[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back to talking about Muslims, but when will anybody acknowledge the fact that Clinton is far more anti-muslim than Trump is made out to be? I mean this woman have not only threaten to bomb more Muslim countries but have supported the bombings of many.

Trump was in support of the Iraq II war and in support (very much) of war on Libya... which are the others?

Using your peculiar "going to war on a country means you're anti-their-religion" logic means that Reagan was anti-Christian, incidentally. Jus' so you know.

Let's forget her support for Israel.

Okay. Probably the wrong thread anyway.
 
Trump was in support of the Iraq II war and in support (very much) of war on Libya... which are the others?

First off I'm no Trump apologists. Secondly saying you support something and acting on it by voting for it is a whole different thing. In the case of case of Trump he might've voice support for it but he didn't vote for whereas Clinton did both.

And yes bombing Muslim countries, supporting dictators that have been hostile towards Islam and supporting a country that treats Muslims with destain pretty much cements Clinton's anti-muslim credentials.
 
In the case of case of Trump he might've voice support for it but he didn't vote for whereas Clinton did both.

Did Trump have the opportunity to vote or are you presenting an impossible scenario? Given his support.. that lends likelihood to the belief that if he could have voted in favour then he would have.

And yes bombing Muslim countries, supporting dictators that have been hostile towards Islam and supporting a country that treats Muslims with destain pretty much cements Clinton's anti-muslim credentials.

So Reagan was anti-Christian? Wow.
 
In the Florida House race where Little miss Debbie Wasserman Schultz is up for re-election, Tim Canova, her primary opponent, has now filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that Schultz used DNC resources (when she was DNC chair) to target his campaign. His evidence stems from the emails of the DNC that Wikileaks put out a few weeks ago that led to Schultz's resignation at the convention.

According to Canova's own numbers, Schultz is leading by 8 points, well outside any perceivable margin of error, and things are not looking too good for the man either. Schultz still holds a 52% favorable rating in the district and nearly 60% of people in the district have no opinion on Canova or has never heard of him.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/wasserman-schultz-primary-challenger-filing-fec-complaint/
 
Last edited:
What kind of job gives raises in fixed currency amounts rather than in percentages? I've never heard of one, definitely never had one.
Try plenty, mainly the ones that typically hire first-time job folks; department stores, grocery stores, etc.
I worked at a number of restaurants that did their raise's in increments of $0.25.
They did a review every quarter, so I could get anywhere from $0.25-$1.00 per year.
One of my co-workers didn't receive a single raise the entire 2 1/2 years she worked there.
She quit after I became a supervisor.
My point is that you control how much you make and you control your chances of moving up the chain.
She didn't put effort in to her work. I didn't want to be a porter for the rest of my life.
I wish I had that same luck when I was rewarded with a .46 cent raise in my third year with a major retailer after learning how to run an entire department by myself and becoming eligible for a team lead position that would give me an extra $2/hour. I left a year later after finally landing a more desirable job, and a coworker of mine left shortly after me when he was propositioned with the same "promotion"; more responsibilities, little incentive. This is a major retailer that would "reward" its long standing employees with 40 hour schedules and then slash them to 20-25 hours halfway into the week because it couldn't afford those wages whilst trying to stay within' a set budget each week. A couple years after I left, I considered accepting a offer from them to return to my previous department as an actual manager until I saw it would still pay less than my current salary and require a lot more than the max 40 hours allowed (meaning lots of unpaid overtime that I saw my original manager there go through just to keep the department out of the red).

I learned from this place that these types of jobs become great for youngsters because they're not working to earn any sort of living, and the employee benefits aren't anything they can really appreciate. As they get older and more into an actual corporate world, they'll understand those jobs don't care about their high turn over rates or low wages, that they're somewhat used to a degree and if they truly want any sort of meaningful position, they have to endure a few years of crap raises and outlast their peers.
 
Last edited:
Screen_Hunter_34_Aug_03_21_01.jpg
 
There is 50 people, the people on the stands are literally party members that every politician uses to make it look like there is lots of supporters.
 
I would say Shawn Lucas death would be alot more suspicious towards the Clintons then the Seth Rich Murder given we know what he did up to his death that was against the Clintons.
 
Looks like Evan McMullin, an Independent conservative, has thrown his hat into the ring over the Never Trump movement.

Source

It's a long shot of course, but I think there are enough Republicans that don't like Trump that a second GOP-backed candidate would get some pretty decent support. Sounds like Mitt Romney and friends are supporting his bid too, which should help.

So as it stands now, we have Trump, Clinton, Johnson, Stein, and now McMullin, with Johnson and Stein gaining more and more supporters everyday. It's going to be really interesting if for whatever reason no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, which given the number of players that are getting involved could happen. I suspect it would come down to Trump, Clinton, and Johnson in that case, but who the House would side with is anyone's guess.
 
It's a long shot of course, but I think there are enough Republicans that don't like Trump that a second GOP-backed candidate would get some pretty decent support. Sounds like Mitt Romney and friends are supporting his bid too, which should help.
The danger is that the Never Trump movement won't gain enough momentum to stand out as a viable candidate, dividing the Republican vote and handing Clinton an even bigger victory than if the GOP had been united.

That said, anyone would be better than Trump. Anyone who talks about using nuclear weapons in such a casual, laissez-faire way shouldn't be President.
 
The danger is that the Never Trump movement won't gain enough momentum to stand out as a viable candidate, dividing the Republican vote and handing Clinton an even bigger victory than if the GOP had been united.

That said, anyone would be better than Trump. Anyone who talks about using nuclear weapons in such a casual, laissez-faire way shouldn't be President.
You should understand that nothing Trump says should be taken at face value. It's all a negotiation tactic. I don't believe for one second he would use nuclear weapons any more than any other president has. All his current advisors and academic backers believe this, I think.
 
You should understand that nothing Trump says should be taken at face value. It's all a negotiation tactic. I don't believe for one second he would use nuclear weapons any more than any other president has. All his current advisors and academic backers believe this, I think.
Which makes this even more dangerous, what is honestly stopping him from doing everything in his power(that the constitution allows aka executive order) from being like Erdogan?
 
Which makes this even more dangerous, what is honestly stopping him from doing everything in his power(that the constitution allows aka executive order) from being like Erdogan?
The Congress, the Court, and ultimately the People. I've always thought we've given our presidents too much leeway to act badly.
 
The Congress, the Court, and ultimately the People. I've always thought we've given our presidents too much leeway to act badly.
Given that Bill clinton was allowed to do this, means there is a precedent for a possibility you really don't want to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back