Politics Vote for a president of USA - 2016 election

Pick a president.

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • Marco Rubio

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 24 45.3%

  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
It gives me an excellent Idea.
Could you answer, fellow posters, if you are OK with Imams in Mosques in Europe and US being free to preach Islamist hate speeches and encourage killing unbelievers?
Is it ok with you Athiudisc for Imams to have unlimited freedom of speech, and you Bicicleur for Imams being politically incorrect?

Not unlimited, but close. To continue a previous example, their holy teachings say I should be warred upon for my crimes against their god. It's part of their religion. I see no way to curtail that without also prohibiting their religion.

Acceptable, if not appreciated: "The mushrikun are evil, and should be exterminated!"

Not acceptable, likely criminal: "The mushrik, Athiudisc, should be killed tonight by our hands! Let's go!"
 
Thanks thats what I meant. So what they say and do as per to what I posted will be considered acceptable (say) in the middle of time square in New York?

It is entirely legal to say ridiculously offensive things in Times Square.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8nZLdyzv50

Not Times Square, but you get the point.

Im not referring to you in particular, but I find it extremely difficult to understand how Hate speech is not connected to fueling (automatically) to venture into violence and criminality.

It will take me a very long time to believe that Hate speech and violence and Crime are not interrelated.

Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying, we just tend to think over here that the risk is worth the liberty. I can see how it seems crazy, but that's the way it is. Kinda like our disparate firearms situations, I suppose.
 
For those who have fallen in love with the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton, they are against both of these things, and are, if we go by the convention, essentially for open borders, and no, I don't think it's because of some, "we're the land of immigrants" malarkey; it's because they plan on helping them get citizenship and enrolling them in the Democrat Party as soon as possible.

You're completely right. Kaine's already said that they plan to legalize all illegal aliens within the first hundred days of a Clinton presidency.
 
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...cle_d297274e-59a7-11e6-962b-4b2234e7959b.html
What a businessman, can't even make money on a cassion. Did he say that he will run America like his own business? God save America. lol

Anyway going to watch guys from Libertarian Party now. On TV in 15 min.

Apparently Obama has been acknoledged as a White knight for a possible 3rd term despite his endorsement with Hillary, only to be cut short by the 22nd amendment.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-barack-obama-makes-bold-move-toward-running-third-term/
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...jority-of-democrats-want-third-term-for-obama
 
Apparently Obama has been acknoledged as a White knight for a possible 3rd term despite his endorsement with Hillary, only to be cut short by the 22nd amendment.

I'm not really a fan of Obama, and obviously I can't definitively say this theory is wrong, but the whole "BLM Summer of Chaos so Obama can declare martial law and suspend elections!" thing is too far out there even for me. And I like conspiracy theories.
 
FFqzk.jpg

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...heorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
 
I avoided this topic as I have never been able to pick an American president. Ha, ha.
 
Not exactly. See the article "Nope, It Was Always Already Wrong" by Robert Blaskiewicz. Don't trust Robert Blaskiewicz? Research the history of the term yourself.

I like this paragraph from Blaskiewicz article:
What is clear is that “conspiracy theory” has always been a disparaging term. While proponents of alternative knowledge are correct in asserting that it is possible to unfairly discredit someone by calling them a “conspiracy theorist,” they must also remember that just because you are called a conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean you aren’t one.
Something for DejaVu to think about.
 
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...ump-statement-on-politically-motivated-letter
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON POLITICALLY MOTIVATED LETTER

“The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place. They are nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power, and it’s time they are held accountable for their actions.

These insiders – along with Hillary Clinton – are the owners of the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq, allow Americans to die in Benghazi, and they are the ones who allowed the rise of ISIS. Yet despite these failures, they think they are entitled to use their favor trading to land taxpayer-funded government contracts and speaking fees. It’s time we put our foot down and declare that their gravy train is over: no longer will Crooked Hillary Clinton and the other disasters in Washington get rich at our expense.


Instead, I offer a better vision for our country and our foreign policy – one that is not run by a ruling family dynasty. It's an America first vision that stands up to foreign dictators instead of taking money from them, seeks peace over war, rebuilds our military, and makes other countries pay their fair share for their protection. Together, we will break up the rigged system in Washington, make America safe again, and we will Make America Great Again.”
 
It doesn't matter if Donald Trump occasionally gets something right. He's a disaster as a presidential candidate, and not just because he has foot in mouth disease; he has no campaign, no infrastructure, and not enough money to run ads either.

This is one of the worst Democratic candidates in living memory, and she's probably going to win because of his monumental ego and the Republican primary system.

Or maybe he's just a put up job by Hillary and the Democrats. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but he is such a disaster as a candidate that it almost seems as if he has to be doing some of these things on purpose. This is not how someone who wants to win acts.

Anyway, I'll be one of those suburban, educated women who are going to be putting the nail in his coffin, because there is no way I'll vote for him.
 
I don't know that he necessarily even needs ads; he's dominating media coverage all over the place, even if it's generally full of negative spin. All he has to do to get everyone talking about him for days is open his mouth. He's either entirely savvy in this or he just can't help himself, or both.

Most of his alleged faux pas seem to only energize his base. If he swings just a little towards nuance and self-possession (relatively soon, obviously), I think he could still win.
 
I really think the anti-gun people shot themselves in the foot freaking out about Trump's recent comments. Pro-Bill of Rights types weren't going to vote for Clinton anyway, but this idiocy seems to have clinched it.
 
His base is already energized. The problem is that his "base" may turn out to only be about 35-38% of the population.

It's a shame in some ways. Some of what he says is indeed true, imo, and someone needs to speak for the working class people in this country whose jobs are disappearing both because of increased automation and increased immigration. To pretend that the problem would go away if they just went back to school to learn computer programming is disingenuous.

However, as to the comment about "second amendment people" and Hillary Clinton, I think he meant exactly what the mainstream press said it meant. I also think it was a joke, but anyone over 14 should know that you don't joke about those things. The man never grew up.

He is squandering his opportunity and letting down some of the people supporting him for legitimate reasons.
 
To pretend that the problem would go away if they just went back to school to learn computer programming is disingenuous.

Argh. Why did you have to pick that example? I've honestly heard that sentiment numerous times, always from people who can't code, and it's like they're still thinking computers are some kind of magic machines that embody "the future."

To be fair, I say that as I sit at home "working" on a Thursday (programming and watching Netflix), but it's not an answer.

/end mini-rant

However, as to the comment about "second amendment people" and Hillary Clinton, I think he meant exactly what the mainstream press said it meant. I also think it was a joke, but anyone over 14 should know that you don't joke about those things.

I didn't get the impression he wanted someone to assassinate Clinton at all. What would be the point? In this scenario, she's already appointed anti-constitution judges, and killing her wouldn't retroactively negate their confirmation.

If we're going to entertain the notion that he was referencing violence, it makes far more sense (in the scenario he described) that the violence would ensue between Americans unwilling to abandon one of the founding notions of their country and those who wish to oppress them. It's something of a silly scenario anyway, because if it gets to the point of the federal government deciding that the American Bill of Rights is effectively abolished because five people said so, we'll simply see large swaths of the country telling the feds to **** off. It would never get to the point of LEOs kicking in doors to confiscate weapons, because the majority of such have no intention of ever doing so (according to the largest surveys of such people available), and the government doesn't have the power to enforce such a thing regardless.

The genius (or accidental idiocy, if you prefer) of his position is that it plays to the far paranoia of the black helicopters crew whilst being entirely defensible in a traditional American sense. If the government decides to abolish the Bill of Rights and tyrannize you, you're supposed to shoot them. That's essentially how the country was founded.

The only people he actually "lost" with such comments are those who were never going to support him in the first place.
 
His base is already energized. The problem is that his "base" may turn out to only be about 35-38% of the population.

It's a shame in some ways. Some of what he says is indeed true, imo, and someone needs to speak for the working class people in this country whose jobs are disappearing both because of increased automation and increased immigration. To pretend that the problem would go away if they just went back to school to learn computer programming is disingenuous.

However, as to the comment about "second amendment people" and Hillary Clinton, I think he meant exactly what the mainstream press said it meant. I also think it was a joke, but anyone over 14 should know that you don't joke about those things. The man never grew up.

He is squandering his opportunity and letting down some of the people supporting him for legitimate reasons.

Hillary Clinton over Trump for me. She has actual political experience and understands diplomacy and other governmental concepts. You can't just walk into the most prestigious political position on the planet and expect to learn everything in less than a year not to mention his questionable moral backbone but Hillary doesn't seem to shine in that aspect herself.

And studying "computer programming" isn't a good solution indeed when many people just aren't cut out for it. Reliance on API's does take the mental muscle out of developing modern apps, however.

ps to me one of the best tests of programming aptitude is the game TIS-100. It's not just a silly game, I think it's quite accurate to gauge this, and perhaps even overall intellectual abililty when it comes to complex strategizing.
 
Hillary Clinton over Trump for me.

I can't help but notice that you referenced not a single position of either of them, just relative "qualifications." Is that the best way to choose, in your opinion?

Unfortunately, I don't think either of them support national legalization of cannabis. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 700811 times.

Back
Top