2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

I saw that speech. Hence why i was able to disregard it. Extremely unimpressive.

In fairness you asked for a policy speech, you got one. Whether it is impressive to you or not is a subjective thing dependent on political views.

Trump seems to have a taxation policy, I might not agree with it but he has one which he spoke about at length.

ancapailldorcha

Peist2007 wrote: »

I saw that speech. Hence why i was able to disregard it. Extremely unimpressive.

Any reason why?

Amerika wrote: »

I can’t watch the video, but looking at the header regarding 'Foreign Policy,' I have to ask... Is she touting undermining the sacrifice of servicemen and women by reaching out to the Taliban in Afghanistan while they were killing American troops? Does she tout supporting the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq which led to the creation of ISIS? Does she tout supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (a designated terrorist organization in Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia) throughout the Middle East and in the United States which undermined American Muslim allies? Did she tout refusing to designate the Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization in Nigeria? Did she tout undermining the democratic Iranian Green Revolution in 2009? And does she tout supporting the Iran Nuclear deal? Quite some foreign policy accomplishments, wouldn't you say?

No idea. It's 40 minutes long so I can't watch it right now.

Peist2007

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness you asked for a policy speech, you got one. Whether it is impressive to you or not is a subjective thing dependent on political views.

Trump seems to have a taxation policy, I might not agree with it but he has one which he spoke about at length.

In fairness i didnt ask someone to google "Hillary policy" and send me the results. If you think that is a policy speech then the movie Idiocracy is actually coming to pass.

Here are some snippets from the highlight feed as that speech went on:

"Choice between a fearful or stronger US"

"Trump is mentally unfit for office"

"Nothing more important than national security"

"Trump should not get nuclear codes"

"Trump believes America is weak"

"Trump has threatened to abandon allies"

"Trump praises dictators like Putin"

"Trump won't make America stronger at home"

"Kremlin would celebrate a Trump win"

"Trump doesnt understand concept of nuclear war"

"Trump likely to lead US into conflict"

"Trump could lead to economic crisis"

"Trump's muslim ban plays into ISIS hands"

"Trump insults people who have served"

"Trump has America all wrong, it is great""

See what i mean?

B_Wayne

Peist2007 wrote: »

I saw that speech. Hence why i was able to disregard it. Extremely unimpressive.

And the biggest criticism of Hilary tends to be that she goes into too much information in debates. Trump on the other is zero information of anything credible.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

US conservatives have been spectacularly wrong about guns long enough that I can't afford their opinions any legitimacy.

There are about 240 million Americans over the age of 18. There are about 270 million civilian firearms in America. We have always been a law abiding gun culture nation built around the rights provided us in the 2nd Amendment. Unless you are talking about a massive gun confiscation, that will not change. So, what are conservatives so spectacularly wrong about?

Peist2007

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Any reason why?

Its not a speech on policy. At least not a valid one in my opinion. More platititudes, soundbites and little about Hillary's plans as to what she will do when President. As i said, in terms of being a speech on policy, very unimpressive. Any other examples?

Peist2007

B_Wayne wrote: »

And the biggest criticism of Hilary tends to be that she goes into too much information in debates. Trump on the other is zero information of anything credible.

Going into specifics is not something Hillary is well known for so not a clue what you're on about to be honest. Hillary is very non-specific.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No idea. It's 40 minutes long so I can't watch it right now.

"No idea" if she touted what I asked? You actually typed that with a straight face?

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

There are about 240 million Americans over the age of 18. There are about 270 million civilian firearms in America. We have always been a law abiding gun culture nation built around the rights provided us in the 2nd Amendment. Unless you are talking about a massive gun confiscation, that will not change. So, what are conservatives so spectacularly wrong about?

Opposition to gun control laws that would allow law abiding Americans access to firearms while preventing those who might use them to cause harm from accessing them.

Suryavarman

Peist2007 wrote: »

Going into specifics is not something Hillary is well known for so not a clue what you're on about to be honest. Hillary is very non-specific.

Hahahahahaha. You should check out the issues section of Hillary Clinton's website where she goes into great detail on many policy areas.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Opposition to gun control laws that would allow law abiding Americans access to firearms while preventing those who might use them to cause harm from accessing them.

We currently have over 20,000 gun control laws in effect (federal, state and local) in the US. Perhaps conservative just feel we already have enough.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

We currently have over 20,000 gun control laws in effect (federal, state and local) in the US. Perhaps conservative just feel we already have enough.

It's laughable really. Suggest to a conservative that gun control should be tightened - "we have enough gun control". Suggest to the same conservative that black people should be randomly subjected to invasive searches as a deterrent to carrying guns - he's all for it.

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

We currently have over 20,000 gun control laws in effect (federal, state and local) in the US. Perhaps conservative just feel we already have enough.

Given that tens of thousands of people in the US are killed every year by them, I'd disagree.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

We currently have over 20,000 gun control laws in effect (federal, state and local) in the US. Perhaps conservative just feel we already have enough.

20,000 laws? Wow, that's only 10,000 less than people who get killed by guns in the US every year!

Suryavarman

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's laughable really. Suggest to a conservative that gun control should be tightened - "we have enough gun control". Suggest to the same conservative that black people should be randomly subjected to invasive searches as a deterrent to carrying guns - he's all for it.

It's almost as if the real concern isn't public safety but something else entirely...

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's laughable really. Suggest to a conservative that gun control should be tightened - "we have enough gun control". Suggest to the same conservative that black people should be randomly subjected to invasive searches as a deterrent to carrying guns - he's all for it.

I think more accurately... conservatives think that white, black, brown, yellow, and red people (I hope I'm not leaving anyone out) should be randomly subjected to invasive searches if you fit a gang-type profile as a deterrent to carrying guns in cities or towns that experience a high level of gun violence... if so authorized by city/town authorities. And if you can legally carry a gun, there should be no problem.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

There are about 240 million Americans over the age of 18. There are about 270 million civilian firearms in America. We have always been a law abiding gun culture nation built around the rights provided us in the 2nd Amendment. Unless you are talking about a massive gun confiscation, that will not change. So, what are conservatives so spectacularly wrong about?

The NRA don't help things by trying to scare the bell out of people.

The New Yorker had a great podcast with the guy beind the Mike the gun guy blog, and he'd some very interesting things to say about them as a guy who loves guns, owns a gun shop and is an instructor.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Given that tens of thousands of people in the US are killed every year by them, I'd disagree.

Then if you lived here you would be most comfortable in Chicago, New York City, Los Angles, Washington DC, Miami or Philadelphia, as they have some of the toughest gun control laws in the US. But wait, something isn’t kosher... they also have some of the highest gun crime rates. I’m so confused.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I think more accurately... conservatives think that white, black, brown, yellow, and red people (I hope I'm not leaving anyone out) should be randomly subjected to invasive searches if you fit a gang-type profile as a deterrent to carrying guns in cities or towns that experience a high level of gun violence... if so authorized by city/town authorities. And if you can legally carry a gun, there should be no problem.

So if a city has a huge issue with gun crime then you support stricter gun laws to act as a deterrent to carrying guns in that city?

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Then if you lived here you would be most comfortable in Chicago, New York City, Los Angles, Washington DC, Miami or Philadelphia, as they have some of the toughest gun control laws in the US. But wait, something isn’t kosher... they also have some of the highest gun crime rates. I’m so confused.

All of those have lower violent crime rates and homicide rates than Atlanta which is located in a state with some the most lax gun laws in the nation. Do you have any evidence to suggest that those city's gun laws contribute to their crime rates?

New York is a poor example considering it has one of the lowest homicide rates among large and medium size cities in the nation.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

So if a city has a huge issue with gun crime then you support stricter gun laws to act as a deterrent to carrying guns in that city?

No, I think we already have enough gun laws. I would support a Stop and Frisk policy in those cities, though.

- - - - - -

I foresee a new breakaway thread in the near future... "Gun Control in the US - again - round 45" :)

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

All of those have lower violent crime rates and homicide rates than Atlanta which is located in a state with some the most lax gun laws in the nation. Do you have any evidence to suggest that those city's gun laws contribute to their crime rates?

New York is a poor example considering it has one of the lowest homicide rates among large and medium size cities in the nation.

Enough with the 'crime rates' please, and stick with violent gun crimes.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I think more accurately... conservatives think that white, black, brown, yellow, and red people (I hope I'm not leaving anyone out) should be randomly subjected to invasive searches if you fit a gang-type profile as a deterrent to carrying guns in cities or towns that experience a high level of gun violence... if so authorized by city/town authorities.

Sure. And it's purely by chance that Arab-looking people are "randomly" chosen for extra security screening in airports.

"Gang-type profile" indeed. Again, laughable - unless, of course, you're non-white someone who fits a gang-type profile. Then it's not so funny.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Enough with the 'crime rates' please, and stick with violent gun crimes.

Why? I thought we need lax gun laws because guns prevent crime? Are you saying that guns don't prevent crime now?

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

No, I think we already have enough gun laws. I would support a Stop and Frisk policy in those cities, though.

- - - - - -

I foresee a new breakaway thread in the near future... "Gun Control in the US - again - round 45" :)

So you have no problem with people being stopped and searched in the streets because they're black. But you do have a problem with laws that prevent criminals from owning guns?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure. And it's purely by chance that Arab-looking people are "randomly" chosen for extra security screening in airports.

"Gang-type profile" indeed. Again, laughable - unless, of course, you're non-white someone who fits a gang-type profile. Then it's not so funny.

When was the last time you were in a inner city of the US. People of all colors here belong to gangs. Most are not hard to identify by appearance, dress, and tattoo as being gang related. I was in Philadelphia the other week. I saw gangs of several ethnicities.

And I was "randomly" searched in Miami airport. Last time I wear a NY Jets shirt there. TSA agent asked me... Are you crazy?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

So you have no problem with people being stopped and searched in the streets because they're black. But you do have a problem with laws that prevent criminals from owning guns?

Already answered above.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Already answered above.

No it wasn't. I'll repeat myself:

So you have no problem with people being stopped and searched in the streets because they're black. But you do have a problem with laws that prevent criminals from owning guns?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

No it wasn't. I'll repeat myself:

So you have no problem with people being stopped and searched in the streets because they're black. But you do have a problem with laws that prevent criminals from owning guns?

Yes it was answered. We seem to have hit an impasse. I think it best to agree to disagree at this point.

Suryavarman

A recent poll found that in North Carolina, Trump supporters have a better opinion of David Duke than they have of Hillary Clinton:

By a 30/23 spread, Trump voters in North Carolina say they have a higher opinion of David Duke than they do of Hillary Clinton.

This result isn't surprising given the strong racist sentiment among Trump's base.

ancapailldorcha

Unsurprising. The American right seems to hate Clinton more than anyone else so this makes sense. Anyone else with the Democratic nomination would like sail through this election.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Yes it was answered. We seem to have hit an impasse. I think it best to agree to disagree at this point.

You clearly didn't address anything in my post. Everyone in this forum is used to you ignoring people when they point out that you're wrong so I guess it is best to agree to disagree.

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

A recent poll found that in North Carolina, Trump supporters have a better opinion of David Duke than they have of Hillary Clinton:



This result isn't surprising given the strong racist sentiment among Trump's base.

There is such a thing as hate against Islam. Their should also be a thing called hate against Trump since so many on here and in the media are very much haters of Trump.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

When was the last time you were in a inner city of the US. People of all colors here belong to gangs. Most are not hard to identify by appearance, dress, and tattoo as being gang related. I was in Philadelphia the other week. I saw gangs of several ethnicities.

Come on, be honest: do you think stop-and-frisk would be such a controversial issue if only gang members were being picked on?

Do you think there would be an all-but-nil prosecution rate from stop-and-frisk if only gang members were being picked on?

And I was "randomly" searched in Miami airport. Last time I wear a NY Jets shirt there. TSA agent asked me... Are you crazy?

I've been randomly searched a number of times too. About as many times, in fact, as you'd expect if I was truly being randomly selected - in other words, about as often as you'd expect a white guy to be randomly searched.

By contrast, I recall reading about a Muslim-American who was "randomly" selected for screening every time he traveled.

Every. Single. Time.

It's easy for a middle-class white guy to say that stop-and-frisk is only aimed at obvious gang members, just like it's easy for him to say that supplemental security screening is truly random.

The word "privilege" is scoffed at, but only ever by people of privilege.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

There is such a thing as hate against Islam. Their should also be a thing called hate against Trump since so many on here and in the media are very much haters of Trump.

Are you seriously comparing Islamophobia with negative comments about a privileged billionaire?

oscarBravo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing Islamophobia with negative comments about a privileged billionaire?

Especially considering that Islamophobia is irrational.

PopePalpatine

KingBrian2 wrote: »

There is such a thing as hate against Islam. Their should also be a thing called hate against Trump since so many on here and in the media are very much haters of Trump.

Something only gets classified as a "-phobia" if it's a fear that is excessive and unreasonable - neither of which applies to the fear of a Trump reign.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

There is such a thing as hate against Islam. Their should also be a thing called hate against Trump since so many on here and in the media are very much haters of Trump.

So the fact that Trump supporters have a more favourable view of a KKK Grand Wizard than Hillary Clinton is down to the media being "haters"?

K-9

This election really is fcuked up!

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

So the fact that Trump supporters have a more favourable view of a KKK Grand Wizard than Hillary Clinton is down to the media being "haters"?

Trump has a wide variety of supporters. Not all Trump supporters are fascists. That is plain racism. You discredit all about him when his views resonate with a lot of working class people, a number of celebrities and a great many that have been left behind by globalization.

Trumps views are in line with a number of Libertarian schools of thought in the US in which the gvt is more harm than friend. Even socialist movements are incredible outraged by the abuse of gvt. The issues is the link between the abuse of gvt and the volatility of stock markets.

Trump does not have all the answers. He does know how markets work and that the gvt's role in the economy has caused as much problems as other factors and the world needs a fiscal approach that the Democrats won't listen to.

ancapailldorcha

oscarBravo wrote: »

Especially considering that Islamophobia is irrational.

Trump has behaved quite irrationally as well. Not that it matters to his fanbase of course.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump has a wide variety of supporters. Not all Trump supporters are fascists. That is plain racism. You discredit all about him when his views resonate with a lot of working class people, a number of celebrities and a great many that have been left behind by globalization.

Trump supporters are a race now? Of course some people have been left behind by globalisation but this doesn't make Trump supporters a race.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump does not have all the answers. He does know how markets work and that the gvt's role in the economy has caused as much problems as other factors and the world needs a fiscal approach that the Democrats won't listen to.

So far he's run multiple businesses into bankruptcy, starred in a reality show, has a flagship policy which is unfeasible and his Universities are under federal investigation. I'm seeing no evidence of skill or acuity here.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump does not have all the answers. He does know how markets work and that the gvt's role in the economy has caused as much problems as other factors and the world needs a fiscal approach that the Democrats won't listen to.

It was the government that made those favourable US bankruptcy laws that have kept trump out of prison.

If he'd declared as many bankruptcies in Europe he'd be assigned a court minder who would oversee him paying back every penny.

As it is he just walks away from his debts and they're left to the US taxpayer.

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump has a wide variety of supporters. Not all Trump supporters are fascists. That is plain racism. You discredit all about him when his views resonate with a lot of working class people, a number of celebrities and a great many that have been left behind by globalization.

Trumps views are in line with a number of Libertarian schools of thought in the US in which the gvt is more harm than friend. Even socialist movements are incredible outraged by the abuse of gvt. The issues is the link between the abuse of gvt and the volatility of stock markets.

Trump does not have all the answers. He does know how markets work and that the gvt's role in the economy has caused as much problems as other factors and the world needs a fiscal approach that the Democrats won't listen to.

Trump's proposals have been costed at about $6 trillion, that is in no way, shape or form Libertarianism, not even close. If it was Johnson wouldn't be doing so well in polls.

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump has a wide variety of supporters. Not all Trump supporters are fascists. That is plain racism. You discredit all about him when his views resonate with a lot of working class people, a number of celebrities and a great many that have been left behind by globalization.

Trump's views resonate with them because they are stupid/racist.

Trumps views are in line with a number of Libertarian schools of thought in the US in which the gvt is more harm than friend. Even socialist movements are incredible outraged by the abuse of gvt. The issues is the link between the abuse of gvt and the volatility of stock markets.

Trump's views aren't in line with any libertarian school of thought. Unless you want to count the white supremacists over at LewRockwell.com as libertarians.

Trump does not have all the answers. He does know how markets work and that the gvt's role in the economy has caused as much problems as other factors and the world needs a fiscal approach that the Democrats won't listen to.

I agree that greater deficit spending could be beneficial. I believe the massive deficits Trump proposes could be very damaging though.

Rjd2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing Islamophobia with negative comments about a privileged billionaire?

Can you supply any recent links that prove Donald is a billionaire?:o

PopePalpatine

Suryavarman wrote: »

So the fact that Trump supporters have a more favourable view of a KKK Grand Wizard than Hillary Clinton is down to the media being "haters"?

Nah, it's more that Brian wants to drag this thread off on a tangent rather than stomach criticism of his perma-fake-tanned idol.

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Trump supporters are a race now? Of course some people have been left behind by globalisation but this doesn't make Trump supporters a race.



So far he's run multiple businesses into bankruptcy, starred in a reality show, has a flagship policy which is unfeasible and his Universities are under federal investigation. I'm seeing no evidence of skill or acuity here.

The implications made is that those who support the KKK are Trump voters. People will support Trump because the other parties don't represent them. People from all backgrounds back Trump on reducing the deficit and making America a safe place to live in and a place in which wealth is earned.

Sorry if you don't like to hear this but Americans don't want handouts. Trump appeals to those conservatives that believe in hard work and the idea that the gvt does not get involved in your personal lives. The gvt is a bad word in many parts of America for good reasons.

It was state repression against the civil rights activists. President Eisenhower was a great champion to these people so the characteristic of Trump as a racist are so out of place it does the GOP a disserve to state such untruths. It would be like calling Lincoln a racist because he was willing to work with slave-owners.

Overheal

Peist2007 wrote: »

I have looked. I cannot see any video anywhere of Hillary setting out her policy objectives. Telling people in Michigan that she was going to protect the rust belt would only count if she set out the plan for doing so. All i have heard are meaningless soundbites.

However, she is the real proper candidate so i am sure there is somewhere. Your two links - the first takes me to a google search and the second takes me to her website. Call my cynical but Hillary isnt a web designer and didn't design her website.

I want to see Clinton exhibiting the smarts on policy issues that are going to definitely win her the debates. Can you point me to a video of such?

Peist2007 wrote: »

No i don't care for transcripts or statements released by her website. I want to see some video of Hillary discussing her policy objectives (in relative depth). I know that is something Trump is definitely unable to do but Hillary is the "serious" candidate of the two so i figure there will be some footage of some questions on policy being answered fully?

Would you like that in spoken word, prose, musical duet? I really don't understand why it's necessary to hear her read aloud what is written.

I will ignore all of your responses to this post unless they are in the form of youtube vlogs of yourself in your bedroom with a wooly hat on. #HowYourLogicSounds

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump has a wide variety of supporters. Not all Trump supporters are fascists.

When you have to defend your camp by saying that, you've pretty much admitted defeat.

That is plain racism.

I don't think you know what racism is.

You discredit all about him when his views resonate with a lot of working class people, a number of celebrities and a great many that have been left behind by globalization.

That's the Bandwagon Fallacy:

"The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief."

Trumps views are in line with a number of Libertarian schools of thought in the US in which the gvt is more harm than friend. Even socialist movements are incredible outraged by the abuse of gvt. The issues is the link between the abuse of gvt and the volatility of stock markets.

Could you at all enumerate which 'schools of libertarian thought' Donald Trump's views fall under? Libertarianism believes in personal responsibility, free market forces, and extremely limited government. How does deporting 11 million estimated illegals, building a massive wall, expanding the role of border patrol and immigration services, expanding the role of the military, expressing a desire to expand laws against unfavorable journalism, abandoning economic treaties and engaging in economic protectionism, in line with any school of Libertarianism? I await with bated scholar's breath.

Trump does not have all the answers. He does know how markets work and that the gvt's role in the economy has caused as much problems as other factors and the world needs a fiscal approach that the Democrats won't listen to.

Which fiscal approach is that? Cut taxes and raise spending?

K-9

The government doesn't get involved in personal lives except abortion. Reducing the deficit by spending €6 trillion more.
That post doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

Terumpism is its own type of politics, it isn't Libertarianism or traditional Republicanism anyway, as much as people like to think it is.