Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-10-18 20:06:04

Zumza wrote:

Basically you don't have anyone to vote for...
I don't know about other parties than Republicans and Democrats. Right now I'm wondering why aren't you letting other parties on those political debates.
And why are you saying no other party has the possibility to win? As I know, USA is a democratic country so if you want to change something don't expect others to do it to you.
And secondly, in my country(which also gots political problems tho) we got 2 presidential elections: In the preliminary election everyone votes whoever they want, and in the secondary election we vote only between the 2 choices that were on the top.

Essentially we have the two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, you know that already. They have their own separate preliminary elections called primaries where different candidates vie to be the party's nominee. This year, for example, the Democrats decided between Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb (there were other candidates, but these five were the only ones to appear in a debate). Chafee, O'Malley, Sanders, and Webb dropped out of the race, leaving Clinton as the nominee. The Republicans had a much larger field, a larger one than any in our country's history if I remember correctly, eventually getting down to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, and Trump ended up hitting the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.

The reason third parties aren't given a chance to win is because, for one, for pretty much as long as this country has existed, it's been a two-party system. It's theoretically possible for a Green or Libertarian or Constitution candidate to gather enough support to win, but the likelihood is extremely low. A candidate needs to have a certain amount of support, I believe 15%, in national polls to be able to participate in the debates. Assuming a truly representative sample, that means a candidate needs over 19,000,000 people willing to voice their support for them just to even get to the debate stage. Without the funding of a major party and the level of assistance from the FEC that the major parties get, it's nearly impossible for a candidate to reach enough people with their message to gain enough support to stand a chance.

As to why change doesn't come, it's true that we have a form of democracy, a representative democracy. We don't elect with our votes, we vote for electors, usually pledged to one candidate or another, and the electors actually vote for the candidates and decide the next president. Votes aren't equal, either: take a look at this to see our states resized to match their electoral votes. Votes in states like California and Florida are worth more than votes in Oklahoma or Rhode Island. That's one reason why candidates can get less votes but still win the election, like George W. Bush winning in 2000 while Al Gore had half a million more votes. It's about where you get your votes, which is why some less "valuable" states are glossed over in favor of "swing states," because wherever they go, the election is likely to go.

All this goes to show that some people feel their vote isn't worth casting, which is likely part of why our turnout was under 55% last election where other places like the UK and Germany can get close to or surpass 70% without compulsory voting. Those disillusioned voters may be Democrats or Republicans, or maybe they would have voted for a third party, but their voice isn't heard in the election either way. Add in that third parties regularly get at best 1% in the polls, and those people taking change into their own hands may either fall in line with a major party and have their vote "matter," or simply give up on voting.

Another reason that third parties don't stand much of a chance is that when the two major parties are shown as close in polls, which is often, third party voters whose views align more with one than the other may forego voting for their preferred party in order to keep a much less preferable party out of power. A Green Party voter this year might be going for Clinton over Stein because they dislike Trump that much, or a Libertarian Party voter may take Trump over Johnson for not liking Clinton, you get the idea.

Essentially, third parties can't get exposure and don't have money, they may have disillusioned supporters which affects them much more than the major parties, and they lose votes to those trying to prevent a major party candidate from holding office.

Unless a third party with an accessible message and a hell of a lot of money backing it can rise up, they're not going to be winning the presidency any time soon.

▼Bonus

mrjawapa, Zumza, N1KF, Glenn21, Norwee

Zumza · 2016-10-18 20:18:31

Thanks @32OrtonEdge32dh this might be the most informative answer I ever read on this topic.
Also if I recall correctly from your Bonus, basically if people don't go to vote it almost an automatic vote for Trump since the US government is made up with Republicans.

Glenn21 · 2016-10-19 01:01:28

Tomahawk wrote:

For the third time: you can't physically blanket ban an entire religion, nor justify the attempt.

Of course you can do this temporarily and justify it. ISIS admits they exploit the refugee crisis and recent terrorist attacks prove this is true, because it had terrorists posing as refugees involved in them. This means there's a high risk they will try to exploit the refugee crisis to get terrorists into the USA too. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Tomahawk wrote:

You're a xenophobe, Glenn, and watching you generalise the entirety of Islam into potential terrorists makes me sick. This may be a debate, but your views are not healthy or welcome.
No wonder you're defending Trump.

There is nothing unhealthy about wanting to prevent potential dangers that have a high risk of happening. What is unhealthy is ignoring these dangers with bad arguments like "it's xenophobic to [temporarily] ban Muslims" and "Islamic terrorists aren't true Muslims".
Like ZeldaXD and MrJawapa pointed out: phobias are irrational fears. There is nothing irrational about fearing terrorists will pretend to be refugees to get into the USA when you know they already do this to get into Europe. Whether these terrorists are true Muslims or not is irrelevant, because this wont lower the chance of them trying to exploit the refugee crisis to get into the USA.

You are not the one to decide which views are welcome and which aren't, this isn't a politically correct echo chamber. If you can't handle someone else's view then I suggest you should leave this debate.

Anyway, I will ask you again: why do you want western countries to take the high risk of letting terrorists in so badly when we could build safe zones instead?
When we build safe zones the refugees will still get help and the West doesn't have to be afraid that terrorists and economic migrants will exploit the refugee crisis. It's the perfect win-win scenario.

blizzard, mrjawapa

gkaby · 2016-10-19 04:21:51

is there evidence of safe zones working in the past i guess i mean can you give examples to show that they work?
like refugees have access to enough aid and were able to choose to go there instead of being forced to go there
and no deaths? etc

i guess its poss that ppl die but i mean because of the safe zone or the move to the safe zone or whatever/deaths/harm attributed to the safe zone

i dont rly know anything about the safe zones ppl are proposing but in my understanding similarish things ive heard of end really badly

Norwee · 2016-10-19 08:42:21

Glenn21 wrote:

Anyway, I will ask you again: why do you want western countries to take the high risk of letting terrorists in so badly when we could build safe zones instead?
When we build safe zones the refugees will still get help and the West doesn't have to be afraid that terrorists and economic migrants will exploit the refugee crisis. It's the perfect win-win scenario.

I'm assuming you are talking about building safe zones in Syria, but heres the deal. Safe zones don't work. Putting moderate muslims in segregated safe zones just makes them easier targets for Extremist terror attacks, imagine the damage some suicide bombers or explosives could do. There are also records of gunmen easily slaughtering hundreds of people located in so called "safe zones." (http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … ct/415134/)

The whole reason the Syrian situation escalated so badly anyway is because the US troops naively tried to govern a largely hostile population that was strongly against the US by using half measures and not nearly enough security.

Take a look at Saigon during the Vietnam invasion. (https://warisboring.com/watch-u-s-troop … .mtm3flym6)
It's not easy at all too "protect" a country that wishes the invaders would just leave already.

If you are talking about building "safe zones" in the US or other countries then that's like going back to the time when the US segregated black and white people. Or that time there was built Japanese interment camps. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internmen … _Americans)

Onjit, Tomahawk, gkaby

mrjawapa · 2016-10-19 11:51:58

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

I'm assuming you are talking about building safe zones in Syria, but heres the deal. Safe zones don't work. Putting moderate muslims in segregated safe zones just makes them easier targets for Extremist terror attacks, imagine the damage some suicide bombers or explosives could do. There are also records of gunmen easily slaughtering hundreds of people located in so called "safe zones." (http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … ct/415134/)

There's no perfect solution. Ideally, we'd be able to blast ISIS off the planet, and there wouldn't be a refugee problem. But that's not the case, so need to find a different answer. Unfortunately, that means Muslims are probably going to be put in a weird position.

This a greater-good situation.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

Take a look at Saigon during the Vietnam invasion. (https://warisboring.com/watch-u-s-troop … .mtm3flym6)
It's not easy at all too "protect" a country that wishes the invaders would just leave already.

Then what do you suggest?

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

that's like going back to the time when the US segregated black and white people.

I get what you're trying to say, but keeping people safe != owning a person like a pet.

Tomahawk · 2016-10-19 13:42:14

How exactly to you expect the US border control to identify muslims and so deny them entry?

By appearance? Will any muslims in traditional dress (and so those least likely to be terrorists) be denied?

By country of origin? Will the government assert that entire countries are "muslim", and deny all immigration from those countries? Teach american citizens that the listed countries are muslim and therefore their people are potential terrorists?

By asking? Will everyone get a little slip of paper at the airport asking them to put a cross next to their religion? Do you expect people to be truthful in an interview if it means being turned around?

You're naive if you think it can be done, and it certainly won't "make america great again".

Norwee · 2016-10-19 14:06:39

MrJaWapa wrote:

NorwegianboyEE wrote:
Take a look at Saigon during the Vietnam invasion. (https://warisboring.com/watch-u-s-troop … .mtm3flym6)
It's not easy at all too "protect" a country that wishes the invaders would just leave already.
Then what do you suggest?

Sorry i'm not a expert in this field. The Middle Eastern conflict is way too large and complex in scope for me to come up with a good solution atm, but i am quite certain that easy solutions like building safe zones will be largely ineffective.

mrjawapa · 2016-10-19 21:03:41

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

i'm not a expert in this field.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

but i am quite certain

> I have no idea what I'm talking about but will keep running my mouth anyway

blizzard

Norwee · 2016-10-19 22:02:19

MrJaWapa wrote:

NorwegianboyEE wrote:
i'm not a expert in this field.
NorwegianboyEE wrote:
but i am quite certain
> I have no idea what I'm talking about but will keep running my mouth anyway

Admitting to having too little knowledge about the middle eastern conflict to immidiately come up with a solution is a GOOD thing. That is a much better stance than if i were to spend 10 seconds coming up with solutions like building "safe zones." The Middle Eastern conflict is way too complex and multi-layered for only 1-sentence or 1-word answers. I know that much.
Let's stop the personal attacks please.

skullz17 · 2016-10-19 22:26:26

MrJaWapa wrote:

NorwegianboyEE wrote:
i'm not a expert in this field.
NorwegianboyEE wrote:
but i am quite certain
> I have no idea what I'm talking about but will keep running my mouth anyway

The two statements don't contradict actually. I don't know much about rocket science, but I know the rocket shouldn't blow up before taking off.

Norwee, Onjit, hummerz5

mrjawapa · 2016-10-20 01:18:24

Sitting back saying everything that's been proposed won't work/is bad... but do not have an idea yourself. If you don't know enough about the refugee situation to make a suggestion of your own, how can you accurately judge the ideas already proposed?

skullz17 wrote:

I don't know much about rocket science, but I know the rocket shouldn't blow up before taking off.

You're comparing a common sense scenario to something that's not-so-common sense.

Clearly, rockets should not blow up before taking off. It's not nearly as clear what should be done to keep ISIS out, while giving refugees protection.

Glenn21 · 2016-10-20 02:14:10

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

I'm assuming you are talking about building safe zones in Syria, but heres the deal. Safe zones don't work. Putting moderate muslims in segregated safe zones just makes them easier targets for Extremist terror attacks, imagine the damage some suicide bombers or explosives could do. There are also records of gunmen easily slaughtering hundreds of people located in so called "safe zones." (http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa … ct/415134/)
The whole reason the Syrian situation escalated so badly anyway is because the US troops naively tried to govern a largely hostile population that was strongly against the US by using half measures and not nearly enough security.

Like you said, the biggest problem with previous safe zones was that there wasn't enough security. They should build the safe zones in the more stable areas of Syria and make sure that there are enough troops to secure the area. They could make rules that civilians aren't allowed to take weapons into the safe zone and do body checks at the border. With modern technology like satellites and drones with cameras, they can also monitor the areas in and around the safe zones.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

Take a look at Saigon during the Vietnam invasion. (https://warisboring.com/watch-u-s-troop … .mtm3flym6)
It's not easy at all too "protect" a country that wishes the invaders would just leave already.

The big difference is that Vietnam had a lot more soldiers. ISIS is relatively small, the latest estimates by US officials is about 15 to 20,000 fighters. This means that protecting a safe zone in Syria is probably easier and it means that ISIS will have to risk a lot of their people when they want to attack a highly secured safe zone.

@Tomahawk
According to Trump's website, he wants to "Suspend, on a temporary basis, immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism" and "Establish new screening procedures and enforce our immigration laws to keep terrorists out of the United States".
I think the new screening procedures include doing more background checks on Arabs, whether you think this is racist or not, you can't deny a big majority of Arabs is Muslim.
These statements also show that Trump will most likely still allow Muslims to enter the USA when they pass the background checks and are not from a dangerous area.

mrjawapa · 2016-10-20 02:18:45

Only a couple of minutes into the third debate, here's what I'm thinking:

Neither of them have as much energy as in previous debates.

The moderator is stacking questions. He's stringing 3 or 4 questions together and giving them 2 minutes to answer. He seems fair, though. He's making sure questions are being answered, he's making sure both of them are talking, and he's getting in-depth details on each of their policies.

He's calling them out on their lies, which is cool.

I'd like to know where Hillary gets her clothes.

skullz17 · 2016-10-20 22:47:19

MrJaWapa wrote:

skullz17 wrote:
I don't know much about rocket science, but I know the rocket shouldn't blow up before taking off.
You're comparing a common sense scenario to something that's not-so-common sense.
Clearly, rockets should not blow up before taking off. It's not nearly as clear what should be done to keep ISIS out, while giving refugees protection.

Well yes we can categorise it into common sense and not-so-common sense, but I don't think that invalidates my argument. The principle of my argument is this: just because you don't have the expertise to thoroughly understand the whole of a subject, does not mean you know nothing about it at all. You can make judgements based on what you know, and the validity of those judgements depends on the justification. I would argue that the original statement made by Norwegianboy was valid even if you consider him unreliable due to his lack of expertise. This is because he provided reasoning for why safe zones don't work and also mentioned examples of it happening.

That said, I do think Glenn21 made an interesting reply.

Pyromaniac · 2016-10-21 03:11:46

MrJaWapa wrote:

I'd like to know where Hillary gets her clothes.

Haven't you heard? Monochromatic pantsuits are just the HEIGHT of fashion! Very "fleek" (as those millennials she's trying so hard to relate to would say).

mrjawapa

Bimps · 2016-10-23 18:57:12

past civilizations that have tried to go back to their golden age died soon after. and this is what trump wants to do. hillary being elected will just make america insufferable to live in. so we either have: no america, or even more **** america. i honestly dont know what is better.

mrjawapa · 2016-10-23 23:31:43

I'll take even **** America for 200.

gkaby · 2016-10-24 14:01:37

bimps reminded me of one of the other reasons why donald trump reminds me of things from the class on genocide i took:

stuff from wikipedia
"The desire of the KR to bring the nation back to a "mythic past","
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

"Not content with ruling Cambodia, the KR leaders also dreamed of reviving the Angkorian empire of a thousand years earlier, which ruled over large parts of what today are Thailand and Vietnam. This involved launching military attacks into southern Vietnam in which thousands of unarmed villagers were massacred."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rou … f_Cambodia

Abelysk · 2016-11-03 19:32:04

Just about sums up the whole dealio.

"Clinton emails. Trump admitting sexual assault. Clinton emails. Trump charity fraud. Clinton emails. Trump calls for nuclear proliferation. Clinton emails. Trump calls for national stop and frisk. Clinton emails. Trump violates trade embargo with Cuba. Clinton emails. Trump sued over Trump University fraud. Clinton emails. Trump bribes District Attorney. Clinton emails. Trump doesn't pay taxes for 20 years. Clinton emails. Trump employs campaign manager involved in illegal corruption with Russia. Clinton emails. Trump calls for ban of an entire religion from entering U.S. Clinton emails. Trump lied about support for Iraq War over and over during debate. Clinton emails. Trump in court for rape of a minor. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of Russia's Crimea occupation. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of situation in Syria. Clinton emails. Trump penalized for racist housing discrimination. Clinton emails. Trump files for bankruptcy 6 times. Clinton emails. Trump goes 0-3 in debates by showing scant knowledge of world politics. Clinton emails. Trump slams people for being POWs. Clinton emails. Trump calls Mexicans rapists. Clinton emails. Trump questions judge's integrity because of parent's heritage. Clinton emails. Trump deletes emails involved in casino scandal. Clinton emails. Trump commits insurance fraud after Florida hurricane. Clinton emails. Trump has dozens of assault victims and witnesses come forward with allegations of abuse. Clinton emails. Trump attacks former Miss America for being overweight. Clinton emails. Trump tweets about non-existent sex tapes at 3am. Clinton emails. Trump calls for U.S. citizens to be sent to Gitmo. Clinton emails. Trump calls for more extreme forms of torture to be used. Clinton emails. Trump asks why cant we use our nukes if we have them. Clinton emails. Trump calls for women and children related to suspected terrorists to be bombed. Clinton emails. Trump says women should be punished for having abortions. Clinton emails. Trump makes fun of disabled people. Clinton emails. Trump calls for end to freedom of the press. Clinton emails. Trump calls global warming a Chinese hoax. Clinton emails. Trump praises Putin's strong leadership. Clinton emails. Trump openly admits to not paying his employees during debate. Clinton emails. Trump calls Obama an illegitimate non-citizen hundreds of times over 7 years. Clinton emails. Trump uses campaign donations to enrich his own businesses. Clinton emails. Trump says Ted Cruz involved in JFK assassination unironically citing National Enquirer. Clinton emails. Trump says laziness is an inherent trait in black people. Clinton emails."

Norwee

Gosha · 2016-11-03 19:54:51

Kefka wrote:

Just about sums up the whole dealio.
"Clinton emails. Trump admitting sexual assault. Clinton emails. Trump charity fraud. Clinton emails. Trump calls for nuclear proliferation. Clinton emails. Trump calls for national stop and frisk. Clinton emails. Trump violates trade embargo with Cuba. Clinton emails. Trump sued over Trump University fraud. Clinton emails. Trump bribes District Attorney. Clinton emails. Trump doesn't pay taxes for 20 years. Clinton emails. Trump employs campaign manager involved in illegal corruption with Russia. Clinton emails. Trump calls for ban of an entire religion from entering U.S. Clinton emails. Trump lied about support for Iraq War over and over during debate. Clinton emails. Trump in court for rape of a minor. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of Russia's Crimea occupation. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of situation in Syria. Clinton emails. Trump penalized for racist housing discrimination. Clinton emails. Trump files for bankruptcy 6 times. Clinton emails. Trump goes 0-3 in debates by showing scant knowledge of world politics. Clinton emails. Trump slams people for being POWs. Clinton emails. Trump calls Mexicans rapists. Clinton emails. Trump questions judge's integrity because of parent's heritage. Clinton emails. Trump deletes emails involved in casino scandal. Clinton emails. Trump commits insurance fraud after Florida hurricane. Clinton emails. Trump has dozens of assault victims and witnesses come forward with allegations of abuse. Clinton emails. Trump attacks former Miss America for being overweight. Clinton emails. Trump tweets about non-existent sex tapes at 3am. Clinton emails. Trump calls for U.S. citizens to be sent to Gitmo. Clinton emails. Trump calls for more extreme forms of torture to be used. Clinton emails. Trump asks why cant we use our nukes if we have them. Clinton emails. Trump calls for women and children related to suspected terrorists to be bombed. Clinton emails. Trump says women should be punished for having abortions. Clinton emails. Trump makes fun of disabled people. Clinton emails. Trump calls for end to freedom of the press. Clinton emails. Trump calls global warming a Chinese hoax. Clinton emails. Trump praises Putin's strong leadership. Clinton emails. Trump openly admits to not paying his employees during debate. Clinton emails. Trump calls Obama an illegitimate non-citizen hundreds of times over 7 years. Clinton emails. Trump uses campaign donations to enrich his own businesses. Clinton emails. Trump says Ted Cruz involved in JFK assassination unironically citing National Enquirer. Clinton emails. Trump says laziness is an inherent trait in black people. Clinton emails."

You forgot about Clinton emails

Glenn21 · 2016-11-04 00:17:04

Kefka wrote:

Just about sums up the whole dealio.
"Clinton emails. Trump admitting sexual assault. Clinton emails. Trump charity fraud. Clinton emails. Trump calls for nuclear proliferation. Clinton emails. Trump calls for national stop and frisk. Clinton emails. Trump violates trade embargo with Cuba. Clinton emails. Trump sued over Trump University fraud. Clinton emails. Trump bribes District Attorney. Clinton emails. Trump doesn't pay taxes for 20 years. Clinton emails. Trump employs campaign manager involved in illegal corruption with Russia. Clinton emails. Trump calls for ban of an entire religion from entering U.S. Clinton emails. Trump lied about support for Iraq War over and over during debate. Clinton emails. Trump in court for rape of a minor. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of Russia's Crimea occupation. Clinton emails. Trump unaware of situation in Syria. Clinton emails. Trump penalized for racist housing discrimination. Clinton emails. Trump files for bankruptcy 6 times. Clinton emails. Trump goes 0-3 in debates by showing scant knowledge of world politics. Clinton emails. Trump slams people for being POWs. Clinton emails. Trump calls Mexicans rapists. Clinton emails. Trump questions judge's integrity because of parent's heritage. Clinton emails. Trump deletes emails involved in casino scandal. Clinton emails. Trump commits insurance fraud after Florida hurricane. Clinton emails. Trump has dozens of assault victims and witnesses come forward with allegations of abuse. Clinton emails. Trump attacks former Miss America for being overweight. Clinton emails. Trump tweets about non-existent sex tapes at 3am. Clinton emails. Trump calls for U.S. citizens to be sent to Gitmo. Clinton emails. Trump calls for more extreme forms of torture to be used. Clinton emails. Trump asks why cant we use our nukes if we have them. Clinton emails. Trump calls for women and children related to suspected terrorists to be bombed. Clinton emails. Trump says women should be punished for having abortions. Clinton emails. Trump makes fun of disabled people. Clinton emails. Trump calls for end to freedom of the press. Clinton emails. Trump calls global warming a Chinese hoax. Clinton emails. Trump praises Putin's strong leadership. Clinton emails. Trump openly admits to not paying his employees during debate. Clinton emails. Trump calls Obama an illegitimate non-citizen hundreds of times over 7 years. Clinton emails. Trump uses campaign donations to enrich his own businesses. Clinton emails. Trump says Ted Cruz involved in JFK assassination unironically citing National Enquirer. Clinton emails. Trump says laziness is an inherent trait in black people. Clinton emails."

The problem with that quote is that the things Trump did, according to those statements, are mostly false and not illegal, while Hillary may actually go to jail because of her email scandal. A lot of these statements have already been discussed in this topic, so I don't feel like writing another long comment refuting everything.
The quote is also really misleading because it makes it look like Hillary did only one bad thing and others keep referring back to this one thing when there is a new Trump "scandal". There are plenty of other Clinton scandals and new emails of Hillary and her campaign get leaked all the time, almost daily since October, revealing more corruption and new scandals by her and her campaign.

The following video gives another reason why Hillary should absolutely NEVER become president:

Slushie · 2016-11-04 02:44:53

Glenn21 wrote:

The following video gives another reason why Hillary should absolutely NEVER become president:

I think your tinfoil hat is on there a little too tight.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … otherhood/

TL;DR no one is talking about Huma Abedin because there's nothing to talk about. It's just a bunch of fanatical conspiracy theorists running their mouths.

Glenn21 · 2016-11-04 08:48:38

Slushie wrote:

Glenn21 wrote:
The following video gives another reason why Hillary should absolutely NEVER become president:
I think your tinfoil hat is on there a little too tight.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … otherhood/
TL;DR no one is talking about Huma Abedin because there's nothing to talk about. It's just a bunch of fanatical conspiracy theorists running their mouths.

If nobody is talking about this then thist "fact" check by the biased Washington Post wouldn't be made. If you actually took the little effort to google something like "huma terrorist" you would find plenty of articles from over the past few months about this subject, even some from back in 2012. It's the pro-Hillary mainstream media that doesn't talk about this (of course).

This "fact" check only "proves" two things. The first one is pretty funny because they first give proof that Huma was an assistent editor of her families' journal, but after that they say she played no role in editing articles because the Clinton Campaign said so recently.
What sounds more believable: the journal's website had mistakenly listed Huma as an assistent editor for years or the Clinton Campaign is lying yet again about something that could hurt their campaign?

The other thing it "proved" was that the journal wasn't radical because some unnamed "muslim experts" and totally unbiased members of the journal's advisory board said so. They claimed the quotes, that were used to prove the journal is radical, were cherry-picked and mischaracterized, without explaining how they were mischaracterized. So when a journal publishes radical articles only once in a while it means the journal isn't radical and they condemn radicalism *facepalm*.

Do you really think it's pure coincidence that the Huma's family business shares an office with the World Muslim League, an organization that has funded terrorists?
Do you really think it's not suspicious that governments that implemented the extremely sexist Sharia laws and who publicly stone gay people to death, donate millions of dollars to Hillary, a woman who claims she is a big supporter of equal rights?
Do you really think it's strange of others to think a government that implemented cruel Sharia laws and who want to spread Islam, may try to infiltrate and spy on other countries?
If you do then you are the gullible person with happy fantasy world goggles.

blizzard

Abelysk · 2016-11-05 18:34:58

Let's vote for Trump, then impeach him a day later.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#351 2016-10-18 20:06:04

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Essentially, third parties can't get exposure and don't have money, they may have disillusioned supporters which affects them much more than the major parties, and they lose votes to those trying to prevent a major party candidate from holding office.

#352 2016-10-18 20:18:31

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#353 2016-10-19 01:01:28

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#354 2016-10-19 04:21:51, last edited by gkaby (2016-10-19 04:25:04)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#355 2016-10-19 08:42:21, last edited by Norwee (2016-10-19 08:43:16)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#356 2016-10-19 11:51:58

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#357 2016-10-19 13:42:14

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#358 2016-10-19 14:06:39, last edited by Norwee (2016-10-19 14:08:42)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#359 2016-10-19 21:03:41

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#360 2016-10-19 22:02:19, last edited by Norwee (2016-10-19 22:09:37)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#361 2016-10-19 22:26:26

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#362 2016-10-20 01:18:24

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#363 2016-10-20 02:14:10

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#364 2016-10-20 02:18:45

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#365 2016-10-20 22:47:19

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#366 2016-10-21 03:11:46

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#367 2016-10-23 18:57:12

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#368 2016-10-23 23:31:43

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#369 2016-10-24 14:01:37

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#370 2016-11-03 19:32:04

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#371 2016-11-03 19:54:51

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#372 2016-11-04 00:17:04

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#373 2016-11-04 02:44:53

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#374 2016-11-04 08:48:38

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#375 2016-11-05 18:34:58

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Board footer