By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Number one reason why you shouldn't vote for Trump

 

Number one reason I'm not voting for Trump

He is too orange 60 14.63%
 
He is a narcissist 29 7.07%
 
He tweets too damn much 6 1.46%
 
He is a con 30 7.32%
 
He doesn't know shit about foreign politics 88 21.46%
 
He only gets four hours of sleep 1 0.24%
 
He has small hands 39 9.51%
 
He rambles too much 3 0.73%
 
His plans are terrible 106 25.85%
 
other 48 11.71%
 
Total:410
lionpetercarmoo said:

This is not a joke thread it's just people on this site have bad humor.

Ouch!  Being called out by a 13 year old for bad humor.  That almost hurts.



Around the Network
Captain_Yuri said:
The number one reason I am not voting is cause I live in Canada :P

Some of us are the same! But he's really starting to break, and we can all tell. While I do agree in a crackdown on immigration, its clear he doesn't know what he is doing. He is going to lose badly to a horrible canidate who would lose to almost anyone else.



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

sethnintendo said:
lionpetercarmoo said:

This is not a joke thread it's just people on this site have bad humor.

Ouch!  Being called out by a 13 year old for bad humor.  That almost hurts.

You're almost in your 40's, I think you have better stuff to do than spend your days on a gaming website.



Neodegenerate said:

It is really hard to take an opinion like this seriously when 1. you have to resort to name-calling with Clinton and 2. you blatantly ignore the fact that part of Trump's rise to business "success" has included muiltiple bankruptcies designed to eliminate the massive debts he accrued through his business failings.

Well, sorry about the name calling. Let me hand you your well-deserverd first stone.

But apart from that, your reasoning about me allegedly "ignoring" Trump's economic failures is just silly, sorry. Apparently you didn't understand the point I tried to make, and actually just repeated the same error in reasoning I tried to point out. My whole point was:

In order to prove that person X is *better* or worse than person Y in a particular respect, it's ultimately irrelevant how good or bad person X actually is (in absolute measures), because "better" refers to a relative comparison. Even if Trump was the second worst person in the whole world when it comes to economics, he could still be better than Killary.

And considering that it would be quite hard for most people to accurately judge both Killarys and Trumps economic capabilities, it's anything but surprising that many people would intuitively expect a millionaire businessman like Trump to know more about economics than Killary. And this is not about about Trump or Killary specifically, this is a general pattern I'm sure you will find all around the globe and at earlier US elections as well:

A candidate who is a millionare businessman will intuitively be expected to be better with economics than a candidate who isn't.



ArnoldRimmer said:
Neodegenerate said:

It is really hard to take an opinion like this seriously when 1. you have to resort to name-calling with Clinton and 2. you blatantly ignore the fact that part of Trump's rise to business "success" has included muiltiple bankruptcies designed to eliminate the massive debts he accrued through his business failings.

Well, sorry about the name calling. Let me hand you your well-deserverd first stone.

But apart from that, your reasoning about me allegedly "ignoring" Trump's economic failures is just silly, sorry. Apparently you didn't understand the point I tried to make, and actually just repeated the same error in reasoning I tried to point out. My whole point was:

In order to prove that person X is *better* or worse than person Y in a particular respect, it's ultimately irrelevant how good or bad person X actually is (in absolute measures), because "better" refers to a relative comparison. Even if Trump was the second worst person in the whole world when it comes to economics, he could still be better than Killary.

And considering that it would be quite hard for most people to accurately judge both Killarys and Trumps economic capabilities, it's anything but surprising that many people would intuitively expect a millionaire businessman like Trump to know more about economics than Killary. And this is not about about Trump or Killary specifically, this is a general pattern I'm sure you will find all around the globe and at earlier US elections as well:

A candidate who is a millionare businessman will intuitively be expected to be better with economics than a candidate who isn't.

And here you are still resorting to name-calling while attempting to make a viable point.  There is a difference, by the way, in the style and structure of economics that Trump has used (again, the bankruptcies) to gain and maintain his wealth, and the economics needed to run a government.

Not sure if you are aware though, that Hillary is also a millionaire and has an understanding of both government and economics.



Around the Network
lionpetercarmoo said:

You're almost in your 40's, I think you have better stuff to do than spend your days on a gaming website.

Touche, You are right.  I have to go to work in about a hour.  I won't bother you anymore.



Dunban67 said:
You should not vote for him because color?

It is a valid point though.  If he uses tanning beds then he has a higher chance of developing skin cancer.  It looks like he spray tans though which was considered safer but new research suggest that the chemical DHA used in spray tans can damage DNA and cancer.



Neodegenerate said:

And here you are still resorting to name-calling while attempting to make a viable point.

That observation is correct, I still use the name Killary because I like it, and so far don't intend to stop doing so.

Neodegenerate said:

There is a difference, by the way, in the style and structure of economics that Trump has used (again, the bankruptcies) to gain and maintain his wealth, and the economics needed to run a government.

I consider this factually correct, but I seriously wonder why you're pointing this out. Did I write something that suggested I believe otherwise, or what's your point, why do you mention this?

Not sure if you are aware though, but if I wanted to play devil's advocate once more, I could now state that by making this point, you are ironically somewhat invalidating your own point about Trump allegedly not being good with economics. Because if you point out that running a company (business economics) is completely different from running a country (macroeconomics), you are at the same time pointing out that Trump's economic flops in the field of business economics don't prove that he is bad in the field of macroeconomics, which is the relevant field if he were POTUS.

Neodegenerate said:

Not sure if you are aware though, that Hillary is also a millionaire and has an understanding of both government and economics.

Well, I've admittedly never been interested in Killary's financial situation so far, but I would have been very surprised if she wasn't a multi-millionaire. I mean, when was the last time an officially chosen party candidate running for POTUS wasn't a millionaire? Plus, I assume she and her husband probably earned several millions with expensive speeches and writing books alone...

But this kind of money making is of course not what people think of when they consider someone to be good with economics, because It's exclusive to the few famous and very influential; it's completely different from the usual from-dishwasher-to-millionaire ideal. So if you have a good point to believe that Killary has a good understanding of economics (for example if she has her own business as well or something like that), just mention it, I'm seriously interested.



Bill Clinton is the only president to balance a budget in like sixty years. I would say that gives Hilary some good insight to economics on a *government* scale (big difference from the private sector where you can run your own business how you please, that's not how being president works, you don't have your own board of directors blocking key decisions in business, in government you have Congress and the Senate to deal with, you can't say "you're fired" to congress).

Trump is an automatic disqualification for me because he doesn't have the temperament to be in charge of nuclear weapons and second I don't believe in Republican prinicipals for the supreme court judges he would nominate.

I don't believe the government should have its nose in people's bedrooms or relationships, nor should they be throwing people in jail for marijunana offences (our jails are overcrowded as is), a Trump presidency means the looney tunes wing of the Republican party will get to instil judges on the supreme court and I fundamentally don't agree with those values.

Trump is entertaining, I'll give him that, I'll be happy to watch him on a reality TV show though. Don't need him as command in chief.

Not to mention half of his main campaign goal posts (building a wall, deporting people, banning people on the basis of religious affiliation) are basically unconstitutional and he'll never be able to deliver on those as a result. Beyond that I don't believe he is capable of unifying the country or working with opposition, this is a guy who acts like a child and throws a tantrum when ever someone opposes him on anything. 



ArnoldRimmer said:
Neodegenerate said:

And here you are still resorting to name-calling while attempting to make a viable point.

That observation is correct, I still use the name Killary because I like it, and so far don't intend to stop doing so.

Neodegenerate said:

There is a difference, by the way, in the style and structure of economics that Trump has used (again, the bankruptcies) to gain and maintain his wealth, and the economics needed to run a government.

I consider this factually correct, but I seriously wonder why you're pointing this out. Did I write something that suggested I believe otherwise, or what's your point, why do you mention this?

Not sure if you are aware though, but if I wanted to play devil's advocate once more, I could now state that by making this point, you are ironically somewhat invalidating your own point about Trump allegedly not being good with economics. Because if you point out that running a company (business economics) is completely different from running a country (macroeconomics), you are at the same time pointing out that Trump's economic flops in the field of business economics don't prove that he is bad in the field of macroeconomics, which is the relevant field if he were POTUS.

Neodegenerate said:

Not sure if you are aware though, that Hillary is also a millionaire and has an understanding of both government and economics.

Well, I've admittedly never been interested in Killary's financial situation so far, but I would have been very surprised if she wasn't a multi-millionaire. I mean, when was the last time an officially chosen party candidate running for POTUS wasn't a millionaire? Plus, I assume she and her husband probably earned several millions with expensive speeches and writing books alone...

But this kind of money making is of course not what people think of when they consider someone to be good with economics, because It's exclusive to the few famous and very influential; it's completely different from the usual from-dishwasher-to-millionaire ideal. So if you have a good point to believe that Killary has a good understanding of economics (for example if she has her own business as well or something like that), just mention it, I'm seriously interested.

The implication of your posts has been "Trump will be better economically than Hillary" so everything you said thusfar is why I am pointing out that Trump's economic background may not actually make him fit to be POTUS.

Also, you can't play Devil's Advocate when you present as so anti-Hillary by continuing to use a juvenile approach like Killary.