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

Forums - Politics Discussion - If You are going to vote please watch this

Dunban67 on 18 September 2016
Ganoncrotch said:
Dunban67 said:

I hope you don t actually beleive this-  When i see outrageosly wrogn coments i typically give the poster the benifit of th edoubt assuming he/she is slinging mud and not acually weak enough to beleive them -  Either way there is nothng constructive about posting comments you know are wrong even if you don t beleive them

Just going to say from reading through this thread, when it comes to raising peoples attention to political matters which you think are very important, could I just suggest that taking a moment to proof read before clicking submit would really help get the point across. It's just that a post this short shouldn't manage to contain 16+ mistakes in it, to me that just weakens your whole "people should be smarter" suggestion. I don't think you could expect people to take hygiene advice from someone covered in dirt and I think the same applies to political intelligence talk on the internet.

This Whole thread is a bit strange though, basically you want to not give any evidence or sources because you would rather people go and educate themselves and look things up for themselves? Then... why the thread at all, why put any content in it about someones poorly rated TV show being canned, why not just leave it as a open message requesting that people who will vote just go and do some research, rather than trying to make some very poor links in the OP to Hillary being the cause of things happening like bad TV ratings.

See I think you wanted the OP to read something like

But felt the desire to tack on some conspiracy stuff which, of course got peoples attention but just to say why you are wrong in doing so, but drawing away from what I think was your original message (I could be wrong, it's tough to read, I'm sorry.)

there is plenty  of info out there on these candidates and it is easily accesable -  The availability of info is not the problem-  It is what people do with it- How critically they look at it-   When 95%+ of the counters i see to a candidate are the same few juvenille name calling phrases-  it tells me most people thrwoing out accusations are taking conclusions of others (often manufactured conclusions as are so common in political races)  as fact and running with them-  

I guess that is why an online article (pick your topic) consisting of a headline and a tweet gets more traffic and response than a traditional multi paragraph multi page article that actaully contains information beyond a headline-   



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 18 September 2016
Dunban67 said:
Chris Hu said:

I'm not voting but Trump is by far a bigger fraud then Hillary.  And all his supporters are major racists, bigots and nut jobs in the same league as Alex Jones.

Even most Hillary supporters acknowledge she is a prodigious  liar-   i m no big Trump fan but he is a far more productive person than Hillary-

 

 

Can I ask you, have you done any real research into Trump the businessman or is this just an opinion.   If the Republican Primaries and even after you probably could put Trump as a prodigious liar as well, why you are not including him in that bracket, I am wondering.



Dunban67 on 18 September 2016
sundin13 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Sure thing ... 

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Here's Clinton granting a few nations who happen to be donors to the Clinton Foundation weapon deals ...

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/24/clinton-approved-arms-sales-big-donations-bahrain/

Here's Crown Prince of Kingdom of Bahrain (a nation with poor record of human rights) getting access to Clinton for which he failed to get access through "normal channels" but what's more is that she approved an arms sale for which they then later used it for "suppressing uprisings" ... 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/03/exclusive-bill-clinton-got-millions-from-worlds-biggest-sharia-law-education-firm/

Bill Clinton get's promoted to "honorary chairman" to the world's largest SHARIA LAW education firm while accepting money for the Clinton Foundation ?! 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/hillary-clinton-gmo-support-monsanto-ties-spark-ba/

Monsanto donates to Clinton and the next thing you know she promotes GMO's ... 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-friends-1426818602

Mr, Schoen then reveals that the purpose behind the meetings between Clinton and Viktor Pinchuk (a Clinton Foundation donor) was to make the US government pressure former president Viktor Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko ... 

And then we get to Gilbert Chagoury (denied visa cause of shady connections) and George Soros both of which are billionaires and Clinton Foundation donors which disturbingly shows pay to play going on in the emails ... 

The peer pressure is as real as it gets ... 

Theres a key difference between those sources and the Infowars source. There is no direct evidence of anything quid pro quo. Its all circumstancial. Tons of people donated to the Clinton Foundation and got nothing out of it too. Now of course there are conflicts of interest (and if Hillary were to become president, her and Bill should also step away from the Clinton Foundation), but again, they get no money from the Clinton Foundation (the talks they do get money from, but thats a bit of a different beast). I believe these conflicts of interest are on a different level of magnitude.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/08/23/experts-new-clinton-state-dept-emails-show-donor-access-not-favors/89118156/

However, as I've stated before, the nature of Trump's Business involves him personally making a lot of money from foreign sources (without even considering how is domestic decisions could affect his business). That is also a clear conflict of interest. While Trump hasn't been given a chance yet to see how he would act in a political situation, I don't think that should excuse him of the danger that comes with these conflicts of interest.

I think its fair to have disagreements over whos conflicts of interest are more significant as that isn't anything objective. I personally believe donations to charity are less of a conflict than money in the pocket, but thats just me. At the core of the issue however is that both Clinton and Trump have unprecedented, large conflicts of interest, both of which are worrying. 

I agree but i will make 1 distinction - Hillary has spent  many years in public office or public appointment- Trump has only been in the private sector so far-  Clintons (both of them) made virtually all their money since Bill Clinton was elected to Pres-  Trump has not made any money as an elected official



Dunban67 on 18 September 2016
Machiavellian said:
Dunban67 said:

Even most Hillary supporters acknowledge she is a prodigious  liar-   i m no big Trump fan but he is a far more productive person than Hillary-

 

 

Can I ask you, have you done any real research into Trump the businessman or is this just an opinion.   If the Republican Primaries and even after you probably could put Trump as a prodigious liar as well, why you are not including him in that bracket, I am wondering.

I m no big fan of Trump-  but I will vote for him over Hillary-    I think there is plenty of evidence to support that Hillary is the most self serving person to be nominated by either party in modern going back 40+ years    Hillary and many of her supporters want to silence opposition to her/her message-  I don t see Trump and Trump supporters trying to silence opposition as much as they may disagree w it



Machiavellian on 18 September 2016
fatslob-:O said:

No, what's awkward is the speciouness that you guys exhibit when the subject of Trump comes up then every rational thought get's sucked up in a black hole where you let your feelings dominate much like Trump supporters ... 

First of all Pam Bondi was the one who admitted to soliciting Trump (She was the one who came to him! Not the other way around like so many of you are claiming!) and second of all she explicitly made NO decision about investigating Trump University either ... 

Prove your conspiracy theory that Trump was buying her off instead of the other way around! Well, who's buying who now ?

So what you are saying is that Pam Bondi, knowing that she ihas a suit on Trump University on her desk, came to Trump and asked for a donation when she knows it would be a conflict of interest and suddently she drops the suit.  I mean really, do you think people are that dumb.  Exactly what part of that does not sound like Pay to play.  It doesn't matter who came to who first and it especially does not matter when someone is trying to save their bacon.  The fact that she received money from Trump within the same time frame she is suppose to be investigating Trump University, drop the case and then he also did a free fund raiser at one of his most expensive hotels where he charges 100K for nothing.  The fact that Trump pretty much admitted he does this type of stuff just make you shake your head you are trying to defend it.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 18 September 2016
Dunban67 said:
Machiavellian said:

Can I ask you, have you done any real research into Trump the businessman or is this just an opinion.   If the Republican Primaries and even after you probably could put Trump as a prodigious liar as well, why you are not including him in that bracket, I am wondering.

I m no big fan of Trump-  but I will vote for him over Hillary-    I think there is plenty of evidence to support that Hillary is the most self serving person to be nominated by either party in modern going back 40+ years    Hillary and many of her supporters want to silence opposition to her/her message-  I don t see Trump and Trump supporters trying to silence opposition as much as they may disagree w it

I am not sure if that really answer the question.  I can understand you not wanting to vote for Hillary my real question is have you done as much research on Trump.  How many speaches have you listened to and fact checked compared to Hillary.  How about his business deals and things like Trump University and Trump Institute.  What is your opinion on Trump Foundation and the allegations being made there not just Florida but also Texas including how he has spent Foundation money as his own.  What is your opinion on him getting rid of the EPA and agencies like that.  What I am really interested in is are you in favor of those things, do you believe they are true and if so are they important.  



Dunban67 on 18 September 2016
Machiavellian said:
Dunban67 said:

I m no big fan of Trump-  but I will vote for him over Hillary-    I think there is plenty of evidence to support that Hillary is the most self serving person to be nominated by either party in modern going back 40+ years    Hillary and many of her supporters want to silence opposition to her/her message-  I don t see Trump and Trump supporters trying to silence opposition as much as they may disagree w it

I am not sure if that really answer the question.  I can understand you not wanting to vote for Hillary my real question is have you done as much research on Trump.  How many speaches have you listened to and fact checked compared to Hillary.  How about his business deals and things like Trump University and Trump Institute.  What is your opinion on Trump Foundation and the allegations being made there not just Florida but also Texas including how he has spent Foundation money as his own.  What is your opinion on him getting rid of the EPA and agencies like that.  What I am really interested in is are you in favor of those things, do you believe they are true and if so are they important.  

1) it is all important-  Yes-  I know a plenty about Trump both good and bad-  But Trump has done most everything (till his run for Pres) as an unapolgetic business man in the private sector serving himself- Hillary has done mch more all under the guse of serving the people-   

I am also of the beleif that when "nothng gets done in Washington DC" that  is a good thing-  Trump is comparativly speaking, a DC outsider-  the only way he will make alot of changes is if he has the strong support of the electorate-   otherwise it will be stalemate-   Hillary is obvioulsy not a DC outsider-  She will be able to get things done and it wil be self serving and terrible for the future of our country-   

Like I said i think Trump is a flawed candidate-  no doubt-  But I sincerely beleive Hillary is the worst nominee for President the country has ever had in the last 40+ years

IMO Hillary makes Bill Clinton look like an angel  (and he obviusly is not) but he has some reedeming qualities as a person and a politician (like Trump) -  I really do not beleive Hillary has any redeeming qualities other than she is a human being-

PS  I appreciate your questionsing of Trump was/is not the typical  lazy name calling/buzz words    



ArnoldRimmer on 18 September 2016

I find it ridiculous how the mass media and many common people are more and more calling absolutely everything a "conspiracy". A few days ago, when the video of Hillary being thrown into a van like a bag of potatoes became public, the german mass media called all doubts regarding Hillary's health "conspiracy theories". Each and every single article I read about it used that phrase. But where's the conspiracy in believing that Hillary is not completely honest about her health, in order to improve her chances of winning? That's just ridiculous.



Dunban67 on 18 September 2016
ArnoldRimmer said:
I find it ridiculous how the mass media and many common people are more and more calling absolutely everything a "conspiracy". A few days ago, when the video of Hillary being thrown into a van like a bag of potatoes became public, the german mass media called all doubts regarding Hillary's health "conspiracy theories". Each and every single article I read about it used that phrase. But where's the conspiracy in believing that Hillary is not completely honest about her health, in order to improve her chances of winning? That's just ridiculous.

Its just another buzzword to side track useful discorse and the conveyance of information -



LadyJasmine on 18 September 2016

If there is any candidate that Hillary is similar to it is Nixon.