Shilary Clinton

[Mr. Hyde]

 

This is the United States' democratic candidate.  A liar and a criminal.  Donald Trump isn't any better...but now the Trump can't be stumped.

 

[cr47t]

Why do you feel the need to make a seperate thread, instead of posting it in the Primaries and Elections thread in Debates?

 

Also, I would like to fix that;

 

 

This is the United States' presumptive democratic candidate.  A liar and a criminal.  Donald Trump isn't any better...but now the Trump can't be stumped.

(the actual convention is yet to happen)

[Mr. Hyde]

Why do you feel the need to make a seperate thread, instead of posting it in the Primaries and Elections thread in Debates?

 

 

For the fact that I could name a thread a funny pun.  Or maybe cause funk you I won't do what you tell me

[Brinolovania]

For the fact that I could name a thread a funny pun.  Or maybe cause f*** you I won't do what you tell me

Nice edge, mate.

 

But seriously, this hasn't clinched the nomination for Trump by any means. Hell, I doubt it will even make a difference. Everyone voting for Hillary already knew about the scandal, and supported her anyway. This isn't gonna change that. I also don't think Hillary is as much of an evil lying demon as people make her out to be, either, although I admit she's (very) far from perfect.

[cr47t]

Also, to be nitpicky, the video isn't even 13 minutes long; it's 12:56

[Mr. Hyde]

Nice edge, mate.

 

 

Death posts among you

 

 

Also, to be nitpicky, the video isn't even 13 minutes long; it's 12:56

 

grats I guess.  Doesn't change the validity of said video.  

[mido9]

Also, to be nitpicky, the video isn't even 13 minutes long; it's 12:56

Woah, why don't you run for president now?

[cr47t]

Woah, why don't you run for president now?

A lot of reasons why I don't now. :P

 

Anyway, it's about time we looked into Gary Johnson and the 3rd-party candidates, if you're that mad about Hillary's position as well as Trump's.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump was always the better candidate lol. But after the way he failed to utilize Brexit and Orlando, GL spinning this

Why do you feel the need to make a seperate thread, instead of posting it in the Primaries and Elections thread in Debates?

 

Also, I would like to fix that;

 

 

(the actual convention is yet to happen)

Yeah this was Bernie's last hope. You might as well just call her the Nominee now

[Brinolovania]

Trump was always the better candidate lol. But after the way he failed to utilize Brexit and Orlando, GL spinning this

Yeah this was Bernie's last hope. You might as well just call her the Nominee now

"Trump is the better candidate" is highly subjective, and I'd argue, untrue even now. Although like I said, a lot of that is opinion.

 

And yeah, Bernie has no chance at this point. Unfortunate, but true.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

"Trump is the better candidate" is highly subjective, and I'd argue, untrue even now. Although like I said, a lot of that is opinion.

 

And yeah, Bernie has no chance at this point. Unfortunate, but true.

Trump was always the one who could lose this race while Hillary had to fight to win. There was a lot going for trump that he has let go.

 

Corrected*

[cr47t]

I just cannot get over that the people on YCM are seemingly still regarding elections as a game of winning and losing, and literally nothing else. Could you please try and at least make an effort to try and look past the numbers?

[Brinolovania]

I just cannot get over that the people on YCM are seemingly still regarding elections as a game of winning and losing, and literally nothing else. Could you please try and at least make an effort to try and look past the numbers?

I'm curious what you mean here.

 

'Cause the point of an election is to decide who becomes president (ergo, the winner). Are you getting at the fact that we should be working on long-term reform rather than short-term victors? I don't disagree with that, but sometimes there is a clear best candidate, or one you REALLY don't want in office. For me, I think Trump not being president is more important right now than reform, so that's why I think it's a big deal that Hillary beat him.

 

That's just my guess, though. If you were saying something else, tell me.

[Dad]

I'm curious what you mean here.

 

'Cause the point of an election is to decide who becomes president (ergo, the winner). Are you getting at the fact that we should be working on long-term reform rather than short-term victors? I don't disagree with that, but sometimes there is a clear best candidate, or one you REALLY don't want in office. For me, I think Trump not being president is more important right now than reform, so that's why I think it's a big deal that Hillary beat him.

 

That's just my guess, though. If you were saying something else, tell me.

 

I think ya'll know by now that I'm not a Trump fan.  But I'm gonna disagree with you here.  It is more important to me that this country see positive reshaping and reform than it matters to me who becomes president.  Now if you had said "I don't think Trump is the man who can bring about the reform that would work for the country" I might agree with you.

 

 

I just cannot get over that the people on YCM are seemingly still regarding elections as a game of winning and losing, and literally nothing else. Could you please try and at least make an effort to try and look past the numbers?

 

Again Imma agree to disagree.  Cuz the polling is about the numbers bruh.  Granted, not every major ideal will be presented solely on who votes for who, but you can tell a lot by looking at the number of people on each spectrum who are voting, and why they might be choosing their candidate.  The numbers have a meaning.  It just happens to be shallow as funk.

 

 

Trump was always the one who could lose this race while Hillary had to fight to win. There was a lot going for trump that he has let go.

 

Corrected*

 

funk I have to agree with this.  Trump had 0 competition this whole race from the GOP.  Cruz might be a psychopathic raving murderous Zodiac slaying jabroni, but Trump never had a reason to be scared.  Hilary however, had to step into the funking ring and duke it out with a real OG.  But she threw dirty punches when the refs wasn't looking and took home boy down.  

 

 

And yeah, Bernie has no chance at this point. Unfortunate, but true.

 

This is the real horror.  But I'm glad to see Bernie get so far and accomplish so much, even though he didn't make it all the way.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I just cannot get over that the people on YCM are seemingly still regarding elections as a game of winning and losing, and literally nothing else. Could you please try and at least make an effort to try and look past the numbers?

It's not a game, I'm just a firm believer in the some of the ideas that Trump has espoused 

[Brinolovania]

I think ya'll know by now that I'm not a Trump fan.  But I'm gonna disagree with you here.  It is more important to me that this country see positive reshaping and reform than it matters to me who becomes president.  Now if you had said "I don't think Trump is the man who can bring about the reform that would work for the country" I might agree with you.

I'm not disagreeing that reform is more important than any individual president. The thing is tho, I think Trump would be so horrendously bad at being president that, in this specific instance, reform is less important than denying him the spot. It's not impossible that he'd reform the campaign process somewhat, but I don't think that's worth the trade-off of having four years of Trump as president.

 

...And I'm not sure I believe Trump would bring the right kind of reform, either. So there's that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not disagreeing that reform is more important than any individual president. The thing is tho, I think Trump would be so horrendously bad at being president that, in this specific instance, reform is less important than denying him the spot. It's not impossible that he'd reform the campaign process somewhat, but I don't think that's worth the trade-off of having four years of Trump as president.

 

...And I'm not sure I believe Trump would bring the right kind of reform, either. So there's that.

Trump's top 2 Veep choices are brilliant though

 

But that second line is fair. I think cutting off multi-national trade deals, while establishing a strong USA manufacturing sector is the main goal, but apparently not so for you.

 

Can you please explain, why Trump would be a poor president, beyond the go to "He's a bigot"

[Brinolovania]

Trump's top 2 Veep choices are brilliant though

 

But that second line is fair. I think cutting off multi-national trade deals, while establishing a strong USA manufacturing sector is the main goal, but apparently not so for you.

 

Can you please explain, why Trump would be a poor president, beyond the go to "He's a bigot"

First off, I have issues with some of his policies. You've probably figured out by now, I'm a liberal so I am biased against any Republican candidate. That alone wouldn't warrant me being so extremely against putting him in charge. Trump is... different than most candidates though, in that all (or at least most) of his policies are either incredibly extreme, or incredibly vague. Completely stopping Muslim immigration and building a wall on the Mexican border (and making them pay for it...somehow) are both very overzealous, IMO. Then there's his economic plans, which are vaguely defined at best and virtually nonexistent at worst. Those are the worst offenders, I think, but you get the idea.

 

Trump also has no political experience, which is an issue. I wouldn't think this so much of a problem, if it weren't for the fact that he seems to vastly overestimate his ability to get people to do what he wants. From what I can tell, he believes he can get Mexico to pay for a wall that doesn't help them, get China to treat us better in trade relations, and do whatever else it is he wants to do by just walking in and negotiatin' away. I know it's been said before, but international (and intra-national, for that matter) relations isn't a business. Trump thinks his business experience will give him the ability to get whatever he wants, and I sincerely doubt he's right about that. And given my final point (below), I don't think he'll be able to get things done when he needs to discuss and compromise.

 

Lastly, Trump's an ass. I'm not even talking about him being a bigot or not PC or w/e (although I do think he goes too far there). The problem is, the president of the United States is the face of the country. They're the leader, of course, but they also represent the government to the people, and they represent the people to the rest of the world. Trump is a guy who's rhetoric includes calling opponents stupid, insulting peoples' appearances, and giving his enemies nicknames to make fun of them. He carries himself in an almost juvenile manner, throwing around insults to propel himself forward and mask his aforementioned ill-defined policies. He's not the kind of person who I want carrying out diplomatic relations with other countries, or even just being the face of America. I feel like, at "best" he makes America a laughingstock and loses the trust of the people, and at worst he gets us into a war by messing too much with the wrong world leader.

 

Of course, it's possible that I'm wrong and he'd be fine, but I reeeeeeally don't think so. If it was virtually any other Republican candidate like Romney, McCain, even Bush... basically anyone except Trump (or Cruz), I wouldn't be this set on keeping them from office.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First off, I have issues with some of his policies. You've probably figured out by now, I'm a liberal so I am biased against any Republican candidate. That alone wouldn't warrant me being so extremely against putting him in charge. Trump is... different than most candidates though, in that all (or at least most) of his policies are either incredibly extreme, or incredibly vague. Completely stopping Muslim immigration and building a wall on the Mexican border (and making them pay for it...somehow) are both very overzealous, IMO. Then there's his economic plans, which are vaguely defined at best and virtually nonexistent at worst. Those are the worst offenders, I think, but you get the idea.

 

Trump also has no political experience, which is an issue. I wouldn't think this so much of a problem, if it weren't for the fact that he seems to vastly overestimate his ability to get people to do what he wants. From what I can tell, he believes he can get Mexico to pay for a wall that doesn't help them, get China to treat us better in trade relations, and do whatever else it is he wants to do by just walking in and negotiatin' away. I know it's been said before, but international (and intra-national, for that matter) relations isn't a business. Trump thinks his business experience will give him the ability to get whatever he wants, and I sincerely doubt he's right about that. And given my final point (below), I don't think he'll be able to get things done when he needs to discuss and compromise.

 

Lastly, Trump's an ass. I'm not even talking about him being a bigot or not PC or w/e (although I do think he goes too far there). The problem is, the president of the United States is the face of the country. They're the leader, of course, but they also represent the government to the people, and they represent the people to the rest of the world. Trump is a guy who's rhetoric includes calling opponents stupid, insulting peoples' appearances, and giving his enemies nicknames to make fun of them. He carries himself in an almost juvenile manner, throwing around insults to propel himself forward and mask his aforementioned ill-defined policies. He's not the kind of person who I want carrying out diplomatic relations with other countries, or even just being the face of America. I feel like, at "best" he makes America a laughingstock and loses the trust of the people, and at worst he gets us into a war by messing too much with the wrong world leader.

 

Of course, it's possible that I'm wrong and he'd be fine, but I reeeeeeally don't think so. If it was virtually any other Republican candidate like Romney, McCain, even Bush... basically anyone except Trump (or Cruz), I wouldn't be this set on keeping them from office.

A couple of things. I'm not gonna entirely disagree with you on some of his policies being vague. But he's got enough smart people working behind him that I don't think it's entirely explainable under ignorance. Going with a very firm set of demands...really don't work well with our country...as the last eight years have shown. Mentioning an ideal end goal, and working toward compromising towards it seems more realistic. But I do agree that I would like a little more firmness, which is what the platform is for right?

 

Two things there. He's been moderating on both of those actually. It's gone from complete Muslim lockdown->Immigration from Terrorist affiliated nations

 

Likewise it's migrated from deport all 11 million to deport the criminals and build a wall to end the problem so we don't need to keep giving amnesty every 4 years. 

 

As for the wall, he has explained that too. We have a 50 billion dollar trade deficit w/ mexico. Which means we buy 50 billion dollars of their product more than they do ours. A trade war would really hurt them, and even a small fraction of redirection (maybe in the form of a tarrif) can help pay for our wall

 

The other thing is transfer payments. A lot of cashflow goes from the US to Mexico a year. Withholding those would starve Mexico.

 

Now you might say we have no right to strong arm another country, but for that I would retort a country that has been caught giving it's citizens maps detailing how to get into the US illegally isn't our freind to start with

 

The thing with China is a long term goal. Trump wants the US to be a net exporter. We can do that for food and oil for sure. But first we need to devalue our currency and also put up tariffs to kickstart our manufacturing industry (something that a massive construction project like the wall would help with)

 

Trump has people like Corker behind him, he might not have policy background, but his ideas are revolutionary, and he has enough people behind him to stop him from doing something too stupid.

 

Finally, we've had a nice president from the last 16 years. I honestly think we need a strong man who isn't willing to be kicked around. A lot of presidents are asses, but lo and behold, they tend to be the ones that are winning now. Putin. Modi. Nigel. Trump.

 

I'm not asking for you to change your view on trump, just asking you to look past the headlines 

[Brinolovania]

A couple of things. I'm not gonna entirely disagree with you on some of his policies being vague. But he's got enough smart people working behind him that I don't think it's entirely explainable under ignorance. Going with a very firm set of demands...really don't work well with our country...as the last eight years have shown. Mentioning an ideal end goal, and working toward compromising towards it seems more realistic. But I do agree that I would like a little more firmness, which is what the platform is for right?

 

Two things there. He's been moderating on both of those actually. It's gone from complete Muslim lockdown->Immigration from Terrorist affiliated nations

 

Likewise it's migrated from deport all 11 million to deport the criminals and build a wall to end the problem so we don't need to keep giving amnesty every 4 years. 

 

As for the wall, he has explained that too. We have a 50 billion dollar trade deficit w/ mexico. Which means we buy 50 billion dollars of their product more than they do ours. A trade war would really hurt them, and even a small fraction of redirection (maybe in the form of a tarrif) can help pay for our wall

 

The other thing is transfer payments. A lot of cashflow goes from the US to Mexico a year. Withholding those would starve Mexico.

 

Now you might say we have no right to strong arm another country, but for that I would retort a country that has been caught giving it's citizens maps detailing how to get into the US illegally isn't our freind to start with

 

The thing with China is a long term goal. Trump wants the US to be a net exporter. We can do that for food and oil for sure. But first we need to devalue our currency and also put up tariffs to kickstart our manufacturing industry (something that a massive construction project like the wall would help with)

 

Trump has people like Corker behind him, he might not have policy background, but his ideas are revolutionary, and he has enough people behind him to stop him from doing something too stupid.

 

Finally, we've had a nice president from the last 16 years. I honestly think we need a strong man who isn't willing to be kicked around. A lot of presidents are asses, but lo and behold, they tend to be the ones that are winning now. Putin. Modi. Nigel. Trump.

 

I'm not asking for you to change your view on trump, just asking you to look past the headlines 

Even if he's moderated, I'd still say it's an issue. Blocking immigration from those terrorist-afflicted countries  is extreme, when you take into account that the countries with the terrorists in them are the ones people will want to get out of the most. Keeping them all out fucks over a whole lot of refugees, and I still think it's going too far. Planning to only deport the criminals is a definite improvement, but our country doesn't need, and shouldn't have, an immigration system as imposing/restrictive as the Great Wall of 'Murica. Plus, there's the fact that this wall would be ludicrously expensive to build and maintain, and the groups who really want to enter the country would still figure out a way around/under/through it. As a side note, seems like Trump backed down here to appease voters, which is exactly what he complains about Hillary doing. That said, she probably does it more than he does. RIP Bernie's campaign.

 

As for China, I won't comment on too much here because economics isn't my strong suit. However, I will say that I know enough to say that I'm iffy about the idea of putting tariffs on China, especially given just how much we import from them. 

 

Needing to have people to "keep him from doing something too stupid" is a problem as is. I know that all presidents have loads of advisors, and there are plenty who would have done dumb things about them. Thing is, I doubt Trump's ability to get almost anything done on his own. It may be an exaggeration to say he'd be a useless president and the country would be run by his advisors, but I'm not so sure.

 

There's a difference between being a strong man and being what Trump is. You can be stubborn and forceful without resorting to calling people stupid or ugly or goofy of whatever else Tump has done.

 

As a side note, it seems like you bring up the "look past the headlines" point a lot in debates about Trump. Feels like you assume anyone who disagrees with him only does so because they don't know enough about him. Maybe I'm misremembering and you don't do it as much as I think, but I can assure you there are plenty of people who dislike Trump for reasons besides the media saying bad things about him.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

As a side note, it seems like you bring up the "look past the headlines" point a lot in debates about Trump. Feels like you assume anyone who disagrees with him only does so because they don't know enough about him. Maybe I'm misremembering and you don't do it as much as I think, but I can assure you there are plenty of people who dislike Trump for reasons besides the media saying bad things about him.

Well at that point it's just a point of views and priorities 

 

As for this bit, not really. I think I've been more critical of Trump than anyone here when he does stupid sheet (like the Judge)

 

I'm saying read past the headlines on Muslims and Immigration cause people like to paint him poorly on those two issues (often by ignoring and exaggerating) 

 

If you've understood all I've said, and still think he's toxic. That's just your informed opinion and I respect that.

[Brinolovania]

I'm saying read past the headlines on Muslims and Immigration cause people like to paint him poorly on those two issues (often by ignoring and exaggerating) 

Ah, gotcha. I admit, I wasn't aware of what exactly his policies on that were nowadays. Still, like I said, this doesn't change the fact I think he's going too far.

My bad on the immigration thing though.

 

Aaaaanyway, this topic's gotten kinda derailed given that it's supposed to be about Hillary not getting indicted. I'm kinda curious, how many people here think she should have been charged, vs think this was the right decision? That hasn't actually been discussed yet.

[Dad]

She got past a technicality.  Because she didn't break the right laws.   I think the reasoning was that it wasn't a criminal law she broke?  I forget the whole story behind it, but basically because she didn't have her hand completely in the cookie jar, there's no tangible evidence that she did anything wrong.

[Aerion Brightflame]

They  couldn't prove criminal intent, so they stated that 'No reasonable' proecector would bring a charge forth because there was no certainy a jury would convict them if they can't prove criminal intent. 

 

They did say that what she had done would mean she'd suffer administrative punishment, but she's no longer an employee of the state so that can't happen. So she got off Scott free. 

 

Because they have proof of what she did,they just can't prove she did it with criminal intent or gross negligence. Which I still think is stupid, because she should at least be sued for breaking the secrecy training contract everyone in the state department has to sign that I can't remember the name of. 

[epicmemesbro]

 

Quote from the FBI director's statement. Sounds like a "Oh yea guilty as charged if it were a different person".