Raider5678

Clinton is running to be the President of the United States. Trump is running to be the Ruler of World. Clinton, like her policies or not, plans to function within the status qou and has a normal centerist platform. Trump has said he'll make Mexico pay for the wall, will make China sign more favorable trade deals by increasing our military presence in Asia to strengthen our negotiating position (stated policy of his own campaign site), and will kill and or torture the families of terrorists (he literally said that). This isn't between lesser evils. Clinton is the boring status qou; not evil. This between someone we may not like much and evil.

 

Trump wanting to use our military for to force China to change trade policy would violate nurmerous international agreements; dangerous

Trump threatening to torture and kill families of terrorists violates the Constitution of the U.S. and nurmerous international agreements; dangerous

Trump's border wall is nonsensical, divisive, and involves us dictating terms to another sovereign nation; dangerous

In addition to those dangerous policies Trump denies Climate Change, doesn't believe there is a drought in California, want to lower taxes for rich people, remove federal control and oversight from medicare and all gov't from healthcare, and etc, etc, etc.

 

What dangerous of evil policies can you list that Clinton advocates? I can name many that I wish were different or think fall short of going far enought but none that I feel would direct lead to war or toture. None that deny basic realities like climate change.

I would like to correct what you are claiming. At no point did he say he would torture the families.he said specifically he would kill the families, and torture the militants. Which, in all areas, wouldn't be fair. Though, the terrorist do a whole lot worse then waterboarding to our soldiers. Waterboarding doesn't have the person screaming and begging for death.

 

Also, the constitution says:

No use of cruel or unusual punishment.

 

If in an attempt to save lives, torture isn't actually prohibited by the constitution, it is inside the Geneva Convention.

Violence at protests is not a Trump or election thing. Keeping the peace is a civil behavior which societies are founded and laws are written.

 

Here's the thing. According to Trump and republican supporters, violence against Hillary or Bernie protestors is a "love fest" where "I'd love to punch them in the face", "get em outta here" or be dragged from venues, assaulting media etc. are excusable actions because they are angry about whatever chip d'jour they have on their shoulders. NO repudiation whatsoever. Now on the other hand, pushing, shoving and verbal abuse by Trump protestors deserve to be assaulted, branded as thugs, criminals that should be jailed according to the Donald.

 

Trump is a do-as-I-say not-as-I-do totalitarian hypocrite that already did a fine job of making the USA the laughing stock of the planet. The damage is done.

Proof there are violent protests against Hillary and Bernie?

 

Interestingly enough I found this a while back.

 

http://www.infowars.com/craigslist-ad-get-paid-15-an-hour-to-protest-at-the-trump-rally/

 

What's civil disobedience? I think its breaking the law, but I'm not sure.

Also, someone is suing trump for inciting them to be violent. Which, if you think about it, means they have no control over themselves.

I wonder how the people who own that roughly 2000 square miles of land will feel about the government filling it with bamboo and thorn bushes.

It was my belief that the border was owned by the us government.

I noticed that you have been trying to get into (hijacking?) this conversation in an attempt to discuss heavens and the likes. Don't you think that you are perhaps steering this thread off topic? Like the above statement and particularly the last part thereof which you put forward as fact. What would be the relevance and why would the life of a human be another matter? Opposed to what?

If you read the thread you can see it slowly transitions so that what he says isnt hijacking, but replying to what other people have said.

I'm afraid to get into this disscussion, but I guess I will. A creates B. B creates B. Which sounds more logical? Of course, logic falls apart in philosophy.

Neat

Indeed. Purely hypothetical. Mainly used for purposes of trying to give some possibnility to equally hypothetical scenaris like Time Travel, and quick shortcuts through the vast Cosmos.

 

I would add that, though they are entertaining to think about--much like Conspiracy theories--it it just as likely we will one day prove Worm Holes do not exist as we will prove that they do. In fact, it I had to bet on it, my money would be on the "no such thing" side of the table.

 

I mean, sure, there are likely some weird aberrations out there in the Space Time Continuum, maybe like strips of extra dense Dark Energy where matter and even space and time are repulsed more harshly than amidst the regular DarkEnergy fields. Or--closer to the wormhole thing--strips of LESS intense Dark Energy or Dark Matter where resistance is lessened, thus maybe allowing for speedier navigation through them. But a classic wormhole per se, as a path to Time Travel? Very unlikely.

 

It was my belief that they decided worm holes may be real because they would be possible with the current theory of general relativity.

Who are "they" and what was the number? You imply you don't know who they are, and yet you trust them. That's not rational. It's almost like you "trust" them because you got an answer you liked.

 

You can get the number by simply looking it up.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/how-united-states-immigration-system-works-fact-sheet

That should explained. Everything.

 

Know, I have looked and found nothing that convicts you. Not guilty!

 

Either way, do you look up everything everyone says? As it was, it SEEMED like you didn't think Hillary lied much at all. Once again, IT ONLY SEEMED like that. Which would mean you were accepting what Hillary said more readily then what Trump said. This isn't evidence, just a conclusion I came out with. You DO look up some things Hillary says, but you would sooner look up what Trump said then what she said. Is this true?

It's amazing how often this very subjective objection overrides the objective goals of job creation, immigration, and improving the economy overall.

Ok, I'm confused. Please explain.

 

 

Will we build a wall on the southern border and would it be successful if we did; of course not. That said building a wall is a proposed solution that really appeals to the low information voters Trump has all worked up. Simply pointing out (complaining) that the wall wouldn't work, is racist, would be expensive, would hurt the economy, and etc offers no solution and thus can be ignored as criticism from haters. Trump is full of impratical solutions. We cannot allow ourselves to constantly be suckered into combating his solutions merely with complaints about those solutions because that is what he wants. Daily tit for tats rather than real policy discussion.

Speaking of complainers, what if we just grew bamboo,and thorn bushes about a mile wide? Easier to patrol then a wall. Bamboo can grow a foot a day, thorn bushes are quite tricky to trim, remove, or make a path through. And I'm speaking from experience, I work on a farm.

 

 

One could simply not vote. But saying one would vote for someone means you have to be agreeing with and supporting at least some of the positions of the candidate.

 

 

It's pretty lame to critique one candidate and give a pass to another who is exhibiting the same behavior, but at an even worse level (by a lot, in this case). It's just rationalization.

 

 

Why is talking to an immigrant and saying you would try to get him/her citizenship a bad thing?

And you are mischaracterizing the discussion. "Build a wall" is not an issue of "immigration in large proportions". Net immigration from Mexico is less than zero: more immigrants have left than have come into this country. (2009-2014: -140,000)http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

So that's just a BS excuse. It's not why he's being accurately labeled a racist. It's because of all the racist things he's been saying.

How about this, currently I would rather Donald Trump then the other two. If I don't vote, its one less vote for trump. This is figurative by the way, I cant vote.

 

 

Also, I'm not giving a pass to anyone. I'm simply pointing out that either way is still bad, even if one is better then the other.

 

The immigrant was an illegall immigrant. Also, it seems I have phrased something wrong. I don't mind immigration, I'm against illegal immigration. So it IS the law. They did the math, and came out with the proper number of immigrants we could handle annually without ruining us, and I trust whoever did the math. But I think you should still have to go through the immigration process before your allowed in.

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

Am I the idiot?

When you say, "Either way, they still lie", you're attempting to make Clinton's lying on a par with Trump's, like it's OK because they all do it. This is NOT the case. All politicians need to have their feet held to the fire, but it's disingenuous to claim that a 2% Truth ratio is just as bad as a 22% ratio.

 

 

You lost. They were Eisenhower Republicans. In fact, I'm a Sanders supporter mainly because his policies are similar to Ike's, not because he's running as a Democrat.

It's not a big deal, but I find most young people vote the way their parents do until they go to college, where they're exposed to more than the one ideology.

 

I also can't find anyone who supports Trump for rational reasons. They say it's because he's a businessman, but he's a very sleazy businessman, as anyone he's owed money to will tell you. They say it's because he speaks his mind, but when was that EVER part of diplomacy? And when he lies so often, speaking his mind doesn't sound so great anymore.

 

They all seem to be emotionally invested, but can't say why a Trump presidency would be anything other than a global embarrassment of national proportions. There's no part of being POTUS that he would excel at.

 

We support Trump because we don't want to support Hillary or Bernie Sanders. Hillary exaggerates quite a bit if you noticed. She also seems to simply be trim to appease people. She talked to an illegal immigrant, and said that she's trying to get him citizenship, so she should vote for him. This is in video. On the news. Look it up. I find people are irrational when it comes to immigration. As soon as you say its not a good idea to have immigration in large proportions, its instantly "racist" or your an evil man who doesn't care about anyone.

 

Also:

https://www.google.com/search?q=obama+stuttering&oq=obama&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39l2j0.1933j0j4&client=tablet-android-gigabyte&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

So the guy stutters. Who cares?

No. Politifact also has the same treatment of Clinton. If you don't think the lies are that important, then take a look at how they both stack up in the True/Mostly True/Half True categories. It's a much better gauge of how much you can trust what they've been saying.

 

 

 

But your dad is voting Trump?

If you add up the numbers, you can't try Hillary half the time. As for trump, believe the oppiste of what he says lol. Either way, they still lie. If your wondering, I count half true as half false. Would you believe something half true? Probably not.

 

Also, yes. My dads voting for Donald trump.

But I'm wiling to bet your parents were democrats.

The point is easy to miss when seeking it with closed eyes, cupped ears, and blind acceptance. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

I would also like to point out, that I don't like any of the candidates.

It seems your simply accepting every thing Hillary says without looking it up. You simple nod your head in agreement.

For years, I have found every political candidate lies lies lies lies. Usually they're big too.

 

Edit:

And I can't vote yet.

 

 

 

 

This was just irrational blabbering that seemingly refute some of the writer's own points (spot them). To argue that we need the Bible to make better citizens is far-fetched.

 

 

 

Irrational babbling eh? I can live with that. Though on no account did I remotely claim we needed the bible to make better citizens. What you did there is called strawmanning. To sum it up, you took what I said and purposefully twisted it to make me seem like a fool,which seems stupid to me, but if you want to do it then fine.

 

Also,during this entire thread, you have done nothing but insult people and call their arguments pointless that contribute nothing to the conversation, which makes you a hypocrite. Rather then clogging up this thread with useless insults, twisting peoples words, and acting like a little child, please act responsibly and contribute something ok?

 

Now,I come from a town full of achoholics, drug addicts, fighting, murders,and much worse things. My family is very poor, and in all probability I won't be able to get into college. Yet, I'm still happy. The reason is because I know Jesus. Maybe I'm insane, maybe its irrational, but I can make the irrational choice to make my self feel better ok? May e you come from a rich family, and your all Mr. Know it all, but not everyone is as perfect as you. Once again. Leave. It. Go.

I was convinced he was being paid by the GOP to take the temperature of America, see what the hot buttons are, and be as outrageous about it as possible. I never thought he'd be taken this seriously as a candidate, mostly because of his denigration of women, and the fact that he LIES so much, and BIG LIES too. I couldn't imagine even Republicans supporting him after a debate with Sanders or Clinton pointed out all the LIES.

 

Now, I don't know. He claims the USA is #1 on education per pupil by a factor of 4, and while intellectuals look this up and realize he's LYING, conservatives nod their heads and don't check. He gets to LIE and say he opposed the Iraq war, when anyone (except conservatives) can check to see he was as rabid as anyone else in the Republican Party to go to war.

 

I think he appeals to some because he supposedly understands bidness. These folks say we need to get a bidnessman in there, that's what we need! Bush II was a bidnessman, and did some very proctologically unsound things to this country, but I guess that was so long ago, they've forgotten.

 

Bush II lied his ass off too. Whoppers like Trump, not little white lies or exaggerations or stretching the truth.

 

To tell the truth, I can't imagine Trump as an American President. I really think I'd have to move, for health reasons. Trump makes me sick.

Can you point out some of his lies? Like big ones that actually matter. I usually end up missing the point.

I am saddened to what happens to threads like this.

 

Either way, I may point out that you can't disprove god exists, even though there's a lot of things you can't disprove. (Like a tea cup orbiting Neptune ) which trying to prove to someone that their god isn't real rarely works with christians. Its kind of pointless trying too. Also, being a christian doesn't make you a fool, nor does being an atheist. Infact, the christian bible preaches about a lot of good things that you should\shouldn't do, if they truely follow the bible they make the best citizens, so don't critizse them. Whether you believe in it or not, it doesn't matter. Why must you constantly try to stamp out religion just because you don't believe in it? Sure your going to say your just pointing out things,but is that really the truth -.-? Once again, state your opinion, arguing will never get you anywhere for arguing religion.

And, apart from requiring knowledge of what those animals are, your answer might depend on whether you are judging them on the taste of the meat, whether they make good pets, how well they can swim, or which ones are good or evil in your religion.

 

(Hard to believe that some people claim there is no cultural bias in the tests.)

p.s. I have absolutely no idea what the answer to that question is supposed to be.

I assume it is elephant, for at least two reasons.

I can out with the snake. It has no legs. Its the only one who smells with his tounge, etc. Seems obvious to me...

...A lot of that was creepily relatable?

I'm always suspicious of statements like that that I relate to, because I can never tell how much is unique to me and how much is common to everyone (the "horoscope effect" if you will). But then, that was a point that was brought up.

All of it pretty much describes me.. Though I figured out that admitting I was wrong is easier then arguing what can't be true. Though it took awhile, I must have been a nightmare before 10 years old lol.

@ Alan: Have you ever heard, or read up on Dimethyltryptamine or DMT? Don't quote me on this (as I am not an expert), but apparently (apart from being a powerful psychedelic drug) it is something that naturally exists in mammals (and most other living organisms) that gets excreted somewhere in the brain in very small dosages that would normally cause dreaming. It is claimed that when somebody dies, all of it would be released and that it would cause a dream-like state for up to 15 minutes (in real life) while the brain shuts down...only for the dying person it will feel like eternity. There are speculations that this chemical is so powerful that it can take your subconscious on a trip far, far away, like another dimension... Anyway, near death experiences have been linked to this chemical. That would explain the correlation of these experiences in terms of a template afterlife that is linked to your programmed (brainwashed) interpretation thereof. You made two references to the light of Jesus, for example, but how would you have known that it was Jesus? And why Jesus and not God?

 

We may therefore all end up exactly where we want to be

Which means you wish to end up in......

 

Nice story man. Very cool. I still wonder why people simply refuse to accept that there MAY be a God, and that maybe not EVERY freaking thing that happens is a co-incidence. I mean, come on, it starts to get stupid after a while. "It was a co-incidence that the helicopter lost engine power for a moment, turned 47 degrees, and on a crashed airplane down below a flare randomly went off even though the unconscious pilot never touched it, alerting the pilot that someone was down there, resulting in the rescuing of a survivor." I mean, what else could it be besides co-incidence?

 

Just stop constantly downing someone, and let them believe what they want to believe ok?

Wait a second, how are the test biased?

 

I did have an I.Q. test in 3rd grade, I got 136! Yayayayayay! I can see patterns!!!!!

Who cares? I mean, sure, it means your analytical process is better/faster then other people, but does that mean your smart? It doesn't automatically teach you another language, or teach you molecular physics(or in my case, grammar.) If it means something to you, good for you. If it doesn't it don't matter. Nobody else really cares, so brag all you like, nobody will mind unless your being annoying with it. That's my opinion on it.

https://www.quora.com/

 

Article below for you comments (Edited by me expletive removed)

 

 

"I've got a 140 IQ"?. (Confirmed by a two day battery of tests by a neuropsychologist) and that didn't keep me from being scum bag and screw up for my entire 20s. I'm more interested in being a good person, than in how supposedly "gifted" I am. You should be too.

 

Doing a little bit of phycology, this is what I'm thinking.

 

(Confirmed by a two day battery of tests by a neuropsychologist)

He seems to have left his "rant" mode when typing this part. Hes much more calm and collective, but then again, that might not mean anything. If it does mean anything, it means he was once one of those who was proud of his I.Q. Score, and may still be.

scum bag screw up for my entire 20s

Hes back in "rant" mode, and he's downing himself. Like self - punishment of some sort. Mad at himself. You should get the picture.

 

 

supposedly "gifted" I am. You should be too.

 

This is an odd part. It seems to conflict what I first thought on him, but I stay with my original thoughts. He was once proud of his I.Q. It mattered to him. The fact alone that he grew up and thinks he did terrible in life is a testament to that.

Absolutely. They are victims of the target-driven policies that are prevalent nowadays in professional life; it is here anyway. The consequence of this policy is that the bar is set very low as to what constitutes 'success'. I am one of their real success stories (free for 14 years) but I went into rehab voluntarily and wasn't compelled to. The two years I was with them and the fact I went to them on my own initiative allowed me access to the facts surrounding the rehabilitation process. It really works, using CBT, but only if you want to be helped.

In america the teachers are blamed when kids don't pass test. Seems like its slightly related. Just thought I'd mention it.

Agreed. Personal freedoms may include drinking, smoking, gambling, recreational drugs etc that can and usually do result in harms beyond that to the individual. The balance between rules that work to reduce those harms and inhibiting personal choices isn't easy to find.

 

I'm a bit suspicious of simplistic policy slogans - like "harsh penalties for drugs" or "less regulation on business", that don't allow much space for the interconnecting complexities. Governments have a role to look beyond such truisms even whilst politicians and media seek to popularise them. Climate responsibility for example does not sit well with a simplistic goal of "less regulation", but in my view unregulated GHG emissions are a kind of institutionalised (traditional?) cheating that shifts the burden of the full costs of climate consequences away from those who are responsible for them - which includes those benefiting during their lifetimes from cheap energy, products and services as well as policy makers and fossil fuel exploiting and dependent industries - and puts them onto others that include people who have had little benefit. It's a kind of systemwide problem that individual 'free choice' and no regulation fails at.

 

Raider - it sounds like your ideal government would, for want of a better description, be more 'Conservative'. For others it would be more 'liberal' or 'progressive' or even more 'socialist'. Or be more representative of popular opinion or, as I've suggested, be more responsive to expert opinion. Is it 'good government' if it cannot accommodate and be inclusive of wide differences?

Alrighty....

 

I meant making it a lot less harder for people to open up small buisnesses., not taking away air pollution regulations etc.

I think you may mean "fly in the face."

"Spit in the face" is rather hostile language.

Also, I'm going to go dig around for some numbers and see if I can figure out what the actual results are based on various stats. I find that when I look for articles, they're usually looking to push a narrative, one way or the other, so I'm going to see if I can get us a better organized list of raw numbers we can look at and discuss. I'm going out to dinner tonight, so I'm not sure what time I'll be done with it, but I'll try to post something before I go to bed at least.

Please do that

That's pretty much the opposite of what I said.

What I said was "More people get killed by anti drug legislation than by drugs."

and that's what I meant.

People die of overdoses because the drugs are not subject to legal control of their quality. People die in gang fights because the gangs deal in drugs because there's a lot of money in drug dealing because you have to bribe or otherwise evade the law.

And so on.

If the anti-drug legislation were not there much of the direct reason for the deaths would go away.

So..... Smokings good for you? How about acholoics? Drug addicts? If they were legal it would be easier to get to drugs. Can you, without a dought, say drug use will decrease if we were to make it legal?

 

 

 

 

Also, are there any other outcomes we want to add? I want to add less regulations on businesses.

You may want to mention this to the other four states that will be decriminalizing in 2016. One wonders how they were able to convince the voters if what you claim is true.

Doesn't matter. I used the same argument against you before, and to say what you said.... It doesn't matter what they think.

 

The fact is as it is. The experiment failed, multiple studies show it, in fact, most of them do.

 

I don't want to go off-topic with this, but you need more accurate sources. Colorado's legalization has been a success in virtually every way.

 

Even conservative sources like FOX News agree.

As I pointed out, and multiple people agreed, The link you gave me seems to spit in the face of almost EVERY SINGLE other study. I already showed this link, as I looked at it too.

All the things citizens have to fear from drugs and alcohol are already illegal. You can't be under the influence and drive a vehicle. If you're in public being obnoxious, we have laws against that. If you're of age, just having these things, or even being under their influence, shouldn't be illegal.

 

Plenty of folks (most, I would guess) can handle these substances without disturbing the public. When they're abused, we have the legal framework to handle them. If all the money spent punishing users and enforcing prohibition were spent on education and rehab, you'd remove much of the criminal element, and have a more positive downstream set of benefits, like improved health, and fewer families ruined not only by alcohol and drugs, but by avoidable incarceration as well.

They tried using the money they used regulating drugs in colorado for rehab and education. To do this they made small amounts legal. It has shown it hasn't even come close to decreasing the cost even a little, but instead raised it quite considerably. This, is a bad consequence. While the other idea to make drugs illegal isn't the ideal one, its better than the one your proposing. Maybe we can find a way to make your plan work, and when we do, I say we do it. But for now, this idea didn't work when tested, so why would we try it again? Imagine a Number line. The idea you proposed, resulted in -10. The current idea, which is have drugs illegal, results in -8. Either one, while not ideal, has different results. And the current idea, is doing better.