[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Prepare for 4 years of Trump being under a magnifying glass from the liberal side. Anything he says or does will be used to try and start a smear campaign. The media has tried to plant the idea in people's heads that he's an evil fascist that doesn't know what he's doing, and they are going to keep following up on that note i suppose.

They even had to write statements after the elections that they were going to try and be 'more objective' for gods sake, that's how bad it has become. It was so annoying for me to see that happening, every time you opened a mainstream newspaper it was about how bad Trump was, and Hillary was a saint. Blatantly ignoring all her scandals, the corruption of the Clinton foundation and her dangerous rhetoric vis a vis Russia (now that's WW3 if i ever see it).

Easily the same thing can be said for Obama's first 4 years. It seemed to dwindle greatly after that but it still happened. Conservatives dissected every moment. Both sides of the argument that have a single allegiance are a joke to me so...

They clearly care about being right about the "direction of the nation" and less about the function of government in general. I really don't care if it's a conservative or liberal or space monster, so long as the government is functioning well and improving life overall for its citizens then that's fine. Until that happens neither side really has the right to argue their brand since both brands are laughable in the exercise of government.

 

[mister dog]

I guess that criticism of Obama during his first term was mostly reflected in the states. In the world press i have the impression that they were pretty much always positive about him from the time that he took office in 2008. Of course someone can now look for any critical article that was ever written to try and disprove that claim, but to me he was always portrayed as the 'cool/ popular' president in Europe.

With Trump however the media here also followed the mainstream press in the US, pretty much demonizing him all the time and there wasn't much negative press about Hillary. So to summarize the point that i'm trying to make; the smear campaign against Trump in the run up to this election has already outgrown the one Obama ever had to put up with during 8 years in office.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I guess that criticism of Obama during his first term was mostly reflected in the states. In the world press i have the impression that they were pretty much always positive about him from the time that he took office in 2008. Of course someone can now look for any critical article that was ever written to try and disprove that claim, but to me he was always portrayed as the 'cool/ popular' president in Europe.

With Trump however the media here also followed the mainstream press in the US, pretty much demonizing him all the time and there wasn't much negative press about Hillary. So to summarize the point that i'm trying to make; the smear campaign against Trump in the run up to this election has already outgrown the one Obama ever had to put up with during 8 years in office.

It helps when your voter crowd came out in major force that hadn't been seen in some time before or after (even to vote for him second term he'd lost a good number). As well as being the first black President of the U.S.. I'd also say Obama's demeanor was a great way to win people over, he seemed relaxed but serious when he needed to be. Here in the states the attitude always seems to be the division of conservative vs liberal with both groups coming out of the wood work to prove each other wrong.

 

[mister dog]

Yeah i agree Obama as a person was a great guy, just a shame his decisions and policies weren't always the best, which you start realizing the minute you look over that aura and delve deeper into what he actually accomplished.

But that can be said about any president. Trump has a way bigger challenge on his hand to win the nation over, especially with all the liberal tantrums out there.

 

[Scaff]

What was said about another country? Now your just making things up.

I could care less what another country thinks or says about US only what they actually do.

Re read it, I didn't say that you said anything about another country. I simply stated the hope that you would extend the exact same standard to other countries.

As such, no I'm not making things up.

I don't even know what that means.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Edit: Any god you choose. I believe in none. That doesn't mean though others cant display their belief.

Thank you. Now what leads you to believe that anyone has limited religious freedom in the US?

 

[fatkrakr]

It's not a black and white situation, but your opinion on the US and it's right to say what it likes about other countries is duly noted.

That's what you said and as you told me, You don't have the right to tell me my opinion. Don't do it again.

 

[Scaff]

That's what you said and as you told me, You don't have the right to tell me my opinion. Don't do it again.

And?

At no point in the quote you have just used did I tell you what your opinion should be!

I said your view was noted by me (as in I now understand what your position is) , that's got nothing at all to do with telling someone what opinion they should hold.

In fact it's the exact opposite.

 

[fatkrakr]

And?

At no point in the quote you have just made did I tell you what you opinion should be!

I said you view was noted by me (as in I now understand what your position is) , that's got nothing at all to do with telling someone what opinion they should hold.

In fact it's the exact opposite.

You said my opinion is, yet I never said anything you are claiming I said nor did anyone from our government. You are putting words in my mouth and the mouth of our country. Making stuff up trying to support your argument. (Strawman?)

 

[Famine]

This:

your opinion on the US and it's right to say what it likes about other countries is duly noted.

says that the opinion you expressed has been noted. It doesn't say what that opinion was, merely that it was on the topic of the USA's right to say what it likes about other countries. It certainly doesn't invent an opinion that you didn't express.

Here was the opinion on that topic that was noted:

In no way should the USA allow any foreign government dictate to whom we do and don't talk to.

So can we move past this part now and get back to whatever it was you were discussing?

 

[fatkrakr]

This:
says that the opinion you expressed has been noted. It doesn't say what that opinion was, merely that it was on the topic of the USA's right to say what it likes about other countries. It certainly doesn't invent an opinion that you didn't express.

Here was the opinion on that topic that was noted:

So can we move past this part now and get back to whatever it was you were discussing?

Where did I say the US has the right to say what they like about another country? I didn't. He clearly made that up to support his argument and say its my opinion when I never said such a thing.

 

[Famine]

Where did I say the US has the right to say what they like about another country? I didn't. He clearly made that up to support his argument and say its my opinion when I never said such a thing.

This is an opinion ON the USA and its right to say what it likes about other countries (which is what @Scaff said):

In no way should the USA allow any foreign government dictate to whom we do and don't talk to.

Not an opinion THAT that US has the right to say what it likes about other countries, which is what you're claiming @Scaff said and are (ironically) complaining about words being put in your mouth.

So can we move past this part now and get back to whatever it was you were discussing?

It was, let's face it, pretty dull when it was on topic, but the last page of you complaining someone else is changing your words by changing their words is excruciatingly tedious.

My line above looks like a question, but isn't.

 

[BobK]

Easily the same thing can be said for Obama's first 4 years. It seemed to dwindle greatly after that but it still happened. Conservatives dissected every moment.

I completely agree that the far right conservatives dissected every moment, not so much more centrist but still on the right. Certainly the mainstream media didn't with the sometimes exception of Fox. Furthermore, anyone who disagreed with anything Obama did was branded a racist.

I really don't care if it's a conservative or liberal or space monster, so long as the government is functioning well and improving life overall for its citizens then that's fine. Until that happens neither side really has the right to argue their brand since both brands are laughable in the exercise of government.

This I fully agree with. 👍

Prepare for 4 years of Trump being under a magnifying glass from the liberal side. Anything he says or does will be used to try and start a smear campaign. The media has tried to plant the idea in people's heads that he's an evil fascist that doesn't know what he's doing, and they are going to keep following up on that note i suppose.

They even had to write statements after the elections that they were going to try and be 'more objective' for gods sake, that's how bad it has become. It was so annoying for me to see that happening, every time you opened a mainstream newspaper it was about how bad Trump was, and Hillary was a saint. Blatantly ignoring all her scandals, the corruption of the Clinton foundation and her dangerous rhetoric vis a vis Russia (now that's WW3 if i ever see it).

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Tornado]

I know which country I would put my money on getting rid of its leader first in that scenario.

I suspect if China intentionally acted to damage the US financial market in response to anything Trump did in the next four years, Trump would coast into a second term.

 

[Scaff]

I suspect if China intentionally acted to damage the US financial market in response to anything Trump did in the next four years, Trump would coast into a second term.

I'm not quite so sure, but the point is that a two term limit applies in the US, the same is not true in China.

 

[Johnnypenso]

High.

China has nothing to fear from it people in comparison to the US. The POTUS is around for eight years max and is elected by the people. China doesn't play by those rules at all and has a historic track record of being quite willing to let it's people suffer to further it's political aims ( I don't see any evidence of US policy letting 15 to 45 million people starve to death).

China could also dump the 1.3 trillion dollars it has in US bonds and cripple the US markets, now while the US could retaliate in a similar (but lower amount) manner, I know which country I would put my money on getting rid of its leader first in that scenario.

Let them. The Chinese sold off $150Billion in U.S. Treasuries last year, $250Billion in the last couple of years and the markets didn't even blink. The Chinese are struggling for cash, burning through foreign currency at a horrific rate, struggling to stem the tide of capital flight among other things. If they sell off their American bonds the world will likely react by thinking there might be some deflationairy pressure and turn to safe and secure investments...like U.S. Treasury Bonds. For sure, they won't be turning to China to place their money. It'll also create a lot of anti-Chinese sentiment which won't bode well for their future either. Trump would be a shoe-in for a second term if that's the case.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'd be more worried about Chinese military might/expansion than economy some of your are talking about.

 

[Scaff]

Let them. The Chinese sold off $150Billion in U.S. Treasuries last year, $250Billion in the last couple of years and the markets didn't even blink. The Chinese are struggling for cash, burning through foreign currency at a horrific rate, struggling to stem the tide of capital flight among other things. If they sell off their American bonds the world will likely react by thinking there might be some deflationairy pressure and turn to safe and secure investments...like U.S. Treasury Bonds. For sure, they won't be turning to China to place their money. It'll also create a lot of anti-Chinese sentiment which won't bode well for their future either. Trump would be a shoe-in for a second term if that's the case.

Selling a fraction of US bonds while also selling off other bonds is not the same as dumping all the US bonds they have in one lump. The simple fact is that the result of doing it is unknown, as it's never been done, as such its the sort of action that always makes markets nervous. Nervous markets tend to suffer.

I'd be more worried about Chinese military might/expansion than economy some of your are talking about.

I'd be worried about a combination of them all, resulting in another cold war.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'd be worried about a combination of them all, resulting in another cold war.

Uh, no, I'd be more worried about the Islands China claims are theirs and openly ignore UN protocol/tribunals and continue to expand artificial land on said islands for military bases. This affects the U.S. due to two of it's allies (S.Korea and Japan) being effected. Also let's not forget the oil that lies in the area.

Also I saw you say something about Trump recognizing Taiwan or something to that affect, but I'm curious why that's a big deal the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco (a Treaty China had no issue with) saw Japan give up several island territories, that then became under U.S. trustee. Taiwan being one of those. I think the aggressor in many cases is China and their new world global expansion as they enter into a more stable Super Power than they were say 20 to 30 years ago. Typically I'm quick to call the U.S. on their globalist efforts, but when it comes to China-U.S. relations I feel China has a complex that should be addressed by the international community at large.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not quite so sure, but the point is that a two term limit applies in the US, the same is not true in China.

Then that just makes some of the statements in your original post rather bizarre:

China has nothing to fear from it people in comparison to the US.

A US president has nothing to fear from its people under either because term limits are in place regardless of what happens during a presidency.

I know which country I would put my money on getting rid of its leader first in that scenario.

The US will very likely have new leaders before China in any scenario because term limits are in place regardless of what happens during a presidency.


Why do either of those things have anything to do with Trump doing something that results in China initiating a trade war? If he did something stupid and the Chinese government did something to attack the US financial markets in response and he won relection once (which I strongly suspect he would), what difference would it make to him if it continued past his second term? He wouldn't be there after that whether he had sabre rattled or not and I've never got the sense of long term planning from Donald; and I'd think it would be pretty hard for anyone to get elected president afterwards if they promised to cool China/US relations after this theoretical trade war started.







Now, under the implication that Trump wouldn't risk a new cold war with China because it would threaten his (and any of his backers) chances of reelection, foreign countries lashing out against the US has never caused the majority of US citizens to stop and say "hey, maybe this was our fault" at any time I can think of in the past. A person elected largely on varieties of American exceptionalism and populism wouldn't, I suspect, lose reelection because a foreign government wanted to test their resolve. What would it take to have the 46th President get away with softening their China stance as an election promise during a trade war when Joe Smith, American, would probably blame China for it?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Selling a fraction of US bonds while also selling off other bonds is not the same as dumping all the US bonds they have in one lump. The simple fact is that the result of doing it is unknown, as it's never been done, as such its the sort of action that always makes markets nervous. Nervous markets tend to suffer.

There is also the matter of currency manipulation, something that China is quite fond of doing when the markets don't go their way.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Selling a fraction of US bonds while also selling off other bonds is not the same as dumping all the US bonds they have in one lump. The simple fact is that the result of doing it is unknown, as it's never been done, as such its the sort of action that always makes markets nervous. Nervous markets tend to suffer.

I'd be worried about a combination of them all, resulting in another cold war.

Yes, $200,000,000,000 is a fraction of a bigger number but it's still a pretty big number. Cold wars don't happen between powers that have trillions of dollars of trade between them. Put away the 60's scare mongering and come into the 21st century like the rest of us.

 

[FoRiZon]

Might as well call this thread "States Presidential Elections 2016" because i dont see the "United" between two sides.

 

[Scaff]

Uh, no, I'd be more worried about the Islands China claims are theirs and openly ignore UN protocol/tribunals and continue to expand artificial land on said islands for military bases. This affects the U.S. due to two of it's allies (S.Korea and Japan) being effected. Also let's not forget the oil that lies in the area.

Also I saw you say something about Trump recognizing Taiwan or something to that affect, but I'm curious why that's a big deal the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco (a Treaty China had no issue with) saw Japan give up several island territories, that then became under U.S. trustee. Taiwan being one of those. I think the aggressor in many cases is China and their new world global expansion as they enter into a more stable Super Power than they were say 20 to 30 years ago. Typically I'm quick to call the U.S. on their globalist efforts, but when it comes to China-U.S. relations I feel China has a complex that should be addressed by the international community at large.

I would include the issue with the South China Sea in that as well, which is why I have previously mentioned it in terms of potential further escalations.

In regard to Taiwan the main point is that no POTUS (elect or sitting) has broken protocol over it in the way since 1979.

Then that just makes some of the statements in your original post rather bizarre:

A US president has nothing to fear from its people under either because term limits are in place regardless of what happens during a presidency.


The US will very likely have new leaders before China in any scenario because term limits are in place regardless of what happens during a presidency.


Why do either of those things have anything to do with Trump doing something that results in China initiating a trade war? If he did something stupid and the Chinese government did something to attack the US financial markets in response and he won relection once (which I strongly suspect he would), what difference would it make to him if it continued past his second term? He wouldn't be there after that whether he had sabre rattled or not and I've never got the sense of long term planning from Donald; and I'd think it would be pretty hard for anyone to get elected president afterwards if they promised to cool China/US relations after this theoretical trade war started.

Now, under the implication that Trump wouldn't risk a new cold war with China because it would threaten his (and any of his backers) chances of reelection, foreign countries lashing out against the US has never caused the majority of US citizens to stop and say "hey, maybe this was our fault" at any time I can think of in the past. A person elected largely on varieties of American exceptionalism and populism wouldn't, I suspect, lose reelection because a foreign government wanted to test their resolve. What would it take to have the 46th President get away with softening their China stance as an election promise during a trade war when Joe Smith, American, would probably blame China for it?

My point was in regard to a trade war, and that the side that blinks last normally wins. Historical trade wars are damaging for both sides and the China has shown a willingness to let it people suffer to win it's ideological goals repeatedly (and that's not a good thing)

Not something the US as a democracy would find easy or even possible.

Yes, $200,000,000,000 is a fraction of a bigger number but it's still a pretty big number. Cold wars don't happen between powers that have trillions of dollars of trade between them. Put away the 60's scare mongering and come into the 21st century like the rest of us.

I quite settled in the 20th century, so please leave the ad hominem at home.

Huge values of currency is traded on a daily basis, yet no country has ever dumped it's entire holdings of a single currency in one go. As such assuming it would be fine is a rather bold assumption to make.

The closest we have to compare is when currency has been massively devalued (which can happen for a number of reasons), and that have never been a pretty event.

I would also add that while I am firmly in the 21st century I'm also more than aware that those who ignore the past are destined to repeat it.

Feel free to ignore the lessons of the past, I would rather take them into account in a considered manner.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I would include the issue with the South China Sea in that as well, which is why I have previously mentioned it in terms of potential further escalations.

In regard to Taiwan the main point is that no POTUS (elect or sitting) has broken protocol over it in the way since 1979.


My point was in regard to a trade war, and that the side that blinks last normally wins. Historical trade wars are damaging for both sides and the China has shown a willingness to let it people suffer to win it's ideological goals repeatedly (and that's not a good thing)

Not something the US as a democracy would find easy or even possible.



I quite settled in the 20th century, so please leave the ad hominem at home.

Huge values of currency is traded on a daily basis, yet no country has ever dumped it's entire holdings of a single currency in one go. As such assuming it would be fine is a rather bold assumption to make.

The closest we have to compare is when currency has been massively devalued (which can happen for a number of reasons), and that have never been a pretty event.

I would also add that while I am firmly in the 21st century I'm also more than aware that those who ignore the past are destined to repeat it.

Feel free to ignore the lessons of the past, I would rather take them into account in a considered manner.

Who's ignoring the lessons of the past? Feel free to be stuck in the the lessons of the past. I took them into account, I just don't think they apply to this situation.

 

[Scaff]

Who's ignoring the lessons of the past? Feel free to be stuck in the the lessons of the past. I just don't think they apply to this situation.

I've already politely explained that I am not stuck in the past, do not keep attempting to assign a position to me that I have clearly stated I do not hold.

I disagree that they don't apply in these circumstances, the US moving towards a more isolationist position and increasing tensions between two ideological opposed super powers both have a number of historical parallels.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I've already politely explained that I am not stuck in the past, do not keep attempting to assign a position to me that I have clearly stated I do not hold.

I disagree that they don't apply in these circumstances, the US moving towards a more isolationist position and increasing tensions between two ideological opposed super powers both have a number of historical parallels.

So it's ok for you to say I'm ignoring the past, but not ok for me to say you're stuck in the past? Gotcha:tup:👍

 

[Scaff]

So it's ok for you to say I'm ignoring the past, but not ok for me to say you're stuck in the past? Gotcha:tup:👍

Given that you continued to do so after I had specifically pointed out that was not the case, yes.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Given that you continued to do so after I had specifically pointed out that was not the case, yes.

Yes, you "politely" put on your mod bowler and characterized a joking statement as an ad hominem. No over reaction there at all. I fail to see how that doesn't also make your statement of me ignoring the past also an ad hominem but you're the boss and you make the rules. You win.

 

[ryzno]

I was going to ignore the whole Taiwan stuff but this got me.

Trump have just overturn a US foreign policy that's been in place since 1979 and favour one nuclear power over its rival and neighbor, rather than remaining neutral.

How does answering a phone call and accepting a congratulations destroy 37 years of anything? Is there a law or something?
I bet Obama talked to the president of Taiwan a number of times. But cause it's Trump it's the end of the world.
Y'all clearly pointed out we have nothing to worry about if we get in a war. We're still in one... Don't forget.

Screw China and any other country that don't like it. They aren't exactly helping us(they we're waiting for our Economy to fail to to run over and say hey, pay us back or prepare to die) or really like us anyways and lie and manipulate the market for their benefit... A allies/friends don't constantly make threats or screw over their friend last time I checked...

Anyways, I'm to lazy to find my post calling the whole recount a money grab by Jill, but read it from the horses mouth.
PS: I'm to lazy to Photoshop the screenshot. And you can't link a post like Twitter. No I still don't use Twitter. I don't like being limited to 140 characters...

It time we worry about the US, FTW!

Edit: A lot of people are afraid cause the TV told them to be. I'm prepared to die fighting in a Militia and I'm ready to kill anyone trying to kill me or to stop the progress of our country even if the military won't accept me.
I look around and feel like people don't even care about America anymore. Or they are too scared... You can thank the pussification of America for that. We bend over backwards trying to please/fix the world, while we get threatened and screwed by the world. And people sit around saying America is hell. Go somewhere else and dare too talk about the countries leadership, I can tell you they won't like the result. And don't dare burn the countries flag, you won't get praised, believe that!

Think about it for a second. The country is in turmoil from race wars, we are as split as we were during the civil war and we are in between leaders. Right now would be the perfect time to take us to war, the country falling apart cause the news told them it is. Nothing more.
Trump said he want to make Gen. "Mad Dog" Mattis(spell check?) Secretary of Defense.(something no one has mentioned cause we're worried about a phone call). Problem is to serve as secretary you have to be a civilian for 7 years, he's only been retired 5. I heard rumors he(Trump) might have congress step in. Regardless I pity any country that dares to take him(Mad Dog) on. He's last bit of light from a dieing breed of Americans.
So continue to worry about a stupid phone call. I'll keep watching the important stuff.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I would include the issue with the South China Sea in that as well, which is why I have previously mentioned it in terms of potential further escalations.

In regard to Taiwan the main point is that no POTUS (elect or sitting) has broken protocol over it in the way since 1979.

South China Sea is part of the issue that I'm stating, I just didn't say it outright. The problem is even before Trump arrived Obama admin has agitated Beijing's position on this. Which brings me back to my issue with China, there is no half way point. You either see it there way or you don't and face difficulty later on.

The protocol in place is to appease China as if they're hostage taker almost and if you don't see the ROC as the sole representation you can't deal with the ROC. The one unity China crap from decades past that recognizes Taiwan as a non-sovereign nation was always a silly condition. Also the Protocol came in place 1992 for the One-China Policy. The urging of recognition has gone on since 79'.