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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Face it. It is over. Trump won.

Tagged games:

 

Trump or Hillary?

Trump FTW! 305 51.69%
 
Hillary all the way! 285 48.31%
 
Total:590
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Based on my point that neither candidate is that great, should have made it clear that while I think Trump is the better option, he's not exactly going to be the saviour of America. Yes his poilicies are quite vauge, and her's are to a "T", but thats because shes a poilitician and a lawyer and has been for a very long time. The problem with laying out policy like that is your expected to follow it exactly. Deviate from it, even for good reason, and its a mark against you. Trump knows this which is why he is keeping his so vague. Its better for him politically because it makes it hard for Hillary to take direct shots at him, and it allows him leeway with the American people. I'm not saying having no plan and winging it is a smart idea, but having only a basic plan and adapting to changes along the way makes much more sense than locking yourself down under stacks of policy.

The point is that for anyone running for the Office of POTUS they should not be giving any leyway for going into a job and not being prepared.  Trump is going for a job he has no experience and we as the people are supposed to cut him some slack because.  Trump had years to prepare for his presidental bid and coming into it unprepared shows how his presidency will be as well.  Also your opinion that keeping your policy vagues because you do not want to be held to them sounds really off for a voter to support.  Why as a voter I see him being vague and not taking a stance on important issue as a positive.  If anything its deceitful since it means he can change at a moment notice or pull something that no one supports because he never stated what he will do.  Also this is giving him a pass as if this is a pass, the other answer is that he has no clue what he will do so there is nothing to present.  Either way both are very not good for someone seeking the POTUS postion.

As for Trumps children having no say in his life. Well Obama's wife apparently gives him a lot of idea's and feedback, as well as many other people. Obama said it himself. He looks to many people, outside of office for advice if he feels their opinion is of value for that topic. Some of these people being quite wealthy. There is no reason why Trump would not include his family when it comes to making political or business decisions for the Country. Obviously the fact that he has a billion dollar company is a conflict of interest, but he would be a fool to use his position as POTUS to blatantly benefit his company. It wouldn't be a surprise if some decisions did in a way help his company indirectly. It alwas happens with politicians, just some are better at hiding it and getting away with it. Like his competition.

 Since Trump Organization is a private company, governments and other interest could pump billions of dollars into all types of funds and there would be no real way to track it based on what he does as President.  There is an article that talks about some of the groups and businesses, governments and other interest that his company deal with.  There are a few issues where some projects are held up due to governments intervention.  Giving Trump and his family the benefit of the doubt when it comes to something like this would be iresponsible.  Either his kids do not run the company and get rid of the conflict of interest or they keep running the company and must have absolutly no say or political positions in a Trump presidency.  Anything less is inviting big corruption.  This would be no different for Hillary and her daughter as well.

Trump acts like a bully when he's arguing with other politicians, just because it makes him look more bold, powerful and confident. Its natural for people to be drawn to that. It also helps deflect from his lesser understanding of politics as compared to his competition. When he does interviews with people who are not politicians, he is very cool and calm and in control. If you watch any videos of him from the past, hes the same way. She on the other hand can be cool and calm at times, but more often than not, she gets defensive very quickly and gets upset and raises her voice in an angry tone like how a kid whos not getting their way does. It makes her look childish and not fit to deal with the adults.

You need to see the statements he has made about our allies and other public figures.  The fact that he hasn't shone a real ability to not rant on every single or imagine slant against him shows a lack of displine or an ability to just let stuff go.  I am not sure I understand if you are defending him for base tactics that show his short commings so he personally attack his opponents or not but its hard for me to see this as a quality I would want in POTUS.  So when he finds himself with other world leaders not knowing what the heck he is talking about will he do the same.  Will he be as unprepared during those meetings as he was during the Primary and even during his own speeches.  The difference is that Trump lovs to wing it with barely prepared prep for subjects which does not sound like a redeaming personality.

Trumps tax plan does favor the rich no doubt, but so does her plan. The difference is that Trump doesn't use fancy words and sleight of hand in his policy to hide what he's doing. Anyone who expects trump or Hillary to heavily tax the rich and give it all to the poor isn't being realistic. That's the way it should be yes, but won't go that way because people are like animals down to our instincts, and much like how a lion won't give up his territory just because his neighbor has no food or prey on his, the rich will not just give up their money. Trumps plan to stop the oversees trade deals and bring jobs back to America will help fix the equlity issue in terms of money. Just look back to the post WWII era, when there was tonnes of work and babies being born like the species was quickly being erradicated and needed more people. Slowly over the years as the work was shipped oversees, the rich started to get richer, and the middle class, poorer. Times were great back then, there was more than enough to go around, and there will be again if he can make that happen like he says he will.

Did you actually look at Hillary econmic plan.  The last thing it favors is the rich since it actually taxes the rich more, does not touch the Middle and lower class.  I am not sure if you have even looked at her plan to make that statement.  Trump plan gives every break possible to the rich.  From lower taxes, to getting rid of the estate tax to only providing child incentive that favor the 1% you name it.  Those jobs overseas are gone.  The reason those jobs are gone because in America labor cost are way to high compared to where those jobs are at.  If you think trade agreements which have been in place for years and could have been overturned by a Republican congress did not happen why you think Trump will change this.  Trump cannot bring jobs back to the US that are gone because they are not gone because of trade agreements they are gone because the rest of the world has cheap labor with enough skilled labores to do the job.

Way to many people look solely to policy and base their decision on that. Which is wrong. Who that person is deep down matters just as much. Way to many times does a story break where someone broke the rules, the rules they put into place, but because theres no direct evidence, or its confidential just by chance, they get away with it. Does anyone of authority dig deeper to find out the truth, nope. Do the people do anything to right the wrong, nope. All because the law, wrote by their kind, says their rules, allow them to hide behind their rules, so they can break their own rules without consequence. How convenient.

If we were to based our decision on why the person is, then everyone would be voting for Gary Johnson.  Have you looked into Trump past because it seems you are making an assumption on Trump that does not reflect his history.  So do you just dismiss, Trump Universionnt, Trump Institute, Trump Foundation, Gary Indiana, Atlantic City, Golf course and other deals.  That is just a very small sample of how Trump conduct business.  Have you even read the book "The Making of a Deal" and some of the business practices Trump promoted within the book.  One thing is very clear is that Trump is not Maximus and has no honor.  If anything I would put Trump in the role of Caligula

 

Some of this I've read and some I haven't. Like I said in the first line of my initial post, I have a general Idea, but obviously don't know everything because its not that important for me to know it, since its not my election. Most Americans should know more, but obviously don't know everything about the candidates either though. Clearly your a Hillary supporter, which is fine, its your opinion and your choice (assuming your American) and while I could continue to argue all these points, its clear your mind is set in stone, which once again is fine, its your Country, you choice.

The one thing I would like to point out is how a key point against Trump is his ruthless business practices. While there seems to be a lot of truth to all of this based on his history, I don't understand why this is being looked at as only an internal issue within America.

Trump mentions how the rest of the world, certain nations in particular, are using their own ruthless tactics to take business away from America, or just leave America with the worst end of the deal. No one seems to argue this. Yet this man, who is so ruthless in business, as per people like yourself clearly dislike, wants to use that to America's advantage to bring the business back to America by making sure America gets the better end of the deal. Why that is a negative point against him, I do not understand.

If other countries are screwing you over to better themselves, in many different ways, like the worldwide trade deals, you would rather America just sit around and watch it all fade away? I mean sure, nobody wants to work for a living if they didn't have to, but this isn't some fantasy hunger games world, its real life. You can only let go of so much physical control over important things before you can't fix them politically. You really think as this continues, that once the rest of the world is catering to places like America, they won't begin to use that to their advantage? Just look at China. They are the perfect example. They are on their way to becoming the next America and they are getting their by starting off catering to places like America in a way businessman cannot ignore, and now they are slowly using that to their advantage against places like America. 

Hillary sides with Wall Street, and has for a long time. She says she'll take them down now, but that wasn't until Trump pointed out her ties to them. Its clearly damage control on her part, but not the truth. They are the businessman who pay her way, and push and use these worldwide deals to line their pockets. It does a lot of good for those few, but little for everyone else. If thats what your idea of prosperity is, then once again, thats fine, its your home, your choice.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Final-Fan said:

The comparison is ridiculous and I picked the first obviously wrong thing that occurred to me to contradict your claim that Trump's situation "follows the plot line very closely." 
—King dies//President's second term running out—Similar, although Clinton didn't backstab Obama.  Would have been a good parallel if she had run against him after his first term to try to replace him before his second term. 
—King handpicks successor but his wishes are not honored//Obama doesn't take sides between Sanders and Clinton until there is a clear winner, but backs Clinton versus Trump—Not similar, especially with Trump as your choice for the general.  If anything, Trump blitzing his way through the Republican establishment taking everyone off guard seems more of a usurpation than what Clinton did.  And the whole reason the kid backstabs the old emperor is that he was backing someone else as his successor:  this would be like Obama really backing Sanders to the hilt against Clinton, which didn't happen. 
—General is sentenced to death for not going along with usurpation, but escapes, eventually winding up as a slave fighting as a gladiator—Obviously none of this even remotely resembles Trump.  And this is the main plot of the movie. 
—Gladiator gets famous fighting, meets evil emperor, and they scheme against each other.  The conflict becomes physical and they kill each other—To the extent that there was politics involved and they were enemies, there is some vague similarity, but Clinton isn't President yet, and presumably someone will actually win the election. 

Please explain in more detail how this situation "follows the plot line very closely".

P.S.  The Roman Empire was incredibly political among its ruling class. 

(1)-Clinton doesn't backstab Obama: Except for all the times she's been critisized for going along with Obama's decisions happily back then, that contradict what she wants to do now, only to tell the public she was completely against it and it was the wrong decision, now that she's running for prez.

(2)-Kings term running out: This follows the plot the least yes, but has to be looked at in general. Its not the fact that the guy in charge picked the next in line, its that the right person for the job who is not politically corrupted is a candidate.

(3)-General sentenced to death: Much like how Trump was the joke of the entire world when the campaign began, practically sentenced to a political death by the media, and some of the population, yet here he still stands.

(4)-Gladiator fighting: Based on what I've seen over the years in terms of how brutal the campaigns have been, this one is definitely up there in terms of low blows and hostility. Both candidates are tearing each other apart and it doesn't do much good for either of them. 

(5)As for the Roman Elite being political, I never said they weren't. I just simply said politics were different back then in the way that not everything in life was looked at from a political standpoint. Where as today, politics comes into play with everything and with the global media, making one false move can put you in deep water quick.

1.  What things would you say are such extreme and important policy changes that they are comparable to Clinton backstabbing Obama?  More than just Clinton changing her mind, but doing so constitutes a betrayal of Obama. 

2.  Considering the "donation" that looks exactly like a bribe in connection to Trump University in Florida (I think), I dispute the "free of political corruption" claim.  And in any case it's a poor parallel. 

3.  Being not expected to get anywhere in the campaign is supposed to be a good match for being sentenced to death from an already high position due to a usurper consolidating his power grab?  Come on. 

4.  Is Clinton supposed to be another gladiator now?  Your analogy is breaking down. 

5.  Well, it's obviously true that they didn't have the 24 hour news cycle, and paparazzi weren't as good back then (and didn't have the ability to publish as widely or quickly).  Still, they did have political scandals come from personal behavior, and on the other hand Trump seems to be defying expectations now by shrugging off things that could be expected to sink another candidate. 

At this point I think I could make just as good a case for Trump being the Terminator trying to eliminate various candidates for President until he finally defeats them all.  He would have to lose the election in the end, though. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Mnementh said:
thranx said:

Yea cause we would to live like europeans. I dont know why europeans and others around the world think they know whats "best" for us. And they call us arrogant. Take care of your own house before giving us advice on ours

Well most europe countries have better health care, higher life expectancy, lesser riots (like in Ferguson), lesser major health incidents (like in Flint), fewer poor people, fewer violence crime (especially murder, the US has five times the murder-rate as Germany, France and the UK) and better education. The US has only better stats in comparisons to countries like the Ukraine.

But yes, it makes sense to attack a european who begs for you to not vote Trump, not demanding, just begging.

I say: Go, choose your own poison. Hillary and Donald are equally bad, but whatever the days of the US as global leader are soon over anyway. So it doesn't matter much which way you go down.

Riots only happen in cities dominated by the dems. Thats a major reason I dont want hillary in power. Didnt have riots like this beofre Obama stroked and fanned the flames "racisim" . the dems are a  one trick pony, spread lies and fears about your opponent, offer your supporters gifts and bribes, and rob the bank while in office.

 

Yea, sure Americas days as a global leader are over. I'll believe that when Europe can protect itself with out our help. Until hten keep dreaming.

I dont worry one bit about healthcare. We have some of the most advanced treatments out there. Its a misnomer that Americans dont have easy access health care. And nothing is free, you guys just pay through taxes and get less choices.



LadyJasmine said:
The thing is both Trump and Hillary will get involved overseas.

Hillary is a classic neoliberal War Hawk

Trum has said he would pull our tropps out of conflicts and not get involved over seas. He doesnt see war as profitable



sethnintendo said:
Norris2k said:

So yeah, tax cuts, infrastructure spending, get money back with better deals (China, military base, etc.), get rid of tax loopholes, review the spending, tax Chinese imports and get back the money from offshore seems like a very good plan for me.

I agree with you if there are tax cuts then loopholes should be removed.  Problem is that few politicians want to get rid of the loopholes because they are controlled by special interest groups aka lobbyist.  They mainly just talk about lowering taxes and no mention of getting rid of loopholes.  I'm all for lower taxes if you cut exemptions out for personal (even ones that I benefit from like getting some money back from student loan interest, and house) and businesses.

 Trump who is being outspent 5 to 1 by Clinton. He hasn't been bought.



Around the Network
thranx said:

Riots only happen in cities dominated by the dems. Thats a major reason I dont want hillary in power. Didnt have riots like this beofre Obama stroked and fanned the flames "racisim" . the dems are a  one trick pony, spread lies and fears about your opponent, offer your supporters gifts and bribes, and rob the bank while in office.

Cities in general tend to be more Democratic and rural areas more Republican, as a general trend.  I defy you to give evidence that more Democratic cities (compared to other cities of similar stature) are more prone to rioting. 

And no, Obama didn't invent rioting. 

And no, Trump is the candidate who is unquestionably doing more fearmongering this campaign.  Ted Cruz's father is pals with JFK assassin, really?  I don't know if he actually "lies" more, because lying implies that he is aware of and/or cares about the truth.  Trump seems more like he's "bullshitting" to me—whether it's true or not is unimportant.  Frankly, that's even worse than lying IMO as far as the implications for fitness for office. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!