2016 Presidential Election
- Thread starter The Ozzman
- Start date
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
Draehl
Lurker
Baroque
Active Member
How am I implying that? I don't see Obama in that meme or running for president.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
Presumably you think race riots are something terrible and unprecedented if you feel compelled to use them as reason for why a Trump presidency is dangerous.
Elric of Melniboné
The White Wolf
- Jul 11, 2016
- 1,544
- 1,176
- 113
Or maybe he doesn't want there to be a continuation of an already extant issue, exacerbated by a potential leader who clearly has absolutely no clue how to bridge any type of ethnic gap and would likely only serve to widen them. His words are already extremely divisive now and he has absolutely no political authority.
Last edited:
Baroque
Active Member
terrible yes, unprecedented no. that's not what i said nor the contrapositive of what i said, so let's move on.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
Baroque
Active Member
Now I see the trap here. I said "unintentionally starting race riots" and you said "stopping race riots" which are two different things. Obviously Clinton will not prevent all race riots from happening, nor will she have some greater power to stop them after they have started. But she has the potential to start fewer race riots unintentionally. How? By being more careful about how she addresses the public, especially people of other races. Sure, she lies, but she has tact in her lies usually, at least moreso than Trump. I mean, I think this is pretty obvious, no? We could just start listing the borderline racist things Trump has said vs. the borderline racist things Hillary has said and which list do you think would be longer? or more racist?
Elric of Melniboné
The White Wolf
- Jul 11, 2016
- 1,544
- 1,176
- 113
No one said she would stop race riots.
While I don't think that she would be a panacea of any sort, she would have the benefit of not being prone to making openly divisive statements about other races and ethnic groups at nearly every opportunity. It would be hard to be worse at repairing race relations than Donald Trump has demonstrated himself as being without actively trying to be.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
It doesn't take offensive comments to start race riots. All it takes is a news broadcast of some black guy getting (often justifiably) shot by the police or a citizen in self-defense.
Baroque
Active Member
You see, I saw your trap, stepped around it, and you still try to spring it. I'm afraid I am already past that trap now and it's catching air. I said she cannot somehow prevent those types of race riots from happening.
Dak
mentat
How many race riots have occurred because a politician said a thing which was either blatantly racist or even which could be misinterpreted as racist? That doesn't seem to be the normal trigger. However, since it is "progressive" organizations that like to fund and bus riote-i mean protestors, it makes sense we would see less of that during a Hillary presidency.
Dak
mentat
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html
The rot is deep, the collateral damage has only begun. Nice damage control attempt by CNN.
The rot is deep, the collateral damage has only begun. Nice damage control attempt by CNN.
Dak
mentat
CNN is nearly on the Huffpost level of garbage as it is, but occasionally they almost manage a worthwhile contribution...almost. Here's a great example:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/opinions/special-prosecutor-for-emails-investigation-callan/index.html
This article overall strikes a very rational tone......but...it..just..can't....cross....the...finish...line.
I'm certain Trump has behaved unethically as a businessman. That isn't even remotely on par with what Clinton did as SecState. Trump might be worse than Clinton, but there's room for doubt with Trump. There is none with Clinton. At this point, a truly rational position would be that we'd be better served with Obama pulling an FDR and declaring an emergency 3rd term rather than letting Hillary anywhere near the office.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/31/opinions/special-prosecutor-for-emails-investigation-callan/index.html
This article overall strikes a very rational tone......but...it..just..can't....cross....the...finish...line.
I'm certain Trump has behaved unethically as a businessman. That isn't even remotely on par with what Clinton did as SecState. Trump might be worse than Clinton, but there's room for doubt with Trump. There is none with Clinton. At this point, a truly rational position would be that we'd be better served with Obama pulling an FDR and declaring an emergency 3rd term rather than letting Hillary anywhere near the office.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I've missed so much.
You've clearly never heard of Horus Lupercal.
You're a dreamer man, you really think Hillary could do anything bad enough to damage her chances?
If he's a libertarian, Hillary is a communist.
Hand out free bottles of hot sauce and do some jive-talk.
You've clearly never heard of Horus Lupercal.
You're a dreamer man, you really think Hillary could do anything bad enough to damage her chances?
If he's a libertarian, Hillary is a communist.
Hand out free bottles of hot sauce and do some jive-talk.
Einherjar86
Active Member
We may not know exactly what Trump will do, but I know what kind of president he'll be. There's not much room for doubt about that. I know the kind of country he'll represent, and I know the kind of people he appeals to. I don't want that, and to be honest it embarrasses me.
I don't have blind faith in Clinton, despite plenty of my Facebook friends telling me I'm a sheep being led to slaughter. I simply don't place as much value on the issues for which people criticize her. Even if Clinton knew she was being negligent and that there could be issues with using a private server, it doesn't make any difference to me. The narrative circulating Clinton is that she makes Americans unsafe, but she's not making the country any less safe than it already is. Hell, I'll take this one step further: even if Clinton used a private email server in order to intentionally leak classified information, I would still vote for her over Trump. My impression of such a political figure would be that while her behavior might be ethically controversial, I would still interpret such behavior as a reflection of geopolitical complexity.
Despite everything, I don't believe that Clinton is out to undermine the United States. I think she sees a politician's role (and especially the president's role) as one of negotiating and navigating impossible issues, and making lots of decisions that individuals find reprehensible. Trump appears to think that he can make genuinely righteous and morally sound decisions as president. Furthermore, he also appears to have no conception of the complexity of global relations, and seems to fall back on the brute strength and exceptional quality of America. That's a more dangerous position than Clinton's scheming and potential criminality.
EternalMetal
Active Member
- Mar 31, 2004
- 1,842
- 674
- 113
Trump will represent proud nationalism, which is basically the same caricature people have had of America for a long time. I agree that it is kind of dumb and barbaric, but we are currently in a situation where we need to demand authority to get what we need, and we cant just continue being cucks to every other foreign nation. The world isnt ready for ideal representation, and Clinton most definitely isnt the modern answer. Just wait for that Clinton racist tape, I hope it is as damning as O'Keefe claims it to be.
I dont think you exactly put your thumb on the issue. Clinton more than likely used a private e-mail server because she wanted to operate separately from the government, and she leaked classified information to people who were not qualified to see it because it helped further her secret agenda. The allegations fall more towards corruption rather than someone acting pertinently because they have insider info about global politics. While I will admit that the investigation isnt over and that the jury is still out, there is enough evidence to suggest deeply corrupt insider politics that show that she is willing to work behind the scenes rather than legitimately with the government to accomplish things. She is secretively powerful in a way that has so far been shown to be malevolent and immoral. It is no surprise that the DNC corruption becomes apparent with every e-mail leak, and that countless people linked with the Clintons are stepping down because they are up to no good.
Trump isnt the one who is risking war with Russia at the moment though. Those no fly zones she is proposing and deflecting comments about are acts of war. What countries are you particularly worried about not getting along with Trump?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Why would you want something damning to come out? It says a lot about your predispositions that you want bad stories to emerge.
Her "secret agenda" is to get elected, and I don't think her masterplan is to get elected so that she can bring about the downfall of the United States. So if she made some shady backroom deals to secure the presidency, then so be it. Despite all this condemnation and accusation that she works privately rather than legitimately with the government is also undermined by the fact that she has worked legitimately with the government now for decades. Does this mean she hasn't engaged in clandestine behavior? No, absolutely not - but then, most politicians have engaged in such behavior. We're just being force-fed Clinton's scandals because she's running for president.
I never said Clinton wasn't going to foster peaceful relations with all countries. I said she understands the dynamics and details of international relations. Trump's botched rambling on issues in the Middle East is enough to convince me that he has very little understanding of what's going on there, the history of it, and what to do about it.
