DEBATE THREAD. WHO ARE YOU ROOTING FOR? Im a femanon from NY,

Guy from england here
Despite what everyone says I love trump
Not even being ironic, nice to see right wing movements in politics for once

Portland, Oregon - only watching because this is more entertaining than wrestling.

Will give same amount of votes as fucks.

File: IMG_20161015_172729.jpg (111KB, 480x600px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 480x600px

Dadddddy is rockin it #altright4daddydon

>fuck hillary
Shes a fat cunt.

>>24474504
portland here as well

im pulling for trump tonight cause i like an underdog

>>24474496
I'm on the trump train too and also a femanon!!

I really hope he wins. Fuck Hillary, she's a god damn criminal

Voting for Hillary because she's the only competent one running.

>>24474496
>>24474553

femanons who like Trump
hopefully masochists?

>>24474561
no just girls who arent retarded.

>>24474553
Let's see a sexy picture with your magazine hat then

File: 1475974042980.jpg (94KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 768x768px

>>24474535
>altkike
Fuck off normie

>>24474496
>funny shit he says
The man is a walking meme. There's nothing he does that doesn't have comedic value.

File: 1019162145z[25].jpg (568KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 2560x1440px

Kek

get in here

>>93719425
>>93719425
>>93719425
>>93719425
>>93719425

File: IMG_0700.jpg (37KB, 402x602px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 402x602px

Inb4 404

I don't understand why people want Trump to seriously win.

>>>/pol/93719425
>>>/pol/93719425
>>>/pol/93719425

get in here

>>24474535
you're hot, but holy fuck are you stupid....

File: 1472702169158.jpg (94KB, 635x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 635x600px

>>24474738
>hot
For a turtle without a chin?

They're bringing in drugs...

>>24474500
>nice to see right wing movements in politics for once
Nice bait. Unless you're the single biggest moron on this fucking planet?

>>24474732
This. Go back to /pol/

>>24474496
Anyone that would even consider suppprting trump is a fucking retard. He's literally not qualified to do anything let alone the most important position in the world. I get it, you're racist, me too. I get it, you want change, me too. But this fucking idiot will single handedly destroy the country and the world.

>>24474535
I saw your picture on Reddit.

>>24475234


Prove it

>>24475194
itp: someone who has no idea how the US government works

>>24475282
Oh why don't you enlighten us all about how the government works. Let's elect a Putin puppet as president who has no idea of basic ideas of governing who wonders aloud why we can't use nuclear weapons. Please explain to me what I'm missing.

File: tmp_6382-maxresdefault(2)1704615928.jpg (58KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1280x720px

>>24475305

>>24475317
Oh I'm convinced. Great point.

File: *sniffles*.jpg (16KB, 352x278px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 352x278px

>>24475305
Wrong.

>>24475326
Anyone who says "Anyone considering voting for candidate X is retarded" is retarded.. By default yeah?

>>24475350
honestly his tantrums are toddler tier, the way he acts, it's like he's doing it on purpose

File: imrs.jpg (30KB, 480x377px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x377px

>>24475362
E-Excuse me

>>24475356
I notice you have no actual facts to use as a rebuttal. Tells me all I need to know.

>>24475305
The US government has three branches
The executive is limited by the other branches
>But the Republicans have numerical superiority in both houses of Congress!
For now. But 1) Democrats have a pretty good chance of regaining the Senate 2) Democrats will also probably chip away at the Repub majority in the House and 3) even in a worse case scenario where Trump wins and the Republicans hold Congress still, there's the fact that 3a) Trump is unpopular with most Republican politicians, who are mostly gritting their teeth until the general election and 3b) chances are the GOP would be slaughtered in midterms

Trump wants to build a wall? Congress has to appropriate funds.
Trump wants immigration reform? Congress has to approve legislation.
Trump wants to declare war? Congress has to approve use of force.
>But what about executive actions!
True, this is the one loophole. But some of Obama's more contentious EAs are being challenged in the court system.

People who think Trump is going to get elected and destroy America by nuking illegal immigrants and deporting transsexuals and gays are the same tier of retarded low information voter as the birthers in 2008, just the opposite side of the spectrum. You probably dont even vote in midterms, either

>>24475369
It's like he's sabotaging himself on purpose, wtf.

>>24475194
>>24475305

I want to watch the world burn. There's very little reason for me to seriously care about what happens in this country- I have college debt up to my eyeballs that unlike every other debt I can never get rid of and that they can take my fucking social security and retirement for, I'm almost 26 and will be kicked off my parents insurance but of course my job doesn't offer it and I can't afford $300 a month for my own, so I'm fucked there, hell, if I lose my job it'll take me months if not years to find another. I'll never be able to afford a house, or a new car, or anything much really. On top of that I find the attempts of families like the Clintons to create political dynasties and the corruption of American politics deeply disturbing. She used her money and power to get a once respected institution to get fucking Pepe declared a hate symbol just to cover what a complete moronic jackass she is ffs. On top of that she's either directly voted for or supported every single military action the US has taken in the past 25 years.

I'm under no illusions that Trump will make my life better. He wont. But what I hope is that he'll make the people like the Clintons- the politicians, the wall street fat cats, the lobbyists, the elite upper crust- suffer like me. There's a reason that everyone, from Democrat to Republican, is untied against him, and it goes beyond him just being an idiot. He's capricious, stubborn, and rich enough that he'll screw everyone over. He's a giant middle finger, and that's exactly what America needs right now.

File: Defeat.jpg (20KB, 380x343px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 380x343px

>>24474555
>more competent but still horrible one running
FTFY

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. There are people who tell me I'm "wasting my vote" like my vote doesn't matter. Out of the 4 candidates I think Johnson would be best.

>>24474555
>>24475486

Why do you gusy think Trump would be incompetent?

>>24475494
Because his track record (including his presidential campaign) demonstrates him to be incompetent.

>>24475493

Good for you, anon. And I mean that sincerely, you're doing more good for this country than anyone else, including me, even if the effort might turn out wasted.

>>24475493
what's an aleppo

>>24475498

Do you wanna expand on that?

>>24475409
>Trump wants immigration reform? Congress has to approve legislation.
Not really; it's an enforcement issue. Deportation of undocumented immigrants is already legal, it's just that the laws are only meaningfully enforced at the border (and in the constitution-free zones around the border and international airports). But that's not because of the law; it's because it's executive branch policy. Under Obama, for example, policy has been to try to deport undocumented immigrants that commit felonies (something that occurs at a lower rate than it does for citizens, btw) while ignoring most of the others.

A Trump executive branch could change enforcement priorities to, for example, take a hard line stance against any undocumented immigrant, including those members of contentious categories such as people brought over as children and raised as de facto (but not de jure) Americans.

Indirectly, this would still need congressional support, because this kind of shift in priorities would require an enormous increase in funding for enforcement. It would also tie up the judiciary because of people appealing their deportation. But that's just an efficiency issue; Trump's immigration policy and deportations could happen right now under the law. They'd just be hard to enforce properly.

> Trump wants to declare war? Congress has to approve use of force.
The use of nuclear weapons, while clearly an act of war, does not require congressional approval. This is by design, to ensure that the missiles can be launched even if the US government is in tatters.

>>24475498
>He's bad because he's bad

Is this seriously what passes for a reasoned argument with millennials?

>>24475470
I can't argue about much but if you think the ultimate fat cat is going to stick it to the fat cats you're delusional. He's going to do what's best for him which is what's best for billionaires like him.

>>24475409
> For now. But 1) Democrats have a pretty good chance of regaining the Senate 2) Democrats will also probably chip away at the Repub majority in the House and 3) even in a worse case scenario where Trump wins and the Republicans hold Congress still, there's the fact that 3a) Trump is unpopular with most Republican politicians, who are mostly gritting their teeth until the general election and 3b) chances are the GOP would be slaughtered in midterms

1) I think there's basically no scenario where the Democrats regain the senate but do not win the presidency.Momentum in the latter is what is driving the former.
2) I think this is likely, even if Trump were to win, but the Republicans will retain their majority so the effect will be negligible.
3) He is unpopular with Republicans, but I have no doubt that they will fall in line. It would be nice if the Republicans would stand up and acknowledge "yeah this guy is actually horrible, and doesn't represent the best interests of the country" but just look at the astonishing lack of un-endorsements lately. Yes, a few have said that they no longer endorse him (though they always stop short of promising to cast a vote for the one person that can stop him...) but the majority still continues to profess their support. I think they would continue to do so when it came to passing Trump's laws.

>>24475551
This. Prepare for anal rape peasants.

>>24475504
His overall business performance has underperformed indexed funds, he has systematically stiffed his suppliers, he and/or his business is heavily indebted to the extent that he cannot readily borrow from Western banks, his election campaign has tanked his brand (Trump hotel bookings sharply down, for example), his election campaign has failed to budge support beyond a 30-40% core and has alienated a significant fraction of traditional Republican voters (down 10-15% among evangelicals, for example), he's demonstrated himself to be trivially distracted (Miss Universe, for example).

These things are not demonstrative of competence.

>>24475551
This is one of the biggest jokes of his campaign. He claims to somehow be immune to the influence of campaign donors, while quietly ignoring that he _directly represents the will of (a certain kind of) big business_.

You don't need to look for donors as a source of flawed motives with Trump. His entire livelihood is a flawed motive! His tax proposals demonstrate this abundantly; they're designed for people like him, and fuck all the little guys.

>>24475607
The billionaire businessman isn't an "outsider". I'm appalled.

>>24475545
>But that's just an efficiency issue;

>efficiency
>US federal govt
l m a o

how well did the supermajority work for the democrats again

>>24475572
>3) He is unpopular with Republicans, but I have no doubt that they will fall in line.
Trump has broad popular support because repub voters across the spectrum are united against Clinton. Beyond that there's very little holding everyone together, remember how contentious the Repub primary was? Tea Party repubs are facing reelection in the coming years, and as a measure of how disappointed TP voters were with TP politicians from '12 look at what happened with Marco Rubio. Repub party is fractured.

>>24475614
i like how you opted not to reply lmao

>>24475626
Trump is completely and totally unqualified for any public office.

>>24475638
and that negates the other branches of government how exactly?

>>24475638

What does that mean exactly?

So you have to be a politician to hold political office?

Because there is a long list of people who have been mayors, governors and president who haven't had that kind of experience -- most of them turn out to be very successful.

I'm not saying Trump will be. But is that experience the excluding factor for you?

>>24475651
It doesn't but that makes trump viable how?

>>24475665
No I'm saying he's a fucking idiot

>>24475669

I think this is a legitimate criticism, but you should qualify it.

For example, I'd agree that he has a terrible blindspot for social tact and he says things without giving a fuller context, which ends up as babble, especially in a setting like a debate.

But in other ways he is clearly very talented and shrewd. Even if by the most generous estimates by Hillary that Trump received $14 million from his father, turning that into billions is a tremendous feat and something few people have done -- otherwise there would be many more billionaires in the world.

An example of tolerable idiocy are the kinds of people you see as advisers rather than leaders. E.g. People who are academically very smart but lack any sort of charisma that lets them rise to a position of authority.

So my question is, what kind of idiocy disqualifies someone from your vote?

>>24475698
Trump is a moron and not qualified. I don't care if he made a trillion from a penny. Another billionaire that made his money from nothing, mark cuban, thinks the same. You haven't made any argument for a trump presidency.

>>24475666
Your entire argument is that he is unfit
You acknowledge that the other branches of govt will not be limited in neither power nor scope if he is elected
Therefore, if he is unfit and elected, he will still be limited in what he can do. therefore, at worst, you're taught an important civics lesson and instead of sounding like a blowhard idiot you actually pay attention to elections more than every four years.

>>24475708

> You haven't made any argument for a trump presidency.

I'm not trying to -- I'm from Australia. I'm trying to get some clarity on your position.

> Trump is a moron and not qualified.

Sure, you've said that. But specifically in what way. I've laid out that I agree with you in terms of tact.

> I don't care if he made a trillion from a penny.

I'd consider that an incredible feat and something very qualifying. How is accruing wealth not a skill? It certainly was to Benjamin Franklin in his time and the entrepreneurial sense is universally admired in the American culture -- at least I thought.

All I'm asking is in what way do you think he's an idiot that is so disqualifying.

>>24475728
Did you watch the debate? Are you serious?

Communism is a lie.

>>24475751

Starting to think this is a troll.

Ask specific questions -- get the same kind of answer.

> Did you watch the debate?
Yes.

> Are you serious?
Yes. Would like to know specifically the answer to this question: in what particular way do you think Trump is an idiot that means you couldn't vote for him.

>>24475781
He has no idea what he's talking about.

He won't accept the results of the election which is what our entire democracy is built upon.

He is not qualified to be president.

File: trumptank.jpg (261KB, 898x618px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 898x618px

Hillary for Prison/Firing Squad.
Also, George Soros needs to be gassed.

How can anybody unironically like Trump?

>He has no plans other than an expensive pointless wall.
>He blames others for his failures.
>He breeds conspiracy theories.
>Secretly FWB to Vladimir Putin.
>He is a draft dodger who would probably draft us all so he can build a new golf course
>Insults Veterans
>Has never told a full truth

On top of all of that he thinks that telling ISIS if we will or won't use ground troops, and that we are currently attacking Mosul, is somehow giving away vital information. The Kurds have been attacking Mosul since March of this year, I think ISIS knows they are coming for it.

>>24475728
For starters, a little background because you're Australian.

The Republican Party is fundamentally flawed in the present day. I don't say this as a "Fuck Republicans" bit, but to give some perspective.

Fundamentally, most Americans are somewhat, but not exceptionally Progressive. That's why we appear bipolar sometimes. We want change, damn it, but if it comes any faster than a snail's pace, we begin to freak out. It took a century for us to be ready to outlaw slavery, for example, but more than a century following the outlawing of slavery before we began, as a country, to treat the black population with any collective respect.

So, anyway. Progressives. Republicans were the predominantly progressive party in the mid/late 19th century up through the early 20th century. It was only when Theodore Roosevelt split from the Republican Party by creating the Bull Moose Party (later the Progressive Party) that progressivism and the GOP parted ways. Woodrow Wilson was the first Progressive Democratic President, but it was Franklin Roosevelt that firmly established the Democratic Party as the modern standard bearer for progressives.

So, if most Americans are somewhat progressive, than the party which is the currently progressive party has a fundamental advantage over the other. This advantage which the Democratic Party has over the Republican Party has led to fundamental flaws in the Republican Party.

The bread and butter of the Republican Party, from the split of progressivism, was the fiscal conservative movement. People like investors and bankers and business magnates who sought to reduce government interference in the goings on of business and finance. This is a totally valid platform... but not all together a very popular one. Which led the Republican Party to look for other movements to coopt to expand its voter base.

--continued--

>>24477994
In the 1960s, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act (led by Democrats), the Republicans found themselves a large, highly motivated and easily manipulated group of people who were rabidly pissed off in the highly racist white populations in the southern states. These people felt the government had overextended its influence, and so it was easy for the Republican Party to nuance its platform from being against government regulation of business to being against government regulation of "states rights", which is just a code word for abhorrent discrimination. So now the Republican Party was composed mostly of fiscal conservatives, but contained a large number of these "cultural conservatives."

So Nixon played to these cultural conservatives with his "southern strategy", and manipulated them into voting for Republicans on the wholesale. But with the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, the progressivism of the Democratic Party once again trumped the Republican Party. But one of the major demographics to vote for Carter was the evangelical Christian demographic, which a Republican strategist by the name of Paul Weyrich figured that he could wrangle to their side. And in doing so, created the Christian Coalition, the Moral Majority, the Religious Right, etc. And so the Republican Party coopted their platform and adopted these "Social conservatives".
--continued--

>>24477996

So you have a Republican Party composed of fiscal conservatives, cultural conservatives and social conservatives. The Tea Party fervor of the 21st century was primarily a result of cultural and social conservatism run amok, which has led to a significant number of these fiscal conservatives to jump ship and look for belonging elsewhere. Trump has only hastened the departure of the rest of the fiscal conservatives. Trump has likewise not been able to unite the social and cultural conservatives in his candidacy, which has left the Republican Party significantly weakened. Sadly, the most powerful, most steadfast group within the Republican Party right now are the cultural conservatives, which were only adopted to bolster numbers in the first place. This is why you see such vile racism in the current Republican Party.

>>24478000
And the vast majority vote against their own interests.

>>24474730
It seems like the only people still unironically supporting him are either mentally unstable or get all their political info from memes on Facebook. Well-informed people of sound mind wouldn't still be supporting him. Even the previously considered "worst of the worst" republicans have spoken out against him.

The last Trumpdolite I encountered was actually an Alex Jones nutter who 100% thinks FSM was created to be a serious religion, assumed my friend D.j. was black because of his name, and said "I'm 26 and have the intelligence of people five times my age." He wasn't trolling.

>>24475362
Cocaine, duh.

>>24475470
I'm sure you already know this, but that's an incredibly selfish, juvenile, and weak reason for voting Trump.

>>24475493
I'm voting Stein despite not fully supporting her and feeling she's too incompetent to be president. I hate many of Johnson's policies and feel they'd result in economic disaster especially for the lower class, but I support people voting for him because third parties getting more votes is the only way we're ever going to break the two party system.

Unfortunately, everyone's hung up on the Nader panic and is completely oblivious to the fact that third parties get more funding and exposure in future elections if they hit certain % thresholds of the vote.

>>24475665
Trump is unqualified because he's ignorant, denies proven facts, promotes fear mongering, clearly doesn't have the best interests of women and "minorities" in mind, is quick to anger, and needs to be babysat.

Trump promotes himself as a successful businessman who has America's best interests in mind, but he's a spoiled rich kid and everything he's tried to start up on his own has failed, resulting in investors losing millions.

He has zero ability to admit where he's wrong. He has no concept of personal accountability. He won't even say he's willing to accept a loss. A hot-headed, stubborn man-child who can't admit his mistakes is not qualified.

>>24474496
Swede here, both are utterly fucking retarded and I'm just sitting here ww3 isn't incoming in the next 4 years.

It's kind of sad to see how few of you have opinions that are swayed in one direction or the other by the candidate's views on energy and environmentalism. My vote is mostly influenced by those things. I support Hillary because she acknowledges the factual threat of climate change and wants to start developing an energy infrastructure that is not only environmentally friendly, but long-term sustainable, independent, and job-rich, and ALSO invigorate the current infrastructure such that the transition is relatively smooth from both the citizen (including energy workers) and the industrial perspectives.

The U.S. reliance on a dying energy industry is a contributor to our falling apart at the seams; you can go (as Trump has noted so many times) to Pa or Wv or Il or In or Ky and see the worst damage.

>>24475194
>>24475305
Being allies with Russia wouldn't be the worse thing, it would be better than trying to enforce a no fly zone over an area that the Russians have been enforcing. Hillary wants more action in the ME and to arm "moderate" rebels. When she's elected, she'll also have control of the SC Justice.

I personally think Trump is egotistical and isn't educated on a lot of topics he speaks about, but Hillary is talking about potential acts of war against a super power, and I don't want another cold war.

P.S. Clinton oversaw a deal that led to the Russians owning U.S. uranium reserves.

>>24475598
I agree with most everything except the underperformance of index funds. Most companies underperform index funds, why is he compared to that? He took a risk, and it didn't pay off, there's greater earning potential, but also greater chance of loss, he lost, it wasn't really that bad of a decision imo.

>>24480383
To be fair, the cold war never really stopped, US and Russia have been in higher-than-no tension hornlock since the early 90's, when the Cold War "officially" ended. It's been the Chilly War for the last 25 years or so, but nobody wants to talk about it because if you complain about it being chilly you're just a baby.

But then on top of that, if we were to ally with Russia (as opposed to staying "neutral"), that would imply our support of Russia's bombing the shit out of Syria. Which I'm personally not ok with.

>>24475800
You're proving his point anon. You say trunp supporters are retarded but don't understand the context behind why any individual would vote for him. Many are behind him because they understand that the president will recommend the next justice that will be put on the supreme court, and they want a more conservative judge.

>>24480360
From this post alone I know you're woefully uneducated/uninformed about the energy sector you talk about. We already use renewable energy in different states and we're already developing programs to help renewable companies but it's expensive because many have to be subsidized by the gov. You mention this stupid "smooth transition" but renewable energy is likely going to put people out of work in the future.

Also, you mention reliance on a "dying energy industry", but you have no idea what you're talking about. You might be referring to the use of coal as fuel, which has been declinine, but US oil and Gas production has skyrocketed. It's given people in PA, WV and OH job opportunities, and has decreased dependence on foreign oil. As for IL and IN, you can thank unions, greedy businesses and globalization for making it unprofitable to work at manufacturing plants in the North

>>24475728
Being a good business leader (which I will give Trump some credit for) does not qualify him to lead the US from a political standpoint. Running a business and running a country, I'm quite confident, are not even a little bit similar, beyond the fact that one has to make executive decisions - it's the nature of the decisions that, I'd expect, are vastly different.

Neither of these scumbags.

Leaving the presidential ballot box unchecked as a vote of no confidence.

There really needs to be a 'None of the above' option.

>>24480455
Yes it's expensive to maintain the subsidy programs (which are adequate at best), currently, but when the transition is self-sustaining (because the social ideals and dev infrastructure are already laid), and thus won't need subsidies, it will be inexpensive. Transitions are always costly in some way, usually especially in the sense of "what we could have had." But what "what we could have had" usually fails to see what exists in place of, because of a divide in ideals. (this last part is more of a conceptual note than a political one, but is true of political transitions). For example - renewable energy, as you say, will likely put some people out of work. What that statement ignores is the new job opportunities that it will create in place of (including unanticipated/innovated opportunities, which are, rightfully, never factored into the projections but often are very abundant and valuable).

special note: Conservatives almost never even consider these possibilities because doing so is, by definition, the opposite of conservative.

I don't mean the transition will be smooth in an absolute sense. I mean it in a relative sense. Again, transitions of this nature are almost never smooth.

*Production* of gas and oil has skyrocketted, but global dependence on it is falling, especially in medium-sized countries (this pattern is not present, or is very slow in the largest and more powerful countries). If the US stays oil dependent energetically, chances are we will become even more so, and stay so economically. Then when it eventually becomes the case that the last few major petrol-dependent countries in the world are US, Russia, and China, and everybody refuses to buy from each other because 1) we each have our own sources, and 2) we all hate each other, the resulting collapse of the industry will be much more devastating than the worst projections of the current transition (collapse will likely happen before that, but you get the picture).

>>24480523
I'm not uninformed, I'm just taking a longer-term, more hopeful perspective than you.

>>24477994
One caveat, Woodrow Wilson was not the first progressive president and was flawed in many ways. Theodore Roosevelt was the first progressive president.

>>24480482
Vote third party. Contrary to the bullshit both Hillary and Trump supporters are pushing, its not a wasted vote.

>>24477996
This is also a bit more complicated. The presidential primary reform was a major contributor to the shift of the GOP. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" ended up muting southern rage --otherwise Jimmy Carter wouldn't have stood a chance. Even then, with primary reform there would be no Reagan and, consequently, no Trump.

>>24480700
In the sense that GJ has the highest chance of any third party candidate, and he has no chance, yes it is. You might as well go for the major candidate with the most-similar views to yours on the matters that are important to you, because someone else is going to do it for the other side. I'd be voting Green if voting anything other than Rep or Dem were viable.

>>24477994
Also most Americans are not progressive, Gallup polling shows that American policy opinions haven't changed much since the seventies. We're an incredibly centrist country.

>>24480360
Hillary is very much in the pocket of oil barons, don't forget how much "experience" after has.

>>24480725
She's associated with big oil, true, but at least her anticipated positions want to move away from petrol-dep, moreso than almost any other party's cand. I don't really care where money comes from or what shady shit might be going on behind the scenes. I'm more practical - I care what actions/changes we anticipate will be tried for by the candidates (as president). I anticipate Hillary will move us away from petrol-dep, or at the very least bump up the speed of our R&D on such matters.

>>24475551
>>24475607
I have a personality very similar to Trump, so let me tell you what I think happened.

Trump has been a left of center liberal for his entire life. He has a big personality and ego so he always toyed with the idea of running for President. Back in 2012, he gave it an official run in really the only party he could due to incumbency. I don't think he took it too seriously, but he tried to pull some politician like moves such as calling Obama not US born.

Obviously he thought that he wouldn't make a splash and things would go back to normal relatively soon, and they sort of did. However, he was invited to one of Obama's dinner and was attacked pretty viciously at it. He has been roasted before and is pretty good about taking shots. Usually he is all smiles at events like this, but you could clearly tell he was pissed. The liberals then turned him into a giant joke and constantly ridiculed him

I think that event broke him in a way. People who used to be long time friends were now attacking him and mocking him, and we all know the man holds a grudge.

I see this as his revenge mission against those who betrayed him

>>24480799
I hope that's not the case. I think he's pretty small-minded, but I don't think he's that small-minded. Come on, running for the presidency just to satisfy his own blood-thirst?

Give the guy a little credit.

>>24480813
I was more referring to why he would go against other billionaires though I would be lying to say that I don't think revenge is what is driving him at some points.

>>24480818
Ahh. Well to that, I believe that Trump will not piss on his own shoes just to piss on his friendemies' shoes too. He is a guy who lives for his legacy.

>>24480709
You need to go back and read more carefully. I said Theodore Roosevelt founded the party which became the Progressive Party, but that Wilson was the first DEMOCRATIC progressive President.

>>24480709
Presidential primary reform during this time was primarily a Democratic Party thing, stemming from the disastrous 1968 primary which nominated Hubert Humphrey. The "Southern Strategy" didn't mute southern rate, it harnessed it. Additionally, Carter only managed to become President because of a different type of rage. In Green v. Connelly (1971, US District Court for D.C.), it was decided, and affirmed in Coit v. Green by the SCOTUS that organizations which segregated were inherently not charitable, and therefore not eligible for tax exemption. This pissed off a great number of churches and religious universities in the South which were still very much segregated. This happened under a Republican President (Nixon) and the enforcement of the order occurred under another Republican President (Ford), which spurred Evangelical Christians into political action, and when a southern Evangelical "born again Christian" ran for President in 1976, they eagerly voted Carter into office. But these Evangelical Christians were manipulated by Paul Weyrich into becoming the "Religious Right".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gf4jN1xoSo
Watch it, it's an eye-opening video about the origins of the Religious Right.

>>24480715
Americans don't claim to be Progressive. They don't like the label because they associate it with things like communism and socialism... nevertheless, Americans overthrew Slavery, de jure racial discrimination, gave women the right to vote, gave gays the right to marry... over time, Americans are growing more tolerant of "others". Forget what polls say, look at what history has produced.

>>24481064
I still do not understand why US hates commun/socialism so much...

It's so sad.

File: 1466713665326.gif (819KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 320x180px

I'm a Socialist from Ohio for Trump
basically, he's the closest we have to old-left populism, and appeals to the traditional working class (hard hat construction worker dudes, white collar suburban dads, etc. think king of the hill) whereas social justice (modern leftism) are a bunch of pampered fucking parasites who constantly bitch and criticize everything because "ehrmagerd fascist white male heteropatriarchy" but never actually contribute to society or build anything or create lasting works of art
they're basically unwitting pawns of multinational corporations to castrate and homogenize every culture that shows signs of vitality and create some pliable identity-less mystery meat pool of cheap labor.
fuck those people to death, I hope they all get fucking deported or kill themselves

>>24480712
Can a third party win? Absolutely not, especially with all the fear mongering and protest voting going on from both major party's sides.

Should a third party win? Absolutely not. Just looking at Stein and Johnson (I haven't bothered with the smaller parties), neither is fit for the position.

However, if a third party manages to get 15% of the vote, they get a handful of benefits next election that could lead to them becoming a full-fledged political party, which means there's a chance we could have more selection in the future. The Republicans started out a third party and didn't become an official party until 1856.

Next election, it's going to be either Tweedleracist or Tweedlewarlord vs someone who probably also isn't going to be that great. The least we can do is try to push for more Libertarian and/or Green party exposure that time around so they might have more of a fighting chance.

I'm specifically promoting this idea to people who were planning on not voting at all or writing something in, though. People who are protest voting for one of the main 2 don't really apply. Abstaining is a wasted vote, a stupid write-in for lols are a wasted vote. A protest vote or a vote to try and push other parties into the spotlight aren't wasted votes.

>>24481150
>whereas social justice (modern leftism) are a bunch of pampered fucking parasites who constantly bitch and criticize everything because "ehrmagerd fascist white male heteropatriarchy" but never actually contribute to society or build anything or create lasting works of art
Yeah this... isn't real. Social justice types are nothing but a vocal minority that's largely passive aggressive internet dwellers and literal children who will grow out of it. You're fighting an imaginary foe if you're voting for Trump to fight back against them.

>>24481064
Nixon harnessed white outrage, but spent the majority of his presidency marginalizing the issue. Polls during Ford's presidency show that racial issues didn't even crack the top ten of the average American's worry -- Watergate was that big of a deal. Jimmy Carter was the last time a Dem took the Bible belt states for the above reason. The primary reform happened before Hubert Humphrey and the Republicans accepted it with gusto. It actually almost cost Ford the nomination in 1976 because Reagan was extremely popular due to the tax reform movement that began in California. Everyone knows about the origins of the religious right and a lot of it stems from their segregated Bible schools being shut down.

>>24481184
Nixon harnessed white outrage through the "Southern Strategy", and once he had used them for their votes, he more or less ignored them, because he didn't care about them aside from using them for their votes. And yes, distrust because of Watergate also helped fuel Carter's rise.

You talk about primary reform as though it was a universal thing. No, it wasn't. There was significant reform in the Democratic Party Primary, because it was imposed upon the state party organizations by the national party organization. The DNC is in charge of Democratic Party Primaries, and the RNC is in charge of Republican Party Primaries. The RNC may have adopted some of the changes, but there was no sweeping change like there was with the DNC.

Also, regarding the origins of the religious right, it wasn't that schools were shut down, it was that they were forced to pay back taxes, many of which couldn't afford the taxes. Moreover, most evangelical Christians actually supported abortion rights until the late 1970s. Fucking hysterical that everyone thinks Roe v. Wade is the reason Christians are aligned with the Republican ideology. Republican politicians on the whole don't give a fuck about abortion except using it as a campaign platform.

>>24481209
The problem with that was that national primaries were pretty much immediately adopted by the RNC. That's why Reagan even stood a chance against Ford in 1976. Many Republicans assumed he was another Goldwater --unelectable.

>>24481226
By the way, I'm not trying to be an asshat arguing for the sake of arguing. It's nice to actually discuss things with someone who has a clue what actually went on.

File: CuMf6dkWgAAD6k8.jpg large.jpg (143KB, 958x638px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 958x638px

>white male from /pol/ makes thread to shitpost for Trump and pretend to be a girl

Fuck your shitposting, and fuck your shit candidate. Voting for Hillary.

File: turmpp.gif (4MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 400x400px

to still be supporting Donald trump, you must be either

a total hypocrite
or
a total idiot

knowing how many americans are hypocrites and idiots, the rise of Donald trump shouldn't really be that surprising

File: XKPEfhL.jpg (140KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 683x1024px

>>24481150
>he's the closest we have to old-left populism
Trump is not a populist. Rather than a populist, Trump is the voice of aggrieved privilege—of those who already are doing well but feel threatened by social change from below, whether in the form of Hispanic immigrants or uppity women (hence the loud applause he got at the first GOP debate when he derided “political correctness”). Far from being a defender of the little people against the elites, Trump plays to the anxiety of those who fear that their status is being challenged by people they regard as their social inferiors. That’s why the word “loser” is such a big part of his vocabulary.

Trump is not the first authoritarian bigot to be mislabeled a populist. In truth, the term almost always gets misused to describe movements that are all about persevering (and enhancing) hierarchy, not about creating a more egalitarian society. Populism has been misused to describe Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade, the John Birch Society, and David Duke’s white nationalism, among others.

>>24481150
>whereas social justice (modern leftism) are a bunch of pampered fucking parasites who constantly bitch and criticize everything because "ehrmagerd fascist white male heteropatriarchy" but never actually contribute to society or build anything or create lasting works of art
Let me fix that for you:
>hereas social INjustice/trump supporters (the alt-right) are a bunch of pampered fucking parasites who constantly bitch and criticize everything because "ehrmagerd brown people and educated women really make me shit my pants ehrmagerd le social justice boogeyman is coming to pee my cereal" but never actually contribute to society or build anything or create lasting works of art

>>24481174
Out and out trigglypuff muh prounouns people aren't too numerous, but a not unsignificant amount of people tacitly accept their basic premises: i.e. black lives matter has valid concerns, men have unfair advantages over women, human beings are equal.

>>24481596
Hierarchy is an inherent good. Inequality is not wrong, equality is. What is important is putting everyone in their correct place. The working class deserves dignity. Thus, remove the ticks and leeches feeding on them.
>>24481601
You can't just flip it around like that. I work 80 hours a week doing skilled labor. The people you are talking about are either replaceable by native teenagers or perform jobs that don't need to exist (social work, most academia).

>>24481150
>>24482115
You haven't read much written by Marx and Engels, have you?

>>24481162
Ahh. This is fair, and considering the target audience I think it's a great idea, actually. Here's hoping.

>>24481601
Well, it actually works both ways, so fix'd would be more like "US society are a bunch of pampered fucking parasites who constantly bitch and criticize everything because they each and all think of themselves as special, righteous snowflakes, but rarely contribute to society in a way, or build anything or create lasting works of art appreciable to the opposite side of the sociopolitical spectrum.

>>24482115
Actually, you can just flip it around.

Acadaemia is in some way responsible for most technological, health, environmental, and social (as well as probably other categories I am forgetting or don't even know about) advancements that have happened in the last lifetime.

I'm a career academic. I work 10-13hrs a day, 5 days a week, and 3-13hrs a day 2 days a weekend, every week all year every year. I have personally been involved in research that has helped to develop industrial adhesives that cut cost, accident probability, environmental damage, and expand the function of manufacturing industry in general. These developments came from studying... wait for it... gecko feet. There are thousands of examples like this, where seemingly trivial research has lead to extreme technological/industrial advancement (if you're interested look into biomimicry/biomimetics). I also have skills that include (among the more useful ones) data and bigdata collection, managemnt, and analysis, large project and team management, and many technical skills associated with the physical aspects of the research that I do (I'm also an arborist, a woodsmith, and a pest manager by training, but the training was theoretical and then experiential, rather than professional). I'm just one person, too.

I can't argue for social work because I know little about it, but the argument that you made could easily, just as validly be made about some blue and white collar jobs.

Anon from Central NY, supported Trump before the primaries and haven't quit since. Sure, NY will never be Red, but I'll still vote Trump. I genuinely support his policies and believe he is the best choice for the nation.

>>24474535
oof, trainwreck. stay in the south

>>24475409
>Trump needs congressional approval to enforce laws already passed by congress
Lmao

>>24482196
I actually have, but I pick and choose the parts that I find relevant to my experiences. I see Marxist theories of capital accumulation and the influence of productive forces upon social relations as valid, but Engels' citation of Bachofen's primitive matriarchy theory in Origin of Family Private Property and the State as full retard.
Also, despite his intellectual progeny being a bunch of hypersensitive faggots, Marx threw around national stereotypes and talked shit about niggers and jews like any bro 10/10 would have a beer with him and Stirner.

>>24482466
Ok, your research sounds useful. I was mostly talking about the academic disciplines influenced by critical theory- A lot of humanities, for instance, is supposed to open up your mind and expose you to different viewpoints from different historical eras, so we can be cultured enough to create the next big work of art, but in practice, it's a bunch of pointless criticism of how 20th century modernist poet X doesn't align perfectly with values of the current year.
This extends to the culture of modern arts and journalism- The majority of it is about tearing down the greats of the past, but they never produce anything better to replace what they destroy.
You know what I'm getting at? I work with welders on air processing towers, and am an artist in my free time. I like people who produce stuff, whether it be fine art or something tangible that improves peoples' lives.

>>24474535
I want to meet a girl like this IRL

>>24474555
>competent
If she was she would literally be in jail for espionage.
Be she was literally too stupid to know what she was doing with those emails.
That was her defense, that she is incompetent.
Its fucking hilarious.

>>24485793
That is fair. But it's inaccurate to say that that is most of acadaemia.

Plus, see >>24482466 second comment about personal appreciation of end results. You like producing/building physical structures. But to suggest that worthy progress in it's entirety, or even necessarily in part is building lasting physical structures is an extremely narrow, and then even down right incorrect view of progress. What of social, idealogical, intellectual, and scientific progress (essentially critical theory removed from the bounds of culture and lit)? Does that progress mean less than the building of, let's say, the Sears Tower? Why because the tower lasts longer than the typical hypothesis? Consider that conceptual advancements (like those listed above) exist specifically to mark as milestones for the next advancement. Whether it be an advancement by criticism or an advancement by favor, the advancement still would not exist without the previous concept established, which having been rendered moot, is (and was) by your logic useless, but by understanding the above, it turns out, is (and was) not.

It's like saying that the art of marble sculpting is (and was) moot because the David exists.

Valuable lasting advancements only rise to be so by climbing the backs of all of the previous, temporary advancements.

And advancements cross disciplines far more often than it seems you think - I can't think of any specific examples because I know little of most arts and metal working as disciplines but I am confident that at some point some artist or soft-scientist or scientist has produced some work that significantly advanced the concept of building things in some way. Take my research for example - I'm an ecologist, almost entirely theoretical and critical of theory, and nothing to do with industry, but look at what my research has contributed.

>>24474496
It boils down to two points
>Nuclear war
>Daddy baby hands
Now I like a good spanking, don't get me wrong, but can a man with such weak hands spank me properly, let alone run a country?
I know what I'll be doing on voting day, do you?

File: CbNHCb9UcAAS7fp2.jpg (229KB, 596x983px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 596x983px

>>24482115
>Hierarchy is an inherent good
Agreed.

File: CkaBnG0XIAAxMpy.jpg large.jpg (80KB, 500x657px)

80KB, 500x657px

>>24482115
>Inequality is not wrong, equality is.
In that case then it's just and right that Hillary, the more intelligent and competent person, is wiping the floor with Donald.

File: tip.png (328KB, 470x720px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 470x720px

>>24482115
>academia and social work don't need to exist

Boring

File: 12346346_1661496884121307_7226752958221035895_n.jpg (65KB, 540x771px)

65KB, 540x771px

>>24488299
Honestly, I think you're buttmad. Deep down, you know that you aren't going to win. You're on the wrong side of the history. Your entire ideology is based upon opposing the natural order.
You aren't 'common people'- people with the enlightened smug demeanor such as yourself are entirely dependent upon a bubble of artificial comforts, air conditioning, and fresh produce which are only possible due to the labor of the middle american proles you fling shit upon.
You're buttmad because said proles are waking up and supporting a candidate who gleefully flings shit back.
Even if Trump loses, things are never going back to the way they were. Try to suppress us, and you will only further radicalize us, to the point of total war.
An army of racist autistic bodybuilders and occult frog worshipping memelords are coming to slit your throat in the night, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop us. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

>>24488317
Again, these things may be good in principle, but academia and social work are heavily corrupted. The nonprofit sector in particular is sickening, in the way they prey upon the gullibility and good intentions of donors, and use massive overhead to enrich themselves, while providing very little aid to the people they pretend to care about. In a way, that's the modern social justice left in a nutshell.

>>24477970
It's seen in part as a choice between the regressive left and the alt right.. and at this point in history, it just so happens that the pendulum has swung too far to the left.

For example, on the most important cultural issue of our lifetime, and of this century, the left is hopelessly ignorant. They simply do not see the threat to classical liberalism that is the median Islamic community. Take a look at Trudeau to the north, happily attending segregated mosques and meeting with Muslim leaders who advocate spousal abuse. The left forsook liberalism as soon as enough brown people moved in for it to be worth it.

The alt right is not interested in such cultural relativism, especially in our own countries. Diversity is another issue where the left has a glaring double standard: whites are always a problem for 'diversity,' and non-whites are always sufficiently diverse. Even if they're ethnically homogeneous. Again, this is intellectually not a tenable position by the left.

These questions of identity, culturally and ethnically, are pretty central to Trump's rise. He's potentially a terrible vehicle for this reaction to the above, but he's the only option. The Clintons could not be a more obvious sign of the corrupt establishment, and that makes Trump palatable to some.

File: 1202_10151403005166800_556376486_n.jpg (38KB, 548x618px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 548x618px

>>24488551
>this entire post
The only natural order is when retards like you stop producing. Hopefully that will be soon considering Donald "grab them by the pussy" Trump is doing so bad that Arizona and Utah are becoming competitive.

>>24488551
>upon a bubble of artificial comforts, air conditioning, and fresh produce which are only possible due to the labor of the middle american proles you fling shit upon.
I am that middle american prole. And I'm voting for Hillary. There's a reason that Trump is down double digits in Michigan currently. An corrupt billionaire is not the savior of the working class. He is the enemy of it, and we can see right through his shit.

File: 11846721_147102935625674_3386228057319052912_n.png (303KB, 795x608px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 795x608px

>>24488569
Listen here you nigger faggot. The fact that you talk about 'grab them by the pussy' like it's something outrageous means that you've probably never been on a job site where hardhats are required in your entire life. Also, you're posting fedora atheist strawmen, which is at least 2 years out of date.
Odds are are you're some nu-male faggot working some menial retail job that will be automated out of existence within the next two years, who fancies themselves some sort of anarcho-feminist-communist revolutionary.

When 'retards like me' stop producing, de-testosteronized boho-chic trustfund anarchist fags like yourself are going to have to fend for yourselves, sustaining thousands of people off of sticks and berries at your local community squat garden while being culturally enriched and suprise-sexxed by the feral dindus and derka derkas the horrible whitesupremacistheteropatriarchal police state has been protecting you from.

>>24488639
I read the picture you posted...

Do you actually believe he's going to win the Presidency? I mean, because there's a world of polling out there from Nate Silver's polling aggregator fivethirtyeight.com to such extremely liberal sources like foxnews.com which shows that he's highly unlikely at this point to win.

I just want to know if you're genuinely that out of touch with reality.

(Deleted and re-posted to correct typographical error)

Michigan here.

Fuck Trump and Hillary both. I'm voting for Jill Stein. Btw, Hillary cheated and resorted to voter suppression to get the nomination.

Another femanon voting for Trump here.

Reminder to show this video to your friends:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHsZxJlxHYw

>>24488687
For what it's worth, watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

Also, Clinton didn't suppress any votes. Each state party headquarters controls the primary process in each state. Clinton couldn't control any of it. If you're referring, also, about the independent voters who were denied the right to vote in the democratic primaries, that's pretty par for the course. They're denied the right to vote in most states republican primaries as well.

File: t3_590177.jpg (244KB, 1194x763px)

244KB, 1194x763px

>>24488639
>trumplet so triggered by Donald "grab them by the pussy" Trump being such a wreck that he puts Utah and Arizona on the table for Democrats that he goes into a mental breakdown
>still spouting psuedo-intellectual alt-right edgelord nonsense
I honestly feel bad for your parents. I know with how you turned out, at some level, they probably regret that you were born.

Oh, and kiddo, I can literally squat your entire body weight on one leg most likely. I did competitions back in high school.

File: 1469504553384.jpg (101KB, 459x612px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 459x612px

>>24488715
>unironically uses the term "alt-right"
KEK

I just accidentally clicked /soc/, I rarely ever come here, but you guys are a bunch of fucking pussies.

>>24488551
>>24488639
Dude. As much as I hate Trump as a pres cand, and think that to support him most people must have a fundamental misunderstanding of modern science, economy (but not necessarily economics), and decency, I know you can hold a reasonable discussion. Because we sort of had one.

Stop letting all of your superioretti fall out of you pockets, you're getting the floor all saucy.

>>24488687
Jill Stein, the moron who believes that Wi-Fi causes cancer?

>>24488853
110000X better than believing climate change is a hoax. Just saying.

>>24488853
Stein wants to *abolish* national borders. She's made Trump look status quo by comparison on border policy.

>>24488859
Jill Stein, the woman who thinks that we can eliminate all existing student debt by magic?

File: IMG_20161023_225219_940.jpg (182KB, 1122x1772px)

182KB, 1122x1772px

>2016
>Supporting shillary
Do you even want to make America great again

>>24488873
Yah, that part's dumb. I mean we could oust the loan providers in a number of ways, and legally absolve stidents' debts (not how she proposed to do it)... theoretically... but I haven't sat down to think about the repercussions of that, because it's irrelevant. I'm confident there would be backlash, though. So not saying that would be good, just saying that platform is built on some basis.

>>24488883
>1932
>Supporting Schleicher
Do you even want to make Germany great again?

>>24488919
The problem is the vast majority of the money owed on student debt is owed to private lenders. Unless the US Government covers the cost of the debt, it can't order the private lenders to forgive the loans.

>>24488929
Implying Hitler didn't make Germany great again it's a shame he was such a war monger

>>24488929
That's why I said "oust the providers". It would probably take a long ass time to pummel private lenders into submission via government intervention, but Iceland did it with their banks (granted banks were failing on their own, this is why I use the words "long time" and "pummel"). Now the national government owns them and cleared the debts of lots of citizens. I might be extremely ignorant about this, but I see no reason it could't work.

That's all beyond the point, though, which was that poorly understanding govt. economics is not as bad as willingness to outright deny scientific (essential) concensus. Especially something as relevant to US economics as the combination of rising sea level, and increased frequencey and intensity of batshitcrazy storms (like the famous hurricanes) and severe droughts, among other patterns.

>>24489063
People in the US flipped a massive shit when the US purchased 60% of General Motors to keep it from collapsing. "Government Motors" they said. Anyway, Americans are incredibly suspect of the government owning businesses. Socialism and what not.

Have to consider, though, that from 2009 until 2013 when the government owned the majority of GM, their cars improved dramatically.

Expect more interventions in the middle east and more terror attacks on US soil if Hillary gets in.

>>24489167
I certainly do expect more terror attacks on US soil if Clinton is elected. Just remember, every time a Trump nut acts out on his rage to try to force political change, it's a terrorist act.

File: 1987026 - Gravity_Falls Mabel_Pines disclaimer.jpg (417KB, 694x1500px)

417KB, 694x1500px

forever voting 3rd party until we break this two party bs.


And FUCK YOU LESSER EVIL ASSHOLSE.

Suggesting a lesser evil vote is okay, isn't okay. Nothing short of Vote who you stand for, vote for who you agree with, is a satisfactory answer in politics.

Not a one candidate is owed my vote or anyone else's.

We vote policies. We do NOT vote for a LESSER EVIL. They are both THE SAME. Clinton is Trump, Trump is Clinton.

Both are for KEEPING A 2 PARTY SYSTEM.
Both are for War and our military industrial complex. Biggest slice of our budget.
Both are for Unlimited campaign contributions (the source of bad politicians, corruption in every sector of our lives)
Both are for Glass Steagall to remain OFFLINE (prevents bank abuse, biggest sector of issues)
Both are for Fossil Fuel industry, both are AGAINST a Carbon Tax (keep destorying the planet)
Both are either in practice or in leaks, lying, manipulative, media abusing monsters. (see business Trump and wikileak hillary)
Both are out of touch with middle and lower class, and have stated so. (see above)
Both WILL NEVER GO AS FAR as A THIRD PARTY in REIGNING IN OFFSHORE and CORPORATE POWERS.

Because third party's have no vested corporate interests.

DON'T PRESUME ANYONES Candidate is the BEST. they all have their flaws, see who you agree with MOST.

It takes 5 minutes to read a politician's stances. Make your vote count.

Http://www.Ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

>>24489182
So you're saying... you wouldn't have rather had Gore be President from 2000 to 2008?

>>24489181
Yep, just like that time a Trump supporter killed 50 people in a Florida nightclub

>>24489181
Oh lol you've been trolling this whole time gg man I fell for it till this post

>>24489203
I'm not saying all/most terror attacks will be Trump supporters. But domestic terror is terror still. And two guys going to a local shop that supported Clinton during the campaign and shooting people in that shop because of the association is domestic terrorism. There's certainly been enough rhetoric to support it...

Reference this:
>>24488551
>Even if Trump loses, things are never going back to the way they were. Try to suppress us, and you will only further radicalize us, to the point of total war.
An army of racist autistic bodybuilders and occult frog worshipping memelords are coming to slit your throat in the night, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop us. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

>>24474496
>Who are you rooting for?
I like this question. Opens the door for foreigners to weigh in without trumptards bleating "you don't get it USA USA".

I'm rooting for Hillary, because she's legitimately the lesser of two evils (even with Trump setting a pretty low bar.

>funny shit
Sorry OP. I stopped finding the stuff he says funny when he became the nominee, and I started finding them terrifying.

Because it's retarded to not justify one's opinion:
>mediocre businessman
Not that important on its own, but the myth of his success does a lot of heavy lifting for the question of whether he's qualified/can do the job

>engaged in dubious, and often outright illegal, behaviour
Clinton is dubious, yes, but she's been heavily vetted and investigated numerous times, for each and every questionable thing. Not trusting someone based on gut feeling is understandable though.
>But anon, she just got away with it with money/influence
If her procedural clearing grabs you by the pussy, I'll remind you of that when we get to his assaults.
Trump? Objectively, he has: defrauded investors, customers, contractors, his charity, and embargo laws.
Plus, we were willing to cry foul on Cosby when people came forward. So yeah. Probably a perv.

>Not qualified
He's never been in politics. Can't into legislation or the legal system. Doesn't compromise. And I seriously doubt he could be a diplomat.
His policies are a joke, or are demonstrably doomed to fail.
Plus he's a compulsive liar.

The world will deal with the fallout if he gets in.
Plus he won't even change anything - his party hates him, nobody else will work with him. He won't be able to pass laws, and the second he gets too eager with executive orders, he'll be impeached.
He'll blunder his way right into a world war, and swear all the while that it was the damn Mexicans.

>>24475728
>All I'm asking is in what way do you think he's an idiot that is so disqualifying.
The fact that he not only has no understanding of issues such as global trade, but that he doesn't even know that he has no understanding, hence his stupid "NAFTA was a terrible deal" nonsense.

More generally, the theory espoused in the Art of the Deal that every deal must have a winner and a loser--that there can be no mutually beneficial deal.

>>24489234
>Clinton is dubious, yes, but she's been heavily vetted and investigated numerous times, for each and every questionable thing. Not trusting someone based on gut feeling is understandable though.

The State Dpt just tried to bribe the FBI on her behalf. She just got off on account of her alleged ignorance (they admitted she engaged in activity that is illegal)--these are not feelings, but facts.

>>24489258
Not going to contradict, but I am going to have to ask for a source here.

But I'm curious - assuming this is true, how do you weigh this up against Trump's continuous flouting of the law? I mean, if your main concern is doing something illegal?

>>24489258
They admitted she engaged in activity that was irresponsible, but they lacked mens rea.

>>24489270
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-state-department-aide-patrick-kennedy-asked-fbi-to-change-classification-of-hillary-clinton-email/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghph_361wa0

I don't trust Trump to be some fair and moral actor if in power. But it's a virtual certainty with the Clintons, and a crucial difference is that the entire political and media structure is involved with Hillary's campaign. With Trump, you have a check on power. With Clinton, you really don't.

>>24489303
Also, there's no need to bribe the FBI. The FBI doesn't bring charges against anyone, that's entirely the prerogative of the Attorney General.

>>24489234
Do you believe Hillary will get anything done either? Her entire career revolves around accruing favors for the Clinton foundation, often using the state department to approve weapons deals with foreign countries. She's in it for herself.

She will push for amnesty because it will give her a permanent voting block in the form of Latinos who historically vote Democrat. Literally say bye to democracy if she gets in.

>>24489316
Well, they tried to. Who knows if there were other such offers that weren't rejected? This is why chaos (Trump) is healthier than cronyism.

If you're not appalled at what the Clinton Foundation did to Haiti, I don't know what to say. Watch the documentary Clinton Cash, and read Hitchens' book on her husband to get an idea of how these people operate. The WikiLeaks releases have been quite damning as well, as far as political corruption goes.

>>24489303
Well, if we want to get down to the details, the only supportable facts in that article (the ones with a paper trail to follow) are that: Kennedy requested the email be declassified in order to be archived; that the FBI contact returned with a request for the FBI personnel increase; and that he returned and told the State Dpt that they couldn't archive the material.
It's pretty reasonable for one department to make requests of another.
The only dodgy thing I see here is the FBI contact trying to pull strings.

The verbal conversations, the eye contact and "interpretations" of the people involved aren't exactly reliable. It seems like Kennedy said no, and the FBI contact got pissy.

>>24489337
I realize you're not going to believe this, but a huge amount of nefarious information about her has been outright fabricated by people, from the Whitewater investigations all the way through to the Benghazi. Case in point...

The reason they went searching for e-mails was because someone said she sent an e-mail which told the US military to not send aid to the compound in Benghazi when it was under attack. But the person who claimed this had been deposed prior to this claim about what happened. Why didn't this person mention this when he was being deposed? Makes no fucking sense.

>>24489200
SURE. WHATEVER THAT VAGUELY MEANS.

Third party votes. are real votes.

assfuck.

>>24489348
Do you realize that there were like 6 or 7 Benghazi investigations before they even knew she had a covert, private server? And we found out recently, multiple servers at that.

She used over a dozen devices (after claiming just one), and allowed highly classified information to be managed by people without any security clearance. And then she vaporized 33k emails as soon as it was necessary.

I could go on and reference the plethora of immunity deals and all of the pleadings of the 5th. There is no reason to support Clinton on this; it looks incredibly shady all the way through.

File: cg57a95e220426c.jpg (142KB, 625x472px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 625x472px

>>24488748
>being ashamed about what you are
Weak.

>>24489333
Well, depends what your standards are for getting things done.
Republican and right-wing media seem to think Obama got nothing done, but he objectively did a whole shit ton.

Do I think she'll get anything done? I don't think she'll manage to achieve the change anyone in the States desperately wants (campaign reform, transparency, economic reform, the reversal of the damage neo-liberalism/Reaganomics has done, etc.).
Personally, I think she'll just maintain the upward trend that Obama fostered. Any changes she causes are going to be soft ones, the continuation of other peoples' work (see: energy reform).
Thing is, she can't change a lot of stuff on her own. People need to mobilise on the state level as well, particularly if your interests are in criminal justice reform.

I now it's not a good answer, but basically, I weigh up what she'll do, which might not be dramatic, or exactly what people want, and compare it to the fiasco that Trump will produce.
I know it's a big thing to assume that he'll fuck it up, but the evidence points towards it.

>>24489355
>SURE. WHATEVER THAT VAGUELY MEANS.
AKA you weren't old enough to vote in 2000, and are a retarded naive fuck that thinks being a spoiler for wannabe authoritarian like Trump is a smart idea. What naive children like you will understand in time is that politics is about compromise. You don't shoot your face to spite your nose.

>>24489333
>Do you believe Hillary will get anything done either? Her entire career revolves around accruing favors for the Clinton foundation
You forgot the 450 pieces of legislation with her name on it. At the Clinton Foundation is an actual charity that saves lives unlike the Trump Foundation (complete scam that got shut down by a judge).

File: 32r32f2f32f323cdcdscds.png (30KB, 1234x155px)

30KB, 1234x155px

>>24489303
>I don't trust Trump to be some fair and moral actor if in power. But it's a virtual certainty with the Clintons, and a crucial difference is that the entire political and media structure is involved with Hillary's campaign

yfw this is the stupid and completely incorrect shit Trump supporters actually believe despite conservative media that hates Hillary being the #1 in ratings for 25 years now, and there being no left-wing equivalent of the countries right-wing talk radio monopoly

>>24489389
Are you actually arguing that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, etc don't want Clinton in the White House? You'd have to be delusional to deny it.

With Trump, not only is the media against him, but the party he's running for is partly against him. He wouldn't be able to get away with shit, relative to a normal situation.

>>24489399
If you look at this whole process, from the primaries until now, Trump got a massive amount of free publicity from the media organizations kind of gawking about the fact that he ran for President. Nobody thought he would actually win the primary, and so the news organizations never thought to properly vet the man. Anyway, when they realized what they were doing, about 2 months ago, that they were coddling him, they put the brakes on, which is why it seems they've been overly harsh with him recently. But go back a couple of months and it was 180 degrees different.

>>24489399
http://fortune.com/2016/06/14/media-trump/

>>24489396
You're completely ignoring the media blackout on the email leaks, which unequivocally proves that the mainstream media and the democrat party are in bed together, working to sabotage Bernie and put Clinton as the nominee.

But of course, why would the MSM shine a spotlight on their own crime?

>>24489412
Or they knew Trump would be an easy win all along for Clinton, which does some work to explain why they had no qualms about giving him vast amounts of coverage to dominate Bush/Rubio/Cruz/etc.

>>24489421
They said as much in the Podesta leaks.
Obviously this has backfired tremendously.
They held the "pussy grab" tape to show before the debate, but coverage of Hurricane Matthew threw the timing off. Paul Ryan disavowed, and the DNC expected the GOP to follow suite, which they didn't.

File: QyF_ldpt_DOXujStwyPzgsP9xFvygGGVYbqPvatcTT0.jpg (114KB, 768x768px)

114KB, 768x768px

>>24489182
>the voting 3rd party makes me unique and cool meme
>implying anyone who votes differently than you is voting for the lesser evil
I'm voting for Hillary because she's my #1 choice.

Trump is an easily triggered fucking retard, who doesn't know what climate change is, doesn't know what GDP is, doesn't know how global politics works, and most his policy positions are based on authoritarianism. I'm convinced that anyone who would ever consider voting for Trump has double digit IQ.

Jill Stein is nice but has too many anti-science positions to take seriously.

Johnson is also crazy like most libertarians are.

Hillary has a great platform that's very left (the Democrats have the most progressive platform in party history) while not being so left like Bernie Sanders that it alienates people. She's also extremely competent and probably the most qualified person to ever run in history. She has a great climate change plan, great plans for infrastructure, good on internet freedom, and so on. She also has personal reasons to overturn Citizens United and it turns out her "evil" speeches to Wallstreet contained nothing besides the fact that she's actually more left-wing than she usually presents herself in public.

>>24489421
Then I have a question I'd like you to think about - really think about - and answer: why would Trump be an easy win?

>>24489429
Backfired tremendously how? The DNC basically made Trump into a mole himself all without him knowing.

Now the RNC is so fucked that Utah and Arizona are at risk of being swing states this cycle.
>>24489420
You're completely ignoring the fact that the e-mails never contained anything of importance. No rigging.

And they were thoroughly covered.

>>24489442
O'keefe covered the rigging, which I'm sure wikileaks didn't anticipate. Wikileaks doesn't GET these leaks, they are supplied the leaks, and are merely a platform for their release.
>made Trump into a mole
They tried to pin the least likely candidate for Hillary to run against, and he's doing much better than they anticipated. The O'keefe shit coupled with the leaks are pissing people off.

>>24489430
>also has personal reasons to overturn Citizens United and it turns out her "evil" speeches to Wallstreet contained nothing besides the fact that she's actually more left-wing than she usually presents herself in public.

If she cares about campaign finance, why didn't she restrict hers to match Trump's? Of course, such issues only matter if they're not a political obstacle. Just like the women Bill victimized--all sexual assault claims are to be taken serious, we're now told, unless it's politically expedient to do otherwise.

Which brings us to her 'private/public' concession in those speeches. She is telling you that she is lying to your face about TPP, open borders, anything and everything. But hey, what's a little deceit and hypocrisy? I mean, Lena Dunham and apparently Katy Perry will wear her shirts. That must count for something important.

>>24489437
From their standpoint? Because as soon as they saw Trump's theory about the Mexican gov. sending rapists across the border, they knew they could spin it (and all of the future bombast) into a bigoted caricature that they could defeat with "We're Stronger Together"?

>>24489448
>If she cares about campaign finance, why didn't she restrict hers to match Trump's?

I'm tired of this fucking argument. She plays by the rules as they are, not as she wishes they were. Why the fuck would she handicap herself?

But traditionally, the Republican Party is the big money party, so it would make sense for a Democratic President to push to enact campaign finance reform.

>>24489442
>You're completely ignoring the fact that the e-mails never contained anything of importance. No rigging.

And here we reach the point where you have no arguments, and simply had to say "that's not true." From stuff like the supposedly non-partisan John Oliver colluding with the DNC, to the admittance that Saudi Arabia is both funding ISIS and Hillary's campaign, the emails expose a LOT. To say there is nothing of importance is to be in denial.

>>24489455
>they could defeat
Meanwhile they neglected to realize that legal immigrants hate illegals, and Hillary has pissed off a shitload of Cubans in Florida, a very important state.
Couple that with the fact that trump is pulling 17% of the black vote and he's winning with white females and white males.

>>24489464

>I'm tired of this fucking argument. She plays by the rules as they are, not as she wishes they were. Why the fuck would she handicap herself?

Because she's arguing for campaigns... to be handicapped relative to how things are? And you're wrong. Obama had -vastly- more money than McCain, and it was pretty even vs. Romney.

>>24474496
Are you from the 716?

>>24489455
I think it's a bit of a reductive theory to say it's only about the border wall crap.
There are many, many reasons he's unfit to be a world leader.

>>24489464
>I'm tired of this fucking argument. She plays by the rules as they are, not as she wishes they were. Why the fuck would she handicap herself?

She sure does go after Trump a lot for tax avoidance based on that same principle though.

>>24489536
She does, because she's campaigning. It's not as though Trump's gone after her on unfair things.

I'm a Clinton supporter, through and through, but I'll be the first to concede that Trump isn't a bad person for not paying taxes. His not paying taxes is simply him playing by the rules set forth for him. The fault lies in the rules, which need to desperately be changed.

>>24480523
>>24480525
You just proved my point about being uniformed/misinformed. Calling the subsidy program "adequate at best" makes no sense because by definition it is the government giving a program free money. This doesn't happen (obviously) with Non - renewables.

Also, you state that oil consumption is in decline, but it's up internationaly, and continues to increase almost every year, due to developing nations needing a cheap fuel source. You also state that "You're ignoring future job opportunities witht the industry". What you're ignoring is the fact that this technology already exists, and requires significantly less manpower than non renewables would, not to mention a significantly higher ROR on the investment in oil/natural gas.

I'm alright with what the government is doing already, and I think we should continue to subsidize renewable energy programs, and continue drilling for oil, on or off shore. I also like the US using more gas plants and switching from coal.

Also, I don't understand what you meant by the US shouldn't depend on Oil energetically. The US doesn't use many oil/gasoline powerplants for power, did you mean for vehicles? Companies are already developing electric cars. Basically, I'm alright with the current transition process, don't try to speed it up. Also you really shouldn't post about stuff you don't know that much about.

>>24481111
>Gee why would a country founded on fighting excessive government authority, hate excessive government authority

>>24490406
"Adequate" is a relative term, and I used it as such. Current subsidies are adequate at best relative to their goals/the point of them. It makes fine sense.

It's up internationally because it's up in the countries that consume the most oil (and they do so by a very large margin) and developing countries. Yup, not contesting that. What I'm referencing is that fewer countries are relying on oil as we move forward in years. It's starting to be the case that once contemporary developing nations are developed they make the switch, because it's easier to be energy ind when you're a small country. When they make their switches, consumption will fall. When those countries that have not switched are among the few countries left to have still switched, for convenience's sake, it will come back to bite them.

Yes the tech already exists, but the tech existing is not where the jobs would be provided from. The building, the maintenance, and the associated work-force innovation are where the jobs will come from. Unrelated but positive nonetheless, renewables are less necessarily clumped in distribution, so there won't be as powerful a need for whole communities to be built-on-the-back-bone-of so to say. This will prevent in the future whole communities going bankrupt because everybody in the community was dependent upon the same single processing plant.

I am also alright with what the government is doing, I'm happy that we have moved as far forward as we have, but I would like to see much more. Hillary has laid out a plan to move in the direction of continuing advancement. Trump has laid out a plan to halt advancement.

When I said oil I just meant fossil fuels in general. Companies are developing electric cars, but contemporary tech should see the development of much more advanced elec cars than we do see. Elec cars really aren't that great considering the elec energy they use. Integrated renewables tech (specifically solar, here) is underutilized.

File: military-poll-trump-over-clinton.jpg (164KB, 540x771px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 540x771px

>>24489363
He'd definitely win a swim race against Hillary. Lady can barely walk without being dragged away.

>>24490555
>Fewer countries are relying on oil as we move forward

Again annon, most don't use oil power plants, and instead use coal or Natural gas, which are more popular in countries that shun nuclear power.

>It will come back to bite the ones that haven't switched

Not really, there will be an abundance of natural resource, as well as proven technology methods to utilize it. Of course it won't be as technologically advanced as modernized countries.

>The building, maintenance, and associated and work force innovation are where the jobs are coming from

These already exist, solar pannel technology is over 50 years old, and the innovation of renewables has existed this entire century. There are already renewable energy sources that contribute to demand response for certain RTOs.

>This will prevent in the future whole communities going bankrupt because everybody in the community was dependent upon the same single processing plant.

This is why I repeat over and over that you don't understand this topic. Retiring fossil fuels in the two next decades is more than just not having a power plant. It means getting rid of jobs that involve drilling, truck driving, water management, pipe and cement development, explosive management, pipeline management, etc. It also involves landowners losing money. They won't be able to sell the mineral rights of their property, and won't receive royalties from activities such as drilling and storing of gas. Oh, and all of the innovative work that involves finding new drilling methods, and well production methods will go to waste.

Prey tell, enlightenment me and the rest of the industry how renewables will equally replace all of these jobs?

Look, there's a reason why Norway still drills for oil, even after taking environmentally friendly stances.

>I would like to see much more
Such as?

>Trump plans to halt advancement
Congress would have to approve that.

Annon, it's alright to not know what you're talking about.

>>24491417
I don't see the point as we are electing a commander in chief and most people in the military are not fit to lead it anyways. Else we'd have a shitload of generals and no privates.

File: 1bmph4.jpg (49KB, 502x500px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 502x500px

>>24491417
>He'd definitely win a swim race against Hillary.
No he wouldn't.
>Lady can barely walk without being dragged away.
Hillary did more standing in a year of being SoC than Trump has done in his entire silver spoon life.

File: Ct5Go6KWcAEi6OC.jpg large.jpg (46KB, 890x501px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 890x501px

>>24489465
>And here we reach the point where you have no arguments
Says the person with no argument.
>From stuff like the supposedly non-partisan John Oliver colluding with the DNC
He was never "colluding" with the DNC. That's a loaded term.
>to the admittance that Saudi Arabia is both funding ISIS and Hillary's campaign
>funding
>campaign
Also false. That's another bullshit alt-right talking point that isn't remotely true and has been repeatedly objectively debunked.
>To say there is nothing of importance is to be in denial.
I'll repeat: the e-mails never contained anything of importance. Deep down Trump supporters know this which is why they're so hurt right now. It's like finding out that your last chance was basically a dud. You guys DESPERATELY wanted evidence of rigging, and it never happened. Now you've guys have literally gone insane, and the desperation is almost pathetic to watch as your poll numbers continue to sink for nominating a bigoted fascist piece of shit like Trump.

>>24489448
>If she cares about campaign finance, why didn't she restrict hers to match Trump's?
To match Trump? Trump utilized everything she did (including superPACs) and more (such as illegally diverting money from his scam charity to fund this campaign).
>Of course, such issues only matter if they're not a political obstacle
Hillary keeps her word unlike Trump, and delivers on the vast majority of her promises. Of course such a thing might be hard to understand for someone who frequently listens to a pathological liar like Donald Trump.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
>Just like the women Bill victimized--all sexual assault claims are to be taken serious, we're now told, unless it's politically expedient to do otherwise.
Bill Clinton never "victimized" anyone. It was consensual. This is in dark contrast to Donald "grab them by the pussy" Trump who is currently going through trial for raping a 13 year old, and was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault.
>Which brings us to her 'private/public' concession in those speeches. She is telling you that she is lying to your face about TPP, open borders, anything and everything.
No she's not. The "open borders" comment was about energy, and you would've known so had you actually done the research yourself and not swallowed whatever misleading bullshit you read from whatever bullshit alt-right source you got it from.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

File: liar.png (37KB, 480x346px)

37KB, 480x346px

>>24489448
>But hey, what's a little deceit and hypocrisy?
I don't know. Have you considered asking Donald about that?

File: 32r32rf32r32.png (198KB, 1133x889px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1133x889px

>>24489447
>O'keefe covered the rigging
"O'keefe", the convicted felon and desperate partisan hack who was paid by the Trump campaign, didn't "cover" anything. He released some heavily edited misleading tape to push a right-wing agenda, and the only people who actually cared are conspiritards and desperate Trump supporters who lowered their standards even more because they have no other form of hope to cling to.
>They tried to pin the least likely candidate for Hillary to run against
The memo says that the DNC basically artificially boosted a few of the candidates (by holding back on them), and Donald Trump was one of them.
>and he's doing much better than they anticipated
???
What universe do you live in? If anything he's doing even worse than they ever could've imagined.
>The O'keefe shit coupled with the leaks are pissing people off.
Uh no. 99.9% of voters have no idea who O'keefe is, and to anyone who capable of basic critical thought it's obvious that it was agenda pushing partisan stuff that has about as much credibility as a Youtube blog. And when it was revealed that the Trump campaign actually paid him for his "journalism" any remaining credibility went quickly down the drain.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381

>>24474496
european here, trump is the obvious choice as he doesn't want to continue the current self-suicide politics of the west, actually has some testosterone in his body unlike shillary and the traps that follow her