[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[prisonermonkeys]

I guess that justifies Clinton's record of unfaithfulness completely then. Glad we cleared that up.

I am still baffled as to how Bill's record of infidelity has anything to do with Hillary's ability to run the country. Unless you're like @DR_SID and think that utter misogyny is the order of the day.

If you're anywhere close to minimum wage you can't afford a home purchase so A isn't an option for me.

So you would prefer Option B, then, where private institutions are free to charge whatever interest rate they like?

The example that I gave was, admittedly, a simplification, but I was not trying to prove a point about econonics; rather, I was trying to demonstrate that socialism, communism and liberalism are not the same thing as DR_SID claimed them to be.

However, I did draw on the banking analogy for a very particular reason: in the 1940s, we had a Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, who introduced wide-ranging reforms, including the forerunner to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (which makes prescription medication very affordable). What caught him out was his attempt to nationalise the banking system. He knew that our pre- and post-war economies would be radically different, and was concerned that a system of decentralised, privately-owned banks would make loans unaffordable to most people. The conservative opposition under Robert Menzies successfully argued that because Chifley was a socialist, he was therefore a communist, and created enough fear of that that they spent the next two decades in power.

Ironically enough, Menzies' greatest legacy was getting us involved in Vietnam (and misleading the public to do it), whereas Chifley's legacy and the legacy of Gough Whitlam (who succeeded Menzies) is one of successful widespread social reform that shaped the modern face of the country. Hardly the socialist vampires DR_SID would have us believe they are.

 

[Danoff]

Nah, it was more about how the Lewinsky scandal still being used for political points-scoring by some conservatives.

To be fair, there is a point to be scored there. It was perjury in a sexual harassment case.

 

[DR_SID]

The liberal militias and the this whole sjw movement are going to have a meltdown if Trump pulls this off.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I really don't think we need to be sharing anything in here with the word "libtard" in it.

Edit: Video removed it seems.

 

[Tornado]

I guess that justifies Clinton's record of unfaithfulness completely then. Glad we cleared that up.

Isn't the fact that his wife was Hilary Clinton justification enough?

 

[huskeR32]

liberal militias

 

[Johnnypenso]

I am still baffled as to how Bill's record of infidelity has anything to do with Hillary's ability to run the country. Unless you're like @DR_SID and think that utter misogyny is the order of the day.

If laughing at a meme makes me a misogynist I guess I'm a misogynist.

So you would prefer Option B, then, where private institutions are free to charge whatever interest rate they like?

If those are the only two options in the entire world, then yes, that's the option I'd choose.

Why does his record of unfaithfulness need to be justified? Did I miss where he's running for president?

Can't answer that, perhaps ask the guy who brought up the comparison with Newt and the Donald?

Isn't the fact that his wife was Hilary Clinton justification enough?

Oh, you utter misogynist you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Donald Trump, Jr. has posted a controversial Tweet, stating that the problem America faces with Syrian refugees is like having a bowl of Skittles where three of them are poisoned; he asks if you would take a handful of them if you knew that there was the potential for harm. Aside from the way he has grossly under-estimated the size of the bowl, the funny thing is that the man who took the original photo that Trump, Jr. was himself a refugee.

If those are the only two options in the entire world, then yes, that's the option I'd choose.

Well, you've done wonders for freedom. If your system allows privately-owned banks to charge whatever rate of interest they like, then most of the population will become a slave to the whims of the wealthy few. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that those banks will charge however much they can to maximise profits. Of course, they could choose to exercise another freedom by consciously removing themselves from this process - the freedom to starve. So congratulations: you just turned the American Dream into exactly that; a dream.

If you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he gave it to.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How is that wrong, wasn't this proven a few times in the horrible month of July this year. I mean call me a cynic but perhaps a better process of vetting would have been helpful. Though at this point I'm starting to see you twist and turn anything from the Trump camp, I mean it's fine I understand when @DK does it because it shows a reality of who Trump is (should really be apparent to anyone even half awake). However this, and the whole take guns away from the Secret Service protecting Clinton aren't really that bad, they're actual political talking points. Sure the language and analogies are quite crude, but its not like they're without merit or all that controversial compared to the Megyn Kelly stuff earlier in the year or the "maybe gun owners can stop her".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's a misrepresentation. It also assumes that since anyone might be guilty, all should be considered guilty. It's ironic that a country built on liberty should be so quick to quash the individual freedoms of the people who need those freedoms protected the most for the sake of a majority whose freedoms were never really under threat, and then call that upholding their values.

 

[DR_SID]

Isn't the fact that his wife was Hilary Clinton justification enough?

Let me guess Trudeau was the first choice.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's a misrepresentation. It also assumes that since anyone might be guilty, all should be considered guilty. It's ironic that a country built on liberty should be so quick to quash the individual freedoms of the people who need those freedoms protected the most for the sake of a majority whose freedoms were never really under threat, and then call that upholding their values.

Who is quashing anything, sure the Trump approach is quite the broad stroke and echoed by his kid but it isn't entirely in the wrong mind. And it's quite the knee jerk reaction to say "wait but the nation was founded on immigrants", yeah and it still is. What's changed is the world isn't as accepting as it once was, and people tend to ruin things that were once safe. Rather what's being asked by the sane individual is that of trying to assure before bringing out the colorful welcome banner. I mean it's a bit like allowing a room mate to move in with you and you never once questioned who they were and how they made their money and just general things to ensure this was a person you could trust, rather you said "You need a home? I have a home!". One can only blame themselves when they come home one day and see all their possessions gone for example or worse.

So why is it acceptable to just openly take in refugees because, of knee jerk emotional reaction? Why is it wrong to of people to say or stress a fear that some of these people don't have the best intentions?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is it wrong to of people to say or stress a fear that some of these people don't have the best intentions?

It's not wrong to say it. It's wrong to use it for political gain, or to misrepresent the issue for the sake of an agenda.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's not wrong to say it. It's wrong to use it for political gain, or to misrepresent the issue for the sake of an agenda.

What political gain, it's a political issue and talking point, it should be addressed and brought up. And as such asserts what Trump and his gathering believe. If you don't then that's fine, but let's not make it something it isn't.

I agree with you to the extent that I think the issues isn't so black and white. Surely not to the point where no people should be allowed, as Trump seems to suggest.

 

[DR_SID]

Isn't the fact that his wife was Hilary Clinton justification enough?

Bill must have been into the bbw thing back in the day. Hillary Clinton basically gave the go along with Hussein to kill over 1,000,000 civilians in Syria, the $400mil+ Iran got, Benghazi, seal team 6, the list goes on. We basically got a high energy orange and a tap dancing feminist going at it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What political gain, it's a political issue and talking point, it should be addressed and brought up.

Okay, have the conversation. The problem is that Trump's rhetoric is reducing that conversation down to "throw the borders wide open or build walls as high and thick as you can". There is no middle ground and anyone who tries to find it is immediately accused of being a bleeding-heart liberal because anything less than fortifying the borders is interpreted as putting the country in jeopardy.

The best solution would be to join with the Europeans and the Australians and do a deal with the Jordanians: in exchange for aid, establish a processing centre in or alongside the existing Jordanian refugee camps. That would create a temporary safe haven for refugees, allow you to process them and assess claims for asylum, and cut out people smuggling into Europe.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Okay, have the conversation. The problem is that Trump's rhetoric is reducing that conversation down to "throw the borders wide open or build walls as high and thick as you can". There is no middle ground and anyone who tries to find it is immediately accused of being a bleeding-heart liberal because anything less than fortifying the borders is interpreted as putting the country in jeopardy.

Did you read my posts or just the lines quoted?

The best solution would be to join with the Europeans and the Australians and do a deal with the Jordanians: in exchange for aid, establish a processing centre in or alongside the existing Jordanian refugee camps. That would create a temporary safe haven for refugees, allow you to process them and assess claims for asylum, and cut out people smuggling into Europe.

Yeah once again as I just asked...did you read my posts?

 

[mister dog]

Who is quashing anything, sure the Trump approach is quite the broad stroke and echoed by his kid but it isn't entirely in the wrong mind. And it's quite the knee jerk reaction to say "wait but the nation was founded on immigrants", yeah and it still is. What's changed is the world isn't as accepting as it once was, and people tend to ruin things that were once safe. Rather what's being asked by the sane individual is that of trying to assure before bringing out the colorful welcome banner. I mean it's a bit like allowing a room mate to move in with you and you never once questioned who they were and how they made their money and just general things to ensure this was a person you could trust, rather you said "You need a home? I have a home!". One can only blame themselves when they come home one day and see all their possessions gone for example or worse.

So why is it acceptable to just openly take in refugees because, of knee jerk emotional reaction? Why is it wrong to of people to say or stress a fear that some of these people don't have the best intentions?

 

[Danoff]

If your system allows privately-owned banks to charge whatever rate of interest they like, then most of the population will become a slave to the whims of the wealthy few. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that those banks will charge however much they can to maximise profits.

lol wut?

Uh... no. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics understands supply and demand. You can't just charge whatever you want and have people pay it because... competition? Supply!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well, you've done wonders for freedom. If your system allows privately-owned banks to charge whatever rate of interest they like, then most of the population will become a slave to the whims of the wealthy few. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that those banks will charge however much they can to maximise profits. Of course, they could choose to exercise another freedom by consciously removing themselves from this process - the freedom to starve. So congratulations: you just turned the American Dream into exactly that; a dream.

If you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he gave it to.

Congratulations. You failed economics 101 and your ignorance on the subject is on full display.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The best solution would be to join with the Europeans and the Australians and do a deal with the Jordanians: in exchange for aid, establish a processing centre in or alongside the existing Jordanian refugee camps. That would create a temporary safe haven for refugees, allow you to process them and assess claims for asylum, and cut out people smuggling into Europe.

Have you honestly gave more than five minutes thought as to why the Syrian migrants want to settle in Europe or in the US rather than any Arab country that is nearby like Saudi Arabia (for example)?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Saudi Arabia is nothing like Jordan. Regardless, the Jordanian King would be wise to stay away from such deals. European governments or even EU sanctioned deals are as trustworthy as Trump's University diplomas. Elections looming, weak leaderships, right wing nationalists on the rise everywhere, Europe is becoming unpredictable in international affairs.

 

[Biggles]

View attachment 587465 View attachment 587468 View attachment 587464

Who is quashing anything, sure the Trump approach is quite the broad stroke and echoed by his kid but it isn't entirely in the wrong mind. And it's quite the knee jerk reaction to say "wait but the nation was founded on immigrants", yeah and it still is. What's changed is the world isn't as accepting as it once was, and people tend to ruin things that were once safe. Rather what's being asked by the sane individual is that of trying to assure before bringing out the colorful welcome banner. I mean it's a bit like allowing a room mate to move in with you and you never once questioned who they were and how they made their money and just general things to ensure this was a person you could trust, rather you said "You need a home? I have a home!". One can only blame themselves when they come home one day and see all their possessions gone for example or worse.

So why is it acceptable to just openly take in refugees because, of knee jerk emotional reaction? Why is it wrong to of people to say or stress a fear that some of these people don't have the best intentions?

You do realize that xenophobia, nativism & hatred of "the other" has been a constant theme in US history? At one time it was the Irish who were vilified, "Red Indians", Chinese, Catholics, Jews, Italians, Japanese, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans ... in fact pretty much any identifiable minority ethnic, racial or religious group ... including, of course, most consistently , African- Americans. People wanted to keep them out because they were perceived as being liable to "ruin things that were once safe".

At the same time, the US has often been a beacon of hope to oppressed & poor people: the "huddled masses". It really depends on which vein of US tradition you want to aspire to ... Trump & his reptilian offspring Donald Jr. appeal to the worst.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Saudi Arabia is nothing like Jordan. Regardless, the Jordanian King would be wise to stay away from such deals. European governments or even EU sanctioned deals are as trustworthy as Trump's University diplomas. Elections looming, weak leaderships, right wing nationalists on the rise everywhere, Europe is becoming unpredictable in international affairs.

You're missing the point. The point is why should Europe and the US take in these refugees when the natural behavior of refugees in all of human history has been to go to the neighboring countries of the war zone. When Libya had their civil war, all the refugees had the sense to go to Egypt or any other surrounding countries, and not traverse a body of water just to escape a war zone. So what changed between Libya and Syria?

 

[DR_SID]

Bill at his peak.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Thought we were keeping this thread meme free?

 

[Neddo]

[QUOTE="Biggles, post: 11549494, member: 9778]

Trump & his reptilian offspring Donald Jr. appeal to the worst.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, isn't the Trump adored by conspiracy theorists?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

View attachment 587465 View attachment 587468 View attachment 587464

You do realize that xenophobia, nativism & hatred of "the other" has been a constant theme in US history? At one time it was the Irish who were vilified, "Red Indians", Chinese, Catholics, Jews, Italians, Japanese, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans ... in fact pretty much any identifiable minority ethnic, racial or religious group ... including, of course, most consistently , African- Americans. People wanted to keep them out because they were perceived as being liable to "ruin things that were once safe".

Yes all those races were quite volatile and frequently known to practice and adhere to cultural extremes that called for basically erasing themselves and others from existence in mass, for the simple (silly) notion of martyrdom and an instant beam up to heaven. I forgot forgive me.

At the same time, the US has often been a beacon of hope to oppressed & poor people: the "huddled masses". It really depends on which vein of US tradition you want to aspire to ... Trump & his reptilian offspring Donald Jr. appeal to the worst.

And if you and PM bothered to read my posts, you'd have actually seen as others have that I note how black and white and off base Donald Trump and groupies are. What I will not acknowledge and I stressed to PM which is a running issues he has, is that the topic is one of discussion despite who you like or dislike bringing it up, that's somewhat irrelevant. Once again if you read my posts, I believe there is a point to be made in being cautious and even fearful of openly allowing people to come due to some humanitarian zeal. Especially a group of people that are known to have bad seeds in the mix that would ruin the sanctity of trying to start new and free from oppression.

And the whole we got our nose in something that it didn't belong in, and thus a "catalyst" reason for us to be attacked, and cause we're bane of said region to certain types.

I agree with PM that one side would have you believe that if you talk about even helping one person gain freedom, you are a blind liberal looking for trouble. I agree with him that it's a stupid notion, but I also agree that it's equally silly to not see the other side of the problem.

[QUOTE="Biggles, post: 11549494, member: 9778]

Trump & his reptilian offspring Donald Jr. appeal to the worst.

Ok, isn't the Trump adored by conspiracy theorists?

@Biggles wasn't suggesting any conspiracy...he's simply saying that Trump and associates close to him are just as untrustworthy one person to the next, like a group of snakes or reptilians. No reason to expand it into something it's not.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No reason to expand it into something it's not.

It's a tactic that seems to have worked remarkably well for Trump to date.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's a tactic that seems to have worked remarkably well for Trump to date.

You seem like you have a chip on your shoulder