton know's she can be held to account and cares.

Don, on the other hand, is playing by his own rules and none other. He trying to introduce his own rules to the White House and US politics. He doesn't (apparently) see the W/W is also the address of a player in the world game and doesn't see that the other players, incl those around the world, have different mindsets. They can't be bullied or cowed by threats of lawsuits from him. He's a businessman not yet suited for the office and probably would never be.

I've no doubt he doesn't care about collateral damage, seeing how he's treated his fellow US citizens in the business world for example, without even mentioning standard social mores. He'd start brush-fires around the world by his standard habit of shooting from the lip and just walk away, leaving career people to clear up the mess. It's because of that that I don't want him in the W/W. Don doesn't give a **** about being held to account.....

Edited since first posted ......and is now being given a lesson in it by his fellows. So far, as far as I know, none of the claims include paternity ones.

alastair · 15-10-2016 03:59PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Did Trump support abandoning Libya to terrorists? Which is what the policy towards Libya ended up being?

I think people who support any of these people are simply stooges, because the candidates are the real deplorables and irredeemables, and one of them will be president.

Nobody is abandoning Libya to terrorists. US policy with regard to Libya was the same as the EU's and the UN's - support for the transitional government and free elections post Ghadaffi. That's what they pursued, and the civil war that came out of the failure of various factions to adhere to the democratic will of the Libyan people is the consequence of internal fissures, not US policy. Quite what you want of the U.S. with regard to Libya is a mystery - but it sure smacks of propping up the murderous regime of Ghadaffi.

K-9 · 15-10-2016 05:39PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I do find the airplane story a bit weird, it suggests one could grope and try to kiss in first class which is more open and if unwanted advances were made no one would see or hear the person complain.
One would think the person had some disability and could not move or talk, she was under no obligation to Trump, that particular story one has to make up their own mind if they believe it or not.
It was a public space in an airplane, I don't know, if other passengers who were there came forward who saw it happen it would have more credibility and so far it is a she says/he says and no one else who was there saying anything.

Plenty of victims of sexual abuse or groping just freeze. Trump would have been a big, physically imposing man with a
domineering attitude towards women at the very least. It's very easy to imagine it happening, especially in the 80's.

K-9 · 15-10-2016 05:44PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So it looks like Donald lied about giving $10k to 9/11 charities.

John Oliver's comments about rock bottom being waaaay above us are ringing very true right now.

Wasn't there a story about him claiming money from a relief fund a bit improperly too?

Interesting his only big donation was when he was up against Cruz in the primary.

He didn't donate anything personally to the Trump Foundation after 08.

K-9 · 15-10-2016 05:46PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No it does not. For someone who hates both why are you wasting your time on this thread. Usually if a person thinks both are **** he turns off, so I take your claim with a large pinch of salt.

A lot of people posting against Trump aren't really Hillary supporters, myself included. Robert is free to do the same in the other direction.

K-9 · 15-10-2016 05:50PM

Mod:

Keep on topic and stop discussing other posters views on the marriage referendum.

Pro Hoc Vice · 15-10-2016 05:51PM

K-9 wrote: »

A lot of people posting against Trump aren't really Hillary supporters, myself included. Robert is free to do the same in the other direction.

There is a difference between a politically interested person who takes a side and not really liking one or both sides, and a person who claims to hate both but only posts negative comments about one.

I have not stopped any poster posting I have simply stated my opinion and the weight I give their posts which is zero.

RobertKK · 15-10-2016 07:40PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

There is a difference between a politically interested person who takes a side and not really liking one or both sides, and a person who claims to hate both but only posts negative comments about one.

I have not stopped any poster posting I have simply stated my opinion and the weight I give their posts which is zero.

I think you will find I have posted negative posts about both.
I think both are really bad when it comes to accusations of sexual assualt, one is accused of it, the other is married to a person accused of it and accused of being an enabler of sexual abuse.
For me they are both as bad as each other in this area, as there is likely to some truth in all cases.
I was shocked at what Trump said and he is probably like Bill Clinton whom Hillary sticks by, Bill lied and Trump is probably too. You would not trust any of these people as far as you could throw them.
I think Trump is right when it comes to Corporation tax.
I think Hillary is right when it comes to taxing the very well off people.
I think both want the presidency for personal gain and to use that fame to make money, the Clintons were said to be not that well off when Bill left the White house, and claimed to be in debt and near broke, now they are said to have well over $100 million in wealth, and both want the presidency for this reason, it comes from a sense of greed and selfishness.
I think Trump is wrong with the wall and more being put into other means of border security would be better.
I think black people who look towards the Democrats who control many big cities should be asking what have the Democrats done for them giving all the violence from within their own community and then the police shootings - both them shooting and being shot at. 8 years of an Obama presidency and it could be argued that racial relations are near worse than when he started.
Hillary flipping on trade agreements, even trade agreements she call the gold standard, Trump is nearly as bad, as both will lie to win.

I have interested in politics since I was a young child and would be sitting on the sofa with my parents watching things like the news, Today Tonight and listening to the radio always had an interest in politics.
If I dislike both candidates in an election it is how it is. I felt the same about the Irish presidential election to a lesser degree and at least their power is like a fleck of dust in comparison to the US presidency.
The thing about the US presidential election is, the more I watch both, the more I learn about each of the main candidates, the more I dislike them.
Then there is Gary Johnson who asks 'what is Aleppo?' and doesn't seem to know Kim Jong Un is the leader of North Korea and Jill Stein whom there is an arrest warrant out for from the state of North Dakota for graffiti.
Then there is an independent candidate in Utah whose name I have forgotten who could win that state.
I have a big interest in politics, I don't have to like the candidates to post about them. I don't think the world is made up whoever wins, but it does matter as we will be stuck with whoever wins.
I never question why people post in a thread, as I would feel I would be trying to silence someone by doing so.
I end up having to explain as disliking both but posting more about one of the candidates is a problem for you.
It is not for me, I know where I stand.
I wanted Paul Ryan but he didn't run.

Overheal · 15-10-2016 07:44PM

Do we all need to hashtag our signatures so people don't confuse who's for/against whom. Kinda silly at this point.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments