Vote for President

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Vote for President

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 150 52.1%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 138 47.9%
  • Total voters
    288
Status
Not open for further replies.
Random Resident said:
It sounds like you are criticizing trump for not acting on future knowledge.
Click to expand...

Please, be more obtuse.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Ignatius J said:
To make a long answer short, countries within NATO have repeatedly, again and again, failed to live up to their agreement in defense spending. So if we have an agreement within NATO to spend money on defense, one country lapses in it's duty and gets invaded, we have to foot the bill AND the American lives? That is fair?
Click to expand...
Fair might (might) be kicking the deadbeats out of NATO for their failures, though that would be strategically stupid in most every case.

But we haven't kicked them out, so if they're attacked, we're obligated to help. Simple.

Well, too complicated for Trump, I guess.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
deepstate2016 said:
The problem is that it is not a one way relationship. We WANT Japan to depend on us, because if they do not then they would be free to follow their own national interests more.....aggressively. last time that happened it was called WW 2. Less disastrously there efforts to follow their own policy could conflict with our other allies, or opponents, do you want a well armed independent Japan squaring off against China over those tiny islands? What do you think that would do to our trade? Our capital flows? Mr. Trump looks at things in a one dimensional way that ignores multiple necessities. As you do as well.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that either American taxpayers foot Japan's defense bill or we have WW3? There is no middle ground? That is silliness. It's a binary option? No other country has every ad to pay for their own defense and been helped out with alliances, right? What silly points.
 
My Democrat friends told me they're voting for Trump after last night's speech. They were won over handily.
 
Ignatius J said:
Interesting that you urge context for my rebuttals but not for the original quotes.
Click to expand...
If by "context" you mean full story, I would urge that for pretty much everything.

Your argument is weak when you have to ignore important details to make a point. That's what your "double-standard" arguments do.

Hypocrisy is all over the place in politics, but Trump's got plenty of bad ideas that have no parallel among mainstream politicians, no matter how you contort what others have said/done.
 
Ignatius J said:
Are you saying that either American taxpayers foot Japan's defense bill or we have WW3? There is no middle ground? That is silliness. It's a binary option? No other country has every ad to pay for their own defense and been helped out with alliances, right? What silly points.
Click to expand...




If you had read you would have seen it affects us along a continuum. Not a binary solution. The only one offering a binary solution is Mr. Trump. If I lead with a way it is because it is exactly what happened in the 1930's. Japan's basic problems related to its geography has not changed, they are what will drive their military policy.

To put it in a nutshell Japan has to have access to markets and raw materials. They need open sea lanes for this. As an island they must be able to control the waters directly around their island. If they cannot then they are open to invasion and blockade.
China also needs these open sea lanes and needs to control the waters around it or it too is open to blockade.

Both nations do not trust each other and both have competing claims to islands in the area.this is what wars are made of. Note not world war 3 as you inaccurately hyperbolized

These are real strategic analysis and can be checked with a most cursory reading of defense policy and history.
 
So the thing that keeps the peace? The USN, and defence treaties. So you tell me what is it worth to keep two of the world's largest economies and two of our largest trading partners from fighting and fuc#ing up our trade and markets?
 
Everybody knows that I am a big time optimist. ;)

But last night's apocalyptic speech managed to raise even my eyebrows. Listening to Donald Trump, one would think that we are in Mad Max. Which is exactly what he wants, because the only type of problem a strongman is a solution to is anarchy. In a democracy, there is no place for him, the same way there is no place for Putin, Wilders and the rest of his authoritarian friends.

I understand that this resonates with his uneducated angry white voters. But, in my experience, this type of leadership is bad news for any country. The last one who used the stupid law and order line in this country (which in my native one tends to be used mostly by extreme right politicians) was Nixon, and we have all seen the positive effects in the black community, and not only.

There are very few things worse for a democracy than a strongman, see Erdogan. Clinton's and Washington's cronyism pale when compared to the Brainwashington and autocracy Trump represents. He's bringing out the worst in the Republican Party, the fringe elements. This is not conservatism, this is intolerance and hate. If that's what your conscience tells you your values are...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
FFP said:
There are very few things worse for a democracy than a strongman, see Erdogan. Clinton's and Washington's cronyism pale when compared to the Brainwashington and autocracy Trump represents. He's bringing out the worst in the Republican Party, the fringe elements. This is not conservatism, this is intolerance and hate. If that's what your conscience tells you your values are...
Click to expand...

It's funny, you think it's "strongman" when he wants to enforce the law.

The American people are fed up with the lawlessness in this country.

Obama took a dump on the US Constitution and the laws.

We've had enough of it.

The British had enough as well, and they voted to leave the EU.

What strongman are you going to blame for the Brexit? Nigel Farage? :laugh:

You're comparing Erdogan with Trump, despite Trump not being an Islamist. What religious totalitarian regime are you accusing Trump of heralding?

The amount of vitriolic hate you display for the American people is outrageous.
 
Oh, God, I looked at the ignored person's post. "Vitriolic hate"? That sounds more like you. I am not the one suffering from authoritarian personality. ;)

The mistake I usually make is to hold the American people to a higher standard than Europe, so I expect us not to repeat either our own or other peoples' mistakes.

P.S. For the record, I was not suggesting that Donald Trump is a Muslim fundamentalist, like Erdogan. I was just showing what strongmen do to democracies. They are bad news; remember Nixon, remember Hoover.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Members don't see this ad :)
FFP said:
And the RNC probably stacked the deck against Trump. :yawn:

Both of them should have been independent candidates, if they were correct.
Click to expand...

I would not dismiss this. It is unethical.
 
Ignatius J said:
I would not dismiss this. It is unethical.
Click to expand...
In my book, it's as unethical to play the independent card for decades, and then suddenly to have an epiphany that one is a Democrat or a Republican, just because it suits his interests. Especially since you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
In my book, it's as unethical to play the independent card for decades, and then suddenly to have an epiphany that one is a Democrat or a Republican, just because it suits his interests. Especially since you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Click to expand...

Another false narrative. He didn't have an epiphany. He has leaned Republican since 2008, with increasing donations to Republican candidates and records show that.

Yes, I think the DNC stacking the deck against Bernie and colluding with reporters before interviewing GOP candidates is downright a betrayal of public trust and completely unethical yet am surprised that a lot of Hillary leaners will shrug it off. They have gotten good at shrugging off corruption. We know this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ignatius J said:
Another false narrative. He didn't have an epiphany. He has leaned Republican since 2008, with increasing donations to Republican candidates and records show that.

Yes, I think the DNC stacking the deck against Bernie and colluding with reporters before interviewing GOP candidates is downright a betrayal of public trust and completely unethical yet am surprised that a lot of Hillary leaners will shrug it off. They have gotten good at shrugging off corruption. We know this.
Click to expand...
Bernie did everything to avoid being identified as a Democrat until this campaign. And Trump was a Democrat as recently as 2004, just to join the Republican Party in 2009. And if you want corruption, just look up certain donations to a certain attorney general so that she would "forget" about the "university". I am sure there were many more, for various other stuff, better disguised under various non-profits.

I am more accepting of moral imperfections because I am older, and more experienced, and my perceptive dynamic range is much higher than when I was a tweenager. All these guys are dirty, just the degree varies. One cannot be that successful in life without making some compromises; the older and more successful, the more compromises in the past. Real "mensch" (to use a great Yiddish term) are very rare, and generally not successful at politics or sales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
Bernie did everything to avoid being identified as a Democrat until this campaign. And Trump was a Democrat as recently as 2004, just to join the Republican Party in 2009. And if you want corruption, just look up certain donations to a certain attorney general so that she would "forget" about the "university". I am sure there were many more, for various other stuff, better disguised under various non-profits.

I am more accepting of moral imperfections because I am older, and more experienced, and my perceptive dynamic range is much higher than when I was a tweenager. All these guys are dirty, just the degree varies. One cannot be that successful in life without making some compromises; the older and more successful, the more compromises in the past. Real "mensch" (to use a great Yiddish term) are very rare, and generally not successful at politics or sales. So I tend to go with the lesser of the evils.
Click to expand...

Considering Hillary could have an encyclopedia dedicated her to corruption, you have a funny interpretation of "lesser of two evils".

I love the "I can look past utter and total collusion and corruption" take though.
 
You don't get me.

I can't vote with Donald Trump just because I can't stand his moral values and personality. I have seen many people like him in history. Politically, I am way more experienced than the average American voter, because I and my family have lived under authoritarian governments and various regimes. I am not easily fooled by promises; I look at the entire package and team, and past performance, like a value investor. For him, this is just a challenge, a game of Survivor, another thing to brag about. He reminds me of bad people, not of statesmen.

I don't like HRC much more, but for different reasons. It's just the lesser of two evils, by far, for now. The more I watch Donald Trump, the fewer doubts I have that I am right about the kind of person he is. Years ago, I used to watch The Apprentice big time, until I realized it was all about Donald Trump's ego. I am not giving the Presidency to this kind of person, regardless of his promises; he's a pathological liar, he's narcissistic, and he's an arrogant bully. I don't like his family either, or how involved they are. I don't like dynasties, and this one will be way bigger than the Clintons.

And if Donald Trump loses the elections, it will be because of white Republicans and independents who think like me, not because of the left.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
FFP said:
You don't get me.

I can't vote with Donald Trump just because I can't stand his moral values and personality. I have seen many people like him in history. Politically, I am way more experienced than the average American voter, because I and my family have lived under authoritarian governments and various regimes. I am not easily fooled by promises; I look at the entire package and team, and past performance, like a value investor. For him, this is just a challenge, a game of Survivor, another thing to brag about. He reminds me of bad people, not of statesmen.

I don't like HRC much more, but for different reasons. It's just the lesser of two evils, by far, for now. The more I watch Donald Trump, the fewer doubts I have that I am right about the kind of person he is. Years ago, I used to watch The Apprentice big time, until I realized it was all about Donald Trump's ego. I am not giving the Presidency to this kind of person, regardless of his promises; he's a pathological liar, he's narcissistic and he's arrogant. I don't like his family either, or how involved they are. I don't like dynasties, and this one will be way bigger than the Clintons.

And if Donald Trump loses the elections, it will be because of white Republicans and independents who think like me, not because of the left.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you just aren't a good judge of character, or really, pick and choose whose character you judge more harshly?
 
Ignatius J said:
Perhaps you just aren't a good judge of character, or really, pick and choose whose character you judge more harshly?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Or perhaps I have lived enough winters by now to figure out whose character I am more likely to misjudge. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This will get good. Wikileaks is killing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Clinton has her baggage, and plenty of it. But lets not pretend that Trump's record is clean. He has plenty of skeletons in his closet:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

My feelings are pretty much summed up by this quote from Jamie Weinstein:
"In a White House race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I'd prefer Clinton, just as I'd prefer Malaria to Ebola."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
ProfMD said:
A strange response from someone touting his business acumen as a virtue. A lot of these are related to shady business dealings.
Click to expand...

The Atlantic clearly glossed over their accounts of Clinton's skeletons. They also didn't discuss he plethora of untimely deaths surrounding people who were close to Clinton scandal. Sure, a lot could be speculation, but they don't afford Trump the same allowances as they do Clinton.

In my eyes, Clinton is the Marburg virus and Trump is Ebola.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
_atlas said:
May want to use a website that doesn't doesn't have a conservative/biased agenda to fact check.

http://politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

You can also check Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
DT: Mostly false 16%, False 38% , Pants on fire 18% = 72% lies.
HC: Mostly false 15%, False 11%, Pants on fire 1% = 27% lies.

As expected. Marburg vs Ebola? Suuuure. And they are so biased, they even got a Pulitzer for it. Which proves that the Pulitzer people are biased.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
DT: Mostly false 16%, False 38% , Pants on fire 18% = 72% lies.
HC: Mostly false 15%, False 11%, Pants on fire 1% = 27% lies.

As expected. Marburg vs Ebola? Suuuure. And they are so biased, they even got a Pulitzer for it. Which proves that the Pulitzer people are biased.
Click to expand...

Pulitzers were created by the mainstream LIEberal media
 
FFP said:
DT: Mostly false 16%, False 38% , Pants on fire 18% = 72% lies.
HC: Mostly false 15%, False 11%, Pants on fire 1% = 27% lies.

As expected. Marburg vs Ebola? Suuuure. And they are so biased, they even got a Pulitzer for it.
Click to expand...

She's full of it. No self-respecting libertarian would place her in a league over trump. Awards don't impress me. Obama just killed a bunch of innocent Syrians and has gotten a Nobel Peace Prize. Between R and D this go around, you're bleeding from your eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Random Resident said:
She's full of it. No self-respecting libertarian would place her in a league over trump. Awards don't impress me. Obama just killed a bunch of innocent Syrians and has gotten a Nobel Peace Prize. Between R and D this go around, you're bleeding from your eyes.
Click to expand...
So do tell me my bias:

I pay for a Time, an Atlantic, and a Reason magazine subscription (the latter being my favorite). I also read Fortune, and used to read Forbes. My favorite newspaper is the WSJ (when available); I don't like the NYT. I tend to watch PBS Newshour or Fox News (whichever is available). I like Shepard Smith and Anderson Cooper, and can't stand Hannity, O'Reilly or CNN. Online, I tend to read Vox and Google News. Can't stand tabloids or sensationalist reporting.

Blood coming out of my eyes, blood coming out of my... whatever. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP said:
So do tell me my bias:

I pay for a Time, an Atlantic, and a Reason magazine subscription (the latter being my favorite). I also read Fortune, and used to read Forbes. My favorite newspaper is the WSJ; I don't like the NYT. I tend to watch PBS Newshour or Fox News (whichever is available). I like Shepard Smith and Anderson Cooper, and can't stand Hannity, O'Reilly or CNN.

Blood coming out of my eyes, blood coming out of my... whatever. :p
Click to expand...

We all have personal bias. But they're both just terrible on so many levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Random Resident said:
She's full of it. No self-respecting libertarian would place her in a league over trump. Awards don't impress me. Obama just killed a bunch of innocent Syrians and has gotten a Nobel Peace Prize. Between R and D this go around, you're bleeding from your eyes.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, Obama got his Nobel Peace Price before he did anything. I doubt they'll give him another one at the next award ceremony. :)


Going to waste my vote on Gary Johnson and hope for 4 years of gridlock.

I've accepted that the makeup of the Court will shift further left with Hillary's election. It's all bad news for the 2nd Amendment (time to stock up on reloading components before the post-election panic!), but probably good news on other issues I care about. Life will go on, the Republic will survive her.

I might just give in, emotionally detach, and enjoy the spectacle of the impending Trump campaign and humiliating defeat for its entertainment value. That guy is such a turd. I don't know if he's going to have an epic meltdown when he loses, or spin his loss as a win the way he's spun all of his business bankruptcies as wins.

I'm a little worried that that wanker Cruz started his 2020 campaign at the Republican Convention. Dude, the party picked Trump over you. Go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
_atlas said:
May want to use a website that doesn't doesn't have a conservative/biased agenda to fact check.

http://politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

You can also check Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

What about CNN? MSNBC? New York Times? Washington Post? USA Today? Politico? Twitter? Facebook?

Oh, that's right. The media has completely stacked the deck there.

Funny you say this on a days when emails are leaked in which the DNC requested MSNBC to take content down and conspired with other journalists to develop questions to ask GOP interviewees ? That's funny.

Btw, Wikileaks is a reflection of the media that we talk about.
 
Honest question for the trump supporters: we all know the border wall WILL NOT be built. No way. It's simply an astoundingly expensive and unrealistic project.

Just as it is impossible to ban an entire religion from entering the US.

So what will you think about your God emperor when literally the only 2 tangible promises he makes turn out to be dead on arrival?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ignatius J said:
What about CNN? MSNBC? New York Times? Washington Post? USA Today? Politico? Twitter? Facebook?

Oh, that's right. The media has completely stacked the deck there.

Funny you say this on a days when emails are leaked in which the DNC requested MSNBC to take content down and conspired with other journalists to develop questions to ask GOP interviewees ? That's funny.

Btw, Wikileaks is a reflection of the media that we talk about.
Click to expand...

Yes, every media outlet has their own agenda, and it seems that they narrowcast Trump in order to get more viewers.

This new email dump from the DNC just goes to show how stacked the odds were against Bernie Sanders from the start, and how determined they were to get Clinton to the nomination. I will put it out there that I do not like Hillary Clinton, however, she is the lesser of two evils when put against Donald Trump in many regards.

Would like to hear a Trump supporter justify Donald Trump saying that the United States would not protect the Baltic states if NATO does not comply to conditions set forth [FOR DISCUSSION]
 
No_Pain said:
Honest question for the trump supporters: we all know the border wall WILL NOT be built. No way. It's simply an astoundingly expensive and unrealistic project.

Just as it is impossible to ban an entire religion from entering the US.

So what will you think about your God emperor when literally the only 2 tangible promises he makes turn out to be dead on arrival?
Click to expand...

Can land on moon, can't build a wall?

Seriously? It's 2016.

And he wants to halt immigration from terrorist countries, not all from a specific religion.
 
_atlas said:
Yes, every media outlet has their own agenda, and it seems that they narrowcast Trump in order to get more viewers.

This new email dump from the DNC just goes to show how stacked the odds were against Bernie Sanders from the start, and how determined they were to get Clinton to the nomination. I will put it out there that I do not like Hillary Clinton, however, she is the lesser of two evils when put against Donald Trump in many regards.

Would like to hear a Trump supporter justify Donald Trump saying that the United States would not protect the Baltic states if NATO does not comply to conditions set forth [FOR DISCUSSION]
Click to expand...

That's easy. Our NATO allies continue to fail to hold up their end of the bargain in defense spending. A lot of them flat out don't care and are content getting the free ride. So yes, it absolutely needs to be reiterated, reemphasized, and possibly restructured.

And let's face it, NATO is still pretty damn weak as a collective unit. Putin went into Ukraine at will and NATO didn't so much as bat an eyelash.
 
Last edited:
pgg said:
I might just give in, emotionally detach, and enjoy the spectacle of the impending Trump campaign and humiliating defeat for its entertainment value. That guy is such a turd. I don't know if he's going to have an epic meltdown when he loses, or spin his loss as a win the way he's spun all of his business bankruptcies as wins.
Click to expand...
He's a pure media ***** narcissist, and he's addicted to attention. Like any addiction, the need doesn't disappear quickly, and from his Mussollini-esque speech it's clear he's got it bad.

If he loses, we'll be seeing him for months pushing some kind of controversy to get attention. Maybe he'll sue the country, RBG, or Ted Cruz. It'll be something.

BTW, his advisors know that both violent AND property crime have fallen under Obama. The "lawlessness" and disintegration of society they painted in his speech are just substitutes for diversification. How could things possibly be getting better when we're getting browner?!

I can't stand conspiracy theories and I think people are far more ignorant than they are racist. But I strongly believe this campaign is relying on lies requiring xenophobia and ethnic hatred to believe. I absolutely don't think all the people voting for him are racist, but ignoring the prejudices in his campaign out of hatred for his opponent is not entirely excusable in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Pooh & Annie said:
He's a pure media ***** narcissist, and he's addicted to attention. Like any addiction, the need doesn't disappear quickly, and from his Mussollini-esque speech it's clear he's got it bad.
Click to expand...

 
Pooh & Annie said:
He's a pure media ***** narcissist, and he's addicted to attention. Like any addiction, the need doesn't disappear quickly, and from his Mussollini-esque speech it's clear he's got it bad.

If he loses, we'll be seeing him for months pushing some kind of controversy to get attention. Maybe he'll sue the country, RBG, or Ted Cruz. It'll be something.

BTW, his advisors know that both violent AND property crime have fallen under Obama. The "lawlessness" and disintegration of society they painted in his speech are just substitutes for diversification. How could things possibly be getting better when we're getting browner?!

I can't stand conspiracy theories and I think people are far more ignorant than they are racist. But I strongly believe this campaign is relying on lies requiring xenophobia and ethnic hatred to believe. I absolutely don't think all the people voting for him are racist, but ignoring the prejudices in his campaign out of hatred for his opponent is not entirely excusable in my book.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-increased-last-year/?utm_term=.3c1a5a0cc2aa
 
Ignatius J said:
That's easy. Our NATO allies continue to fail to hold up their end of the bargain in defense spending. A lot of them flat out don't care and are content getting the free ride. So yes, it absolutely needs to be reiterated, reemphasized, and possibly restructured.

And let's face it, NATO is still pretty damn weak as a collective unit. Putin went into Ukraine at will and NATO didn't so much as bat an eyelash. So I would argue that the Baltic States right now are probably are only protected right now in name only.
Click to expand...
NATO as a unit would be f*cking ridiculously powerful if it decided to act. And extrapolating it's response to the Ukraine to NATO countries like the Baltics that actually have American/NATO forces and hardware? Think however you want but that's not a great comparison.
 
Ignatius J said:
That's easy. Our NATO allies continue to fail to hold up their end of the bargain in defense spending. A lot of them flat out don't care and are content getting the free ride. So yes, it absolutely needs to be reiterated, reemphasized, and possibly restructured.

And let's face it, NATO is still pretty damn weak as a collective unit. Putin went into Ukraine at will and NATO didn't so much as bat an eyelash.
Click to expand...



Perhaps you should educate yourself. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, hence the lack of action.
 
deepstate2016 said:
Perhaps you should educate yourself. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, hence the lack of action.
Click to expand...

It's OK. He hasn't read anything on the topic, but his advisers tell him that he knows much more about it than the so-called "experts."

Honestly, I think Trump bragging about his lack of knowledge was the final straw. I can respect people I don't agree with if they understand the issue and have just come to a different conclusion based on the information available.

#FeelTheJohnson
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

nimbus
Cedars Union Vote
Replies
39
Views
3K
anbuitachi
A
P
Voting rights in your dept.
Replies
22
Views
3K
Bertelman
Bertelman
BLADEMDA
President Bernie Sanders
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
919
Views
44K
Consigliere
Consigliere
TeslaCoil
Jerome Adams Fired on Day One of Biden Presidency
Replies
12
Views
3K
GassYous
GassYous
O
Bernie Sanders announces he is running for President
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
333
Views
15K
XWing5000
XWing5000
Top