Tourmaline Posted October 7, 2016 Report Share Posted October 7, 2016 Even if he was awful and sexist he won't be able to transcend the checking and balancing that keeps the president in check while Hillary will be able to corrupt her way through infinity crimes while getting her supposed checks to let her decisions go through instead of vito her. Everyone hates Trump so much that if he wins then he'll be kept tight under control at worst but if Hillary wins she's basically a tyrant. She's like Putin with no balls who will intentionally backstab her own nation. Even if Trump praised Putin it's better than praising Hillary. Of course, Hillary is better at rigging things without getting caught. Even Putin is more transparent than Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 7, 2016 Report Share Posted October 7, 2016 Who the funk hasn't talked about wanting to funk someone out of curiosity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 7, 2016 Report Share Posted October 7, 2016 Who on earth in Americain politics would Trump be accountable to? Hillary would be accountable to her donors if no one else, and there's enough inter party dirt that she can't entirely go wild (Look at her hiring DWS after the fallout, you only do that sort of thing if that person could f***ing ruin you). The republicans would unify against her just as much as they would against Obama, but they'd probably have an easier time blocking s*** because Hillary lacks Obama's charisma and calm manner. Whereas Trump is accountable to nobody. He's not a traditional elected official so he doesn't have to give a f*** about the people (Hillary won't either), he has no conventional donors to be beholded to. In fact, he more than likely owns a good number of other elected officials, and has a Republican house backing him(One that has essentially voted along party lines constantly) . He is far closer to being able to a tyrant than Hillary is. In fact the only person Trump might be beholden too through fringe connections is Putin, which is terrifying. I can't think of a Democrat who is more despised by Republicans than Hillary Clinton. Even Obama could pull more respect than Hillary from Republicans. There's no way they act all friendly towards her in power - It's just going to be another wash out of policy till the next set of elections where Dem's probably sweep it. Then Hillary is closer to being a 'tyrant', but one of far less a reactionary mind than Trump. EDIT: Hell, there's probably more people in the Democrats who hate Hillary than Republicans who would like her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 7, 2016 Report Share Posted October 7, 2016 Clinton: When I got to State it was still against the rules to have access to a Blackberry. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmEaOEbXEbYEcg @Brightfire The people https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuNArTdXgAIMlkq.jpg She admits she knew she was being hacked https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuM6HQWW8AEGVJO.jpg Bernie supporters are losers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Neither Trump nor Hillary would be anymore accountable to the people in office than the other. Generally I would say that a politician who doesn't care about re-election (Which I imagine Trump to be. He'll either outright win a second term with his policies, or he'll bugger off to make millions off of the interviews and book deals) doesn't have to give a funk about the people nowadays, but even then it wouldn't actually matter. But if you argument is that actually as president Trump would have to care about the people for some reason(?), the same will be true for Hillary. She'd also be an elected official who isn't exactly popular, so she'd need to keep the people 'happy' as much as Trump does. The cynic in me just imagines neither of them are actually accountable because too few people are truly involved in politics at the level of care democracy needs to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuLUOiZW8AAGoam.jpg Pentagon asked to send aid to Bhengazi https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuNKa53WIAE9rnB.jpg:large NYT and even WSJ taking marching orders Yeh, but Trump is a populist, she's not https://www.rt.com/news/361382-russia-servers-dnc-hack/ Calling the bluff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Even if he was awful and sexist he won't be able to transcend the checking and balancing that keeps the president in check while Hillary will be able to corrupt her way through infinity crimes while getting her supposed checks to let her decisions go through instead of vito her.Yes, he will, actually. He's loved by a large portion of his voting base and if congress doesn't suck up to him, they won't get re-elected. They know this. He'll be able to get away with anything he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuMr96kXYAAbWm5.jpg Million for Keystone? Supports environment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Jesse Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016  Clinton: When I got to State it was still against the rules to have access to a Blackberry. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmEaOEbXEbYEcg @Brightfire The people https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuNArTdXgAIMlkq.jpg She admits she knew she was being hacked https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuM6HQWW8AEGVJO.jpg Bernie supporters are losersIrrelevant. Literally common sense that said things happen, and she admitted that she f***ed up already. air quotesnouninformalplural noun: air quotes a pair of quotation marks gestured by a speaker's fingers in the air, to indicate that what is being said is ironic or mocking, or is not a turn of phrase the speaker would typically employ. Willfully misinterpreting tone and meaning. Good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuNbnJjXYAEBq8s.jpg ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourmaline Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Considering how even his own side was against him okay. In terms of what the other guy said: she can corrupt her way through anything. It's shocking how much social decadence through a bit of given leeway can reveal how morally incoherent most people are to the point a criminal is even in the running for president and people are okay with it (then again recently we've seen Americans and others love to propagate that sympathy is more important than crime prevention and corruption like right here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Looking at my absentee ballot atm, Trump ain't looking so good atm. I'll never vote for HRC, but he def doesn't have my vote atm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 If Hillary could corrupt her way through anything, she would have won in 2008. There are finite limits to her power because she's an unlikable politician. Especially when she's in the highest office, and thus has all the scrutiny of the media and the republican party on her. She'll probably get threatened with impeachment multiple times in office. Essentially unless the democrats get a big enough swing, she'll be as obstructed (If not more so) than Obama was. I also wouldn't get into an argument about morality in this election: There is no clear morally superior candidate. One is a criminal, one has a frankly absurd amount of morally decadent actions and comments within this cycle alone. They are both candidates who could only win against each other frankly. Besides, it's a two party system with up to 4 Supreme Court seats realistically up for grabs in the next 8 years. There will be a lot of people who have no better option for the future than to vote along party lines because of that. Because these elections could decide the direction of American politics for a long ass time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 If Hillary could corrupt her way through anything, she would have won in 2008. There are finite limits to her power because she's an unlikable politician. Especially when she's in the highest office, and thus has all the scrutiny of the media and the republican party on her. She'll probably get threatened with impeachment multiple times in office. Essentially unless the democrats get a big enough swing, she'll be as obstructed (If not more so) than Obama was. I also wouldn't get into an argument about morality in this election: There is no clear morally superior candidate. One is a criminal, one has a frankly absurd amount of morally decadent actions and comments within this cycle alone. They are both candidates who could only win against each other frankly. Besides, it's a two party system with up to 4 Supreme Court seats realistically up for grabs in the next 8 years. There will be a lot of people who have no better option for the future than to vote along party lines because of that. Because these elections could decide the direction of American politics for a long ass time. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuMWw3JW8AATJIU.jpg This is next level unacceptable tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 I'm unsure on the specifics of this stuff so bare with me: By November 2011 the Mulsim Brotherhood was a legal organisation with a political party attached to it and had been since April. Mohammed ElBaradei, the individual mentioned in that email as being in an alliance with the Brotherhood had been a fairly notable figure in International Diplomacy having been leader of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) for 3 terms ending in 2009, and he won a Noble Peace Prize in 2005. So he is you know a fairly respectable man. In the wake of Mubarak being deposed in 2011, he was unofficially made the person in charge of setting up an interim government due to his history with the west. The Muslim Brotherhood were the single most organised, largest and influencial political party in Egypt at the time. The email comes about a week before Egypt started parliamentary elections (Which the Brotherhood would sweep and win well over half of all seats). I.E. a time when you kinda want to talk with them and come to some arrangements. Now if you don't think that the Secretary of State would be in off the book discussions with the likely party that was going to lead egypt at the time I think you misunderstand the office. I imagine every other major government was having discussions with the Brotherhood at the time, because at the time they were a legitimate private political entity, not a terrorist organisation. So I have no idea what you are trying to show with that email other than that Hillary was doing her job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 The following are illustrative examples of how that affinity translated into action during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State – a period in which she and President Obama sought serially to embrace, legitimate and empower the Muslim Brotherhood: In 2010, Clinton personally overturned standing policy to approve the admission into the United States of one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top operatives, Tariq Ramadan. Hillary Clinton also personally approved the policy of formally engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood. Clinton played a leading role in developing and executing Obama administration initiatives aimed at bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria. Hillary Clinton was personally involved in advancing the Muslim Brotherhood/Organization of Islamic Cooperation agenda aimed at prohibiting “defamation of Islam/religion.” On her watch, the United States supported the approval of a UN Human Rights Council Resolution for that purpose: UNHC Res. 16/18. Clinton also subsequently launched and presided over the “Istanbul Process” to advance the implementation of Res. 16/18’s call for the criminalization of such defamation. In July 2011, she pledged that, in the United States, we would use “some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor” – an unmistakable threat to freedom of expression. That objective of restricting speech that “offends” Muslims was also explicitly served by the fraudulent meme that Clinton, among other administration officials, promoted concerning Benghazi: a “hateful” online video caused the riot that resulted in the murderous attack on U.S. facilities there on September 11, 2012. Publicly disclosed emails have revealed that Huma Abedin, and Rashad Hussein, the special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, were tasked with impressing upon the OIC that they were countering the dissemination of offensive materials. Hillary Clinton’s State Department was involved in shutting down an investigation into the personnel and activities of Tablighi Jamaat – the Deobandi “missionary” group out of Pakistan, two of whose followers were responsible for the jihadist attack in San Bernardino in December 2015. The chief investigator, Philip Haney, believes that, had that inquiry not been terminated and all of its data purged, those murders may well have been prevented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Who the funk hasn't talked about wanting to funk someone out of curiosity?He's talking about raping women and making it clear that he believes he can get away with it. How do you not understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 He's talking about raping women and making it clear that he believes he can get away with it. How do you not understand that? Listen to the statement again, he says "they let me" That's consent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted October 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Soooo Trump made some lewd comments a while back. Not going to quote it or post the link because i'm not sure if it would be allowed on YCM. How do you still take this man seriously, Winter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 You should absolutely take Trump seriously. The man may end up being the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Listen to the statement again, he says "they let me" That's consentNope. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?postshare=3561475870579757&tid=ss_tw “I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f--- her. She was married. And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’” Here he's making it very clear that he was trying to rape a woman, even though he was aware that she was married. I highly doubt that she would have consented. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.” Wait for what? Does he just not wait for the consent? Sounds like he forces himself on women. ““And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” That isn't consent. That's Trump assuming he can just rape women, and hiding behind being a celebrity as if that justifies it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Let's get into this 1) He was hitting on a woman, he accepted he failed, he admitted he would sleep with a married woman 2) Then he says they let you do anything if you're a celebrity I see nothing rapey there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 It doesn't matter that he failed. He still tried to rape her anyway. Admitting that he would want to sleep with a married woman shows that he does not care if the woman would be more inclined to sleep with another men, he's still going to try and sleep with her. He casually joked about groping women. There's no one else to back up his claim that they let you do "anything" when you're a celebrity. Why should we take his word for it? Here's a test for you: Talk with five different women, and ask them if they're comfortable with Trump's statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted October 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 You should absolutely take Trump seriously.The man may end up being the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. What I meant by taking him seriously was seriosly supporting or backing him. Let's get into this1) He was hitting on a woman, he accepted he failed, he admitted he would sleep with a married woman2) Then he says they let you do anything if you're a celebrity I see nothing rapey there 1. This is the problem - he doesn't wait for the consent or anything, he admits to doing it without another's permission. That's what rape is. Just because he failed doesn't make it not rape. 2. That doesn't make him above the law and him saying that seems to suggest he thinks he is. Nobody is above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted October 8, 2016 Report Share Posted October 8, 2016 Lol what, so it's rape if I hit on a girl and take her shopping after knowing she has a bf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.