Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Tako · 2016-01-19 02:44:41

JaWapa wrote:

I don't see any other plans on the table to stop terrorists from coming in.

Wow. So, let me get this straight. You think the ONLY solution is unrestricted prejudice and the promotion of bigotry against the third largest religion in America, and that Trump is the ONLY candidate who has an idea? Do some research. It may shock you to learn that we have an entire sector of our government dedicated to "stopping terrorists from coming in", and it has a lot of money and power. How about we focus on actual military strategies for identifying and neutralizing threats instead?

Don't you see? You're trading liberty for safety. You're letting fear cloud your judgement. That's the number one way to abolish a democracy. It deeply disappoints me that all these Trump supporters forgot what America was founded on.

I have an article for you as well as any other promoter of bigotry and prejudice as a solution to ISIS. It's called Thoughts in the Presence of Fear by Wendell Berry. It was written shortly after 9/11 but has incredible relevance to this discussion. Pay special attention to X-XV.

Tako · 2016-01-19 02:52:34

Did anyone watch the Democratic debate? It was cool. It was an actual debate, not a dogfight. To me, Sanders and O'Malley are visionaries with good souls. Good for moral fiber, but awful for presidency. Clinton has sharper teeth, so-to-speak, and I think that makes her more realistic. Someone mentioned it in this thread earlier; would Sanders actually get anything accomplished? His ideas are very radical and he'd be walking into a Republican Congress.

Generally speaking, I support Bernie's ideas but I have concern over his ability to act. Hillary Clinton is not a bad candidate either, I just have some trust issues with her.

Pyromaniac

hummerz5 · 2016-01-19 02:55:38

>not particularly promoting any presidential election participant
Pray tell, what is this branch of government and how accurate/efficient/reliable is it?

Don't you see trading liberty for safety is a line you can't so easily determine? What purpose does a free people have if they're instead tortured by the thought of becoming victim to terrorist attacks?

How about we just agree that the US should throw out the EC and just go popular vote

!nb4 · 2016-01-19 03:11:07

Bernie sanders is promising, TRUMP is like

bad

iPwner

Tako · 2016-01-19 05:53:10

hummerz5 wrote:

Don't you see trading liberty for safety is a line you can't so easily determine? What purpose does a free people have if they're instead tortured by the thought of becoming victim to terrorist attacks?

There is no line; liberty should never be sacrificed when it comes to the general public. That is the very core of our nation, the most fundamental piece. If we start chipping away at it because we're scared and desperate then we can kiss this nation goodbye, because it sets a precedent whose wake would be felt for centuries to come.

Instead of letting fear control us, or being "tortured by terrorism", we should be using that famous American ingenuity which gave birth to modern democracy and countless other technological and political innovations. Because there always exists a myriad of solutions, especially in warfare. It takes a skilled leader to see the best among them. It's a sign of a tyrant to employ the ones which restrict freedom.

Just look at what Hitler did: Amidst political and economic discord, he convinced the German people that gun "registration" was the key to making the streets safer. So the German people turned in their arms for a promise of safety. What a mistake! Don't you agree that instead they should've said "No; we will make the streets safer by targeting the criminals, not the whole."

2016-01-19 18:40:06

Why would temporarily blocking Muslims from entering the US be effective at all in relation to terrorist attacks?

ISIS might be a bunch of lunatics living in the 1500's, but they're not dumb. If they want to do "9/11, part 2" I doubt a simple immigration ban would stop them; they'd very certainly find a way around that to let their members slip in. I might be talking out of my **** here, but if even your everyday illegal immigrant can often find a way through, imagine an international terrorist organization..

Hostage, sthegreat, TaskManager, Slabdrill

Zumza · 2016-01-19 18:52:21

Tako wrote:

You're trading liberty for safety. It deeply disappoints me that all these Trump supporters forgot what America was founded on.

USCIS wrote:

The Diversity Visa Program, or “Green Card Lottery,” is an annual lottery run by the U.S. Department of State to allow about 50,000 people a chance to get a permanent resident visa to the USA

Sorry, what were talking about?

Anak · 2016-01-19 19:35:28

Tako wrote:

His ideas are very radical and he'd be walking into a Republican Congress.

I don't know too much about how American politics work, there's a period where you can vote who goes into congress right?

Zumza · 2016-01-19 20:04:52

Anak wrote:

Tako wrote:
His ideas are very radical and he'd be walking into a Republican Congress.
I don't know too much about how American politics work, there's a period where you can vote who goes into congress right?

Zumza wrote:

Bernie Sander is an independent.
What can an independent make in a republic system?
I'm not saying he is bad. But they will be blocked by other political parties.

"But they will be blocked by other political parties."
Congress is formed by political parties.

Anak · 2016-01-19 20:20:58

Zumza wrote:

Anak wrote:
Tako wrote:
His ideas are very radical and he'd be walking into a Republican Congress.
I don't know too much about how American politics work, there's a period where you can vote who goes into congress right?
Zumza wrote:
Bernie Sander is an independent.
What can an independent make in a republic system?
I'm not saying he is bad. But they will be blocked by other political parties.
"But they will be blocked by other political parties."
Congress is formed by political parties.

Ok thanks so that doesn't answer my question.

Pyromaniac

gkaby · 2016-01-21 23:36:24

Pretty sure I saw this as a response on reddit many times, and IDK if it isn't an issue bc i never looked into it, but how would banning Muslims prevent terrorists from getting into the country when people can just lie about whether or not they are Muslim?

Bobithan · 2016-01-22 00:20:24

Anak wrote:

Tako wrote:
His ideas are very radical and he'd be walking into a Republican Congress.
I don't know too much about how American politics work, there's a period where you can vote who goes into congress right?

Yes, that's a thing, but a lot of people overlook it in America while simultaneously complaining about Congress. Also gerrymandering is a thing in the US too for representative districts, which has leaned results in the GOP's favor.

gkaby wrote:

Pretty sure I saw this as a response on reddit many times, and IDK if it isn't an issue bc i never looked into it, but how would banning Muslims prevent terrorists from getting into the country when people can just lie about whether or not they are Muslim?

By denying entry to the United States of America to anybody who looks middle eastern. That's how, and that's why the plan is so ridiculous.

sthegreat, Pyromaniac

2016-01-22 21:47:05

Are people as obsessed with Bernie Sanders outside the internet? In liberal-ish sites like Reddit or Tumblr (specially Reddit) he's been getting circlejerked all over the front page like he's the second coming of Jesus, but I've heard that's just a Reddit thing and he'll probably end up being Ron Paul 2.0. (not like I actually read the front page of Reddit or /r/all, it's always been horrible)

I have no knowledge on the American elections/political scene at all, I was just curious after reading some stuff on various comment sections lke this.

Anak · 2016-01-22 22:05:00

I live in the UK so he's not talked about hugely here, but I'm pretty sure he has a good rep in the US. Stuff like this: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/10/polit … 9000-2016/ Is what I've heard

Bobithan · 2016-01-22 22:10:57

I'm seeing a bunch of Sanders stickers and pins all over the place but that's probably because I'm in a very liberal section of NC. He's doing pretty well in polls and stuff I'm pretty sure. His support definitely isn't just based in the internet

hummerz5 · 2016-01-23 01:45:23

if y'all haven't founsd the polls yet
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -3824.html
and
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -3823.html

clinton and trump. I've heard mixed things about both, probably just because "haters" will throw dirt on the other party's front, as opposed to those in the back.

kinda funny how carson peaked so hardcore.

Tako wrote:

hummerz5 wrote:
Don't you see trading liberty for safety is a line you can't so easily determine? What purpose does a free people have if they're instead tortured by the thought of becoming victim to terrorist attacks?
There is no line; liberty should never be sacrificed when it comes to the general public. That is the very core of our nation, the most fundamental piece. If we start chipping away at it because we're scared and desperate then we can kiss this nation goodbye, because it sets a precedent whose wake would be felt for centuries to come.
Instead of letting fear control us, or being "tortured by terrorism", we should be using that famous American ingenuity which gave birth to modern democracy and countless other technological and political innovations. Because there always exists a myriad of solutions, especially in warfare. It takes a skilled leader to see the best among them. It's a sign of a tyrant to employ the ones which restrict freedom.
Just look at what Hitler did: Amidst political and economic discord, he convinced the German people that gun "registration" was the key to making the streets safer. So the German people turned in their arms for a promise of safety. What a mistake! Don't you agree that instead they should've said "No; we will make the streets safer by targeting the criminals, not the whole."

Well, when you emphasize never like that, you really make me want to throw out all these arguments you might consider strawman and fallacious. In your eyes, I figure internment camps back in WWII were a no-no... I'll skip the individual points: what about laws in general? Those are created to constrict your "liberty" to what is manageable by our general public. You might be meaning something else, but your statement as I interpret it is completely defunct. We aren't anarchy.

Have I asked this already? What do you think is a better idea? I didn't look this news article up, but I heard a bunch of refugees went and screwed a bunch of folks in Germany... so regardless of affiliation of religion or whatever, the group can make bad decisions (as deemed by our society)... back to my question. Can we assume that in general, crap will happen when they come to the U.S.? Or is that something you don't accept as a possibility?
If so, what do you suggest as a countermeasure? The plain simple response is to not allow the refugees to cause the crap. You think there's a fancy solution that allows refugees (without infringing on their liberty, eghad) to enter into the U.S.? Does that still involve the "crap" I mentioned that will likely result? What exactly is that? That seems to be the straightest way to "win" this mini-debate: if not barring them, do what?

I thought you just got done saying pulling the Hitler card is a no-no? Or was that someone else? Oh well.
I can't realistically argue against your Hitler card anyway; I'm not familiar with this instance. I'm having trouble following your logic as well. The Hitler instance seems counterintuitive to begin with. The violent people would just opt to not register the weapons. Were the German people naieve or are we missing other factors? (Probably the latter)... Here we have a response to an issue we think is particularly straightforward. Some are scared of the potential immigrants, so why not keep them away?
If you care to disregard my Hitler paragraph for a different argument: does this article disprove your positing? At least, it notes my 'probably missing other factors' alluding. Hmm

mrjawapa

Moukdaboss · 2016-01-23 03:23:56

Trump for president!!! jk trump sucks
Bernie Sanders 4 president!

Prodigy · 2016-01-23 03:33:43

Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders

Personally I think Barack Obama is alright

Onjit · 2016-01-23 10:50:35

real talk tho

rand paul vs bernie sanders would be the ideal final

Pingohits

Insanity · 2016-01-25 04:20:22

MFW this dude might become president

some woman, Pyromaniac

OrangeCrix · 2016-01-25 04:49:33

Insanity wrote:

http://inthesetimes.com/images/articles … e_yess.jpg
MFW this dude might become president

I didn't know Onjit was running for president.

mrjawapa · 2016-01-25 05:00:11

Now that some of the more important topics are being debated, instead of the candidates just insulting each other or the media, I've had a slight change in thought.

Marco Rubio - My first impression: he was a Richard Nixon. After some of the debates, he's become one of my favorites. He wants to stay on the important topics. I've seen him make a few low ball shots at the other candidates and media, but meh.

Donald Trump - My first impression: he was great. Watching him, I see the flaw in many of the ideas. I'm not saying I support all of them. Every candidate is going to bring ideas that people will like, and ideas that people will hate. Trump is still one my favorites. He isn't a politician. He's not taking bribes from companies. He is real, he's speaking from his own thoughts, and I like that a lot.

Ted Cruz - My first impression: he was too showy... if that makes sense. After some of the debates, I've seen that decline, but it's still present. I favor him though.

Chris Christie - My first impression: He was also too showy. Still feel that way.

Ben Carson - My first impression: He doesn't have the balls it takes. Still kinda feel that way. It seems as though he's a bit clueless all the time. He... idk... I'd like to see him be a little more aggressive.

Jeb Bush - My first impression: idk, didn't really put one together. Now: no! NO! NO!!!

Carly Fiorina - My first impression: ffs. why does she repeat the same thing over and over again?! What do you plan on doing with taxes? We need a three page tax plan! Why were you fired from HP? We need a three page tax plan! What about ISIS? Three page tax plan! And the fact she was fired from HP because she nearly ruined the company is enough reason to keep her out of office. If she can't run a computer company, how is she going to run a country?

John Kasich - My first impression: He's done well in ohio, I'm sure he would do well as president. Now, idk. He's almost as bad as Fiorina in repeating himself. "I created jobs in Ohio, I managed a budget in DC, and I'll do the same when I'm president."

Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum - I didn't know two of these people were running, and I'm pretty sure the other two haven't been in the most of the debates... not impressed by any of them.

Hillary Clinton - First impression: aw bimps me running backwards -.- Why is she she not in prison? Why is she able to run for president? Not to mention she's having her husband do half the campaigning for her. We're not electing Hillary, we're electing Hillary, Bill and whoever bill decides to have a threesome with.

Martin O'Malley - First impression: ugh, fine. If a democrat is elected as president, I want it to be this one.

Bernie Sanders - First impression: lmao. He can't even hold his rallies together. People are always taking them away from him. He's just not good. But to be fair, I don't think any of the democratic candidates are good.

tl;dr :: I would like to see Rubio, Trump, or Cruz as president.

iPwner · 2016-01-25 05:06:46

The funny thing is that you're all secretly racist! But that's a story for another debate.

But ye, Bernie Sanders is the only -SANE- person. ;3 Chris Christie is literally just a blob of lard; fat as bimps - unhealthy as bimps - no brainpower there. Ted Cruz/Marco Rubio (same) worsens the integrity of the latino race because of how BUFFOONIC he/she is, and is probably the WORST poop out of the poopbasket because (s?)he makes us ALL look like retards. If any of these people* get elected I'm off to canada.

*subject for debate

Norwee · 2016-01-25 09:39:10

I'm in a class where we actually study the United States like it's some sort of experiment gone wrong. Sometimes we laugh at the gun laws, sometimes the religious nutjobs, sometimes the stupid excuse of an "election." To sum it up, we have a great time! Almost all the candidates seem pretty bad except for Bernie. (But it's not like hes gonna get elected, lets get real.) I guess the most you guys can hope for is to get the lesser evil selected. (Hillary) I'm not that worried though, even if disaster strikes and Trump gets elected it's not like it will destroy MY country, har har!!
Allow me to post this half-term test i wrote to summarize American politics:

▼Hidden text

The political trench war

Whenever Obama has tried to legislate his Obamacare health right bill, he has been repeatedly downtrodden by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Obama is not amused by the fact that the worst health care system in the entire industrialized world will stay the same as it has been before. In my text I will explore why there is such an unconstructive divide in American politics and how the system is flawed, therefore making this political war into a stalemate of endless trench war.

The Democrats and Republicans are the primary political parties in the USA. As the Americans have a two-party policy, they are in fact the only two parties of enough substance being able to influence the politics of USA. One would think that if there were a Democratic president he would be able to pass any law. The USA model is not that simple however, there are many systems designed to keep the president in “check” by the three branches of government. We have the Legislative branch, which is divided into the senate and the House of Representatives. Then we have the judicial power, also called The Supreme Court. Examples of the various ways the Congress can “check” the president is by changing or refusing to pass any legislation suggested by the president (Obamacare.) If the president then decides to do a veto, it can be overridden if the Congress has a two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court can declare presidential actions unconstitutional, therefore making them not valid. Together they can even impeach the president by a public trial.

Problems arise when the president is from one of the political groups and the majority of the legislative and judicial branches has a majority of the other. The two-party system is counterintuitive towards both parties because they can just block each other from passing any law or decision, example being the Obamacare as mentioned earlier. Without the suggestions of Obama being approved by a certain percentage of Republicans the legislation will not pass. Itself the two-party system has major issues because they simplify politics excessively. By putting all the different political beliefs into two parties and melting them together there will be very many different ways of being a Democratic or Republican. If a new popular third party were socio-democratic or liberalistic for that manner, it would be toned down and crammed into the Democratic Party. This combined with a winner-takes-it-all attitude makes politics controversial and special in the USA.

There are arguments for the way this system works as of now. “There should be tension,” one might say. “Neither party would get enough strength to overpower the other therefore creating balance in the politics.” The problem with this mindset is that the ruling parties and president would never really be able to change anything due to the other party blocking the legislation, which they don’t necessarily do because they inherently disagree, but because they simply do not want the other party to get more power. Thus bringing my metaphor to life, the Republicans and Democrats are warring with each other without making any progress or change whatsoever.

There is no wonder Obama cannot pass his healthcare bill when the political situation is so tense and difficult in the USA. If the US is to become a better country than today, I hope they will reconsider their political system and tweak it so more political options can resonate through the media than the two choices they face today, thus ridding the people of the “us or them” mindset by simplifying everything into two sides.

mrjawapa · 2016-01-25 12:45:31

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

There is no wonder Obama cannot pass his healthcare bill when the political situation is so tense and difficult in the USA. If the US is to become a better country than today, I hope they will reconsider their political system and tweak it so more political options can resonate through the media than the two choices they face today, thus ridding the people of the “us or them” mindset by simplifying everything into two sides.

Democrat is elected -> Republicans impede on any bills they have -> Republican is elected -> democrats impeded on any bills they have -> back to the beginning

EDIT:

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

I'm in a class where we actually study the United States like it's some sort of experiment gone wrong. sometimes the religious nutjobs, sometimes the stupid excuse of an "election."

But "religious nutjobs" really aren't a part of the United States. What about the "religious nutjobs" that blow people up in the Middle East? What about the "religious nutjobs" who set themselves on fire in Asia? For the most part, religion is peaceful here. Maybe explain a bit more?

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

sometimes the stupid excuse of an "election."

What? That doesn't make any sense.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#76 2016-01-19 02:44:41

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#77 2016-01-19 02:52:34

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#78 2016-01-19 02:55:38

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#79 2016-01-19 03:11:07

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#80 2016-01-19 05:53:10, last edited by Tako (2016-01-19 06:00:07)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#81 2016-01-19 18:40:06

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#82 2016-01-19 18:52:21

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#83 2016-01-19 19:35:28

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#84 2016-01-19 20:04:52, last edited by Zumza (2016-01-19 20:06:13)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#85 2016-01-19 20:20:58

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#86 2016-01-21 23:36:24

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#87 2016-01-22 00:20:24

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#88 2016-01-22 21:47:05

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#89 2016-01-22 22:05:00

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#90 2016-01-22 22:10:57

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#91 2016-01-23 01:45:23, last edited by hummerz5 (2016-01-23 01:48:39)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#92 2016-01-23 03:23:56

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#93 2016-01-23 03:33:43

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#94 2016-01-23 10:50:35

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#95 2016-01-25 04:20:22

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#96 2016-01-25 04:49:33

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#97 2016-01-25 05:00:11, last edited by mrjawapa (2016-01-25 05:00:40)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#98 2016-01-25 05:06:46, last edited by iPwner (2016-01-25 05:21:52)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#99 2016-01-25 09:39:10

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#100 2016-01-25 12:45:31, last edited by mrjawapa (2016-01-25 12:52:19)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Board footer