Trump vs Hillary Debate Round 1
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Ud think after hearin Obama's lame ass campaign about one thing and do a complete 180 ud think ? would understand this..
Oh wait.. They do..
Only when they excusin Obama's lame ass tho..
"Congress and the Senate made sure that nothin Obama wanted to do got passed.." they sing that sad ass song in every thread..
now all of a sudden if Trump becomes president he can jus do wnat he wants!?!
I swear these fuckboys for democrats want it both ways. lol & smh -
well, i am not on any watch lists?Swiffness! wrote: »@janklow he's gonna take ur guns away bro
no, but seriously, why do you think i have spent 18 months telling gun people "Trump doesn't give a ? about you or your rights and will discard you and violate them as soon as it's convenient?"
unfortunately, the primary opposition is a lying ? who ALSO will take their guns away
yupThe Lonious Monk wrote: »lol I can't believe there are people so excited about this ? . No matter which one wins, we lose. Our choice is literally between a liar and a lunatic. One might be better than the other, but both of them are no good. -
i guess Clinton is a Republican Lite then? because you know she doesn't give a ? about ending the drug war or the police state.Swiffness! wrote: »Gary Johnson is Republican Lite. The guy was a Republican governor that didn't govern like a crazy Tea Party ? and we're supposed to give him a medal for it? Have you actually heard him passionately speak about ending the Drug War? NO. Or Police Brutality? ? NO. Libertarians would rather cut taxes than end the police state.
also, you know what candidate actually has this stance?
"The War on Drugs is an expensive failure. We spend money to police it. We spend money to incarcerate nonviolent offenders. And what do we get in return? A society that kicks our troubled mothers, fathers, and young adults while they’re down, instead of giving them the tools to be healthier and more productive members of society. "
it's not Clinton. -
Daily Show & Trevor Noah sucked on the coverage.
The world needs Jon Stewart -
BOSSExcellence wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Ud think after hearin Obama's lame ass campaign about one thing and do a complete 180 ud think ? would understand this..
Oh wait.. They do..
Only when they excusin Obama's lame ass tho..
"Congress and the Senate made sure that nothin Obama wanted to do got passed.." they sing that sad ass song in every thread..
now all of a sudden if Trump becomes president he can jus do wnat he wants!?!
I swear these fuckboys for democrats want it both ways. lol & smh
Trump gonna do for white people tho. That's the difference. He will get to do a lot of the things he wants because it will be for the people in Congress and Senate. For white supremacy. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Bush II managed to ? up a lot of stuff. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Probably not. The president matters. Trump would definitely be worse than Clinton. I think that is what ppl are saying here. -
Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Quite sure about that. Still standing 100% firm on my statement.
I'm not arguing ? never said anything about Trump not being that bad. Every president this country has ever had whether republican or democrat has been backed by racists. So it matters more NOW to you that some of the racists and white supremacist are out in the open with it?
I'm more disturbed at the fact that some people still thinking and feeling the white person calling you ? to your face is worse than the white person who calls you ? behind your back. -
A Talented One wrote: »Turfaholic wrote: »A Talented One wrote: »About the race segment, what happened just reinforced my view that only a fool would think that Hillary is anywhere near as bad for blacks as Trump.
With Hillary, you get efforts at police reform. With Trump, more stop and frisk.
Trump has made it clear that he is a "law and order" candidate. That's clearly dog whistle racial politics going back 50 years.
I know someone is completely ignorant about politics when they say that Hillary is no better than Trump for blacks. The idea is beyond absurd.
Lol, it's ? from Clinton era still locked up behind The Crime Bill they passed. That 3 strike, you're out law. ? still in jail from the 90s over a ounce of weed. I don't want to see another Clinton in office. Black people adopted Bill. Nick named him the first Black President. Meanwhile he was ruining many black families. That family is on some real deal snake ? .
And politically Hillary is in bed with alot of countries. And she owes lots of favors. ? think Iran powered down it's nuclear plants just on the Good Ol word of Hillary? Y'all trust that ? if y'all want to.
And when it comes to foreign policy.... seems like Trump wants to do something new. Iraq and Afghanistan is the new Africa. We landed over there and instantly started taking their resources. Killed many innocent people. Only thing I didn't agree with was Trump him saying Obama created ISIS. Nah, that was the Bush family. Theirs a heroin epidemic in White America. Courtesy of Afghanistan popi fields. We need to get up outta there.
He said America hasn't advanced as well as other countries militaries. I believe him. Russia has been flexing they ? for a minute now.
The Clintons felt that, as Democrats, they had to be just as though on crime as Republicans are, if not tougher, because Democrats were widely perceived at the time as "soft on crime."
The Clinton now regret some the things they did and said about crime 20 years ago, but Trump wants to be tougher on crime NOW. And he's given every indication that he sides with cops over the police brutality issue. And he's in favor of racial profiling.
I can see why someone might be critical of the Clinton for what they did 20 years ago on crime. But I can't understand why someone who cares about this issue would even consider voting for Trump. He's NOW the Clinton 20 years ago on steroids. That, in fact, probably understates it.
And Trump isn't in bed with a lot of countries? There was a report last week that he has business dealing with all kinds of shady characters from around the world.
Trump has indicated that he would be willing to attack other countries based on the slightest provocation (see his comments about the Iranian navy ships), not to mention that Clinton had nothing to do with starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Bush who did that.
So you willing to just basically blindly back Clinton who ? up black families till this day because of how "they didn't wanted to be perceived"? That's basically saying she will do and/or say anything to get what she wants even if that means ? up generations of people.
I'm not really understanding how you willing to just let that ? slide. I know for a fact Trump is willing to do the same thing in terms of ? up generations of peoples lives. Which is why I ain't ? with him either. ? Clinton and Trump!
You a damn fool if you really honestly believe they regret that ? . They don't regret that ? . Only saying that because it will help Hillary get into office and ? like you falling for that ? hook, line and sinker. If Clinton knew coming up with an even worse crime bill would for sure get her put in the white house you better know that ? would do that ? all over again and with no ? given about doing it. -
also, you know what candidate actually has this stance?
1) "Libertarians" top priority is that Ayn Rand nonsense, then everything else. I've read enough racist authoritarian ? in Reason Magazine comments to figure that out. That's why I say just let the Republican Party die and have the Libertarians take up the mantle of tax cuts for billionaires.
2) Legalizing Marijuana does not end the drug war, I don't know why people are stupid enough to keep believing that while Heroin eats Rural America alive. Gary's idea to use the Swiss model of heroin harm reduction sounds nice until you realize implementing this nationwide in America would ummmmmmmmm require the Federal Government to invest massive amounts of resources into becoming a ? Heroin Cartel. I'm sure Congress will love that lol. Imagine that government shutdown lol. -
Phantom Pain wrote: »Make it a party
Alcohol poisoning coming right up -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Bush II managed to ? up a lot of stuff. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Probably not. The president matters. Trump would definitely be worse than Clinton. I think that is what ppl are saying here.
Bush wasn't the only person pushing for the war though. He was just the figurehead. After 9/11, people were looking for blood.
And no one is saying the president doesn't matter, but there is a limit to how much damage can be done. Some people are acting like Trump is just going to go around nuking every country he doesn' t like or is going to put black people back in slavery. Neither of those things is going to happen. Neither can happen. Trump can do some damage as president, but so can/will Hillary. A lot of you see the dangers with Trump, but are being willfully blind when it comes to the dangers with Hillary. -
Donald Trump asked 3 times why can't we use nuclear warheads in one of his security briefings ,the entire room was stunned and quiet because he was dead serious.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Bush II managed to ? up a lot of stuff. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Probably not. The president matters. Trump would definitely be worse than Clinton. I think that is what ppl are saying here.
Bush wasn't the only person pushing for the war though. He was just the figurehead. After 9/11, people were looking for blood.
And no one is saying the president doesn't matter, but there is a limit to how much damage can be done. Some people are acting like Trump is just going to go around nuking every country he doesn' t like or is going to put black people back in slavery. Neither of those things is going to happen. Neither can happen. Trump can do some damage as president, but so can/will Hillary. A lot of you see the dangers with Trump, but are being willfully blind when it comes to the dangers with Hillary.
Scarborough revealed the story while he was interviewing former CIA Director Michael Hayden on "Morning Joe" about Trump's campaign.
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert went to advise Donald Trump,” Scarborough said. “And three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons — three times he asked. At one point, ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?’” -
Donald Trump asked 3 times why can't we use nuclear warheads in one of his security briefings ,the entire room was stunned and quiet because he was dead serious.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Bush II managed to ? up a lot of stuff. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Probably not. The president matters. Trump would definitely be worse than Clinton. I think that is what ppl are saying here.
Bush wasn't the only person pushing for the war though. He was just the figurehead. After 9/11, people were looking for blood.
And no one is saying the president doesn't matter, but there is a limit to how much damage can be done. Some people are acting like Trump is just going to go around nuking every country he doesn' t like or is going to put black people back in slavery. Neither of those things is going to happen. Neither can happen. Trump can do some damage as president, but so can/will Hillary. A lot of you see the dangers with Trump, but are being willfully blind when it comes to the dangers with Hillary.
Scarborough revealed the story while he was interviewing former CIA Director Michael Hayden on "Morning Joe" about Trump's campaign.
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert went to advise Donald Trump,” Scarborough said. “And three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons — three times he asked. At one point, ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?’”
Again checks and balances. Trump can want to use nukes, but he can't make that call out of that blue like that unless under some crazy circumstances. Ya'll ? really think the president has a big red button on his desk that he can just push whenever he feels huh? lol -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Donald Trump asked 3 times why can't we use nuclear warheads in one of his security briefings ,the entire room was stunned and quiet because he was dead serious.The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Bush II managed to ? up a lot of stuff. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Probably not. The president matters. Trump would definitely be worse than Clinton. I think that is what ppl are saying here.
Bush wasn't the only person pushing for the war though. He was just the figurehead. After 9/11, people were looking for blood.
And no one is saying the president doesn't matter, but there is a limit to how much damage can be done. Some people are acting like Trump is just going to go around nuking every country he doesn' t like or is going to put black people back in slavery. Neither of those things is going to happen. Neither can happen. Trump can do some damage as president, but so can/will Hillary. A lot of you see the dangers with Trump, but are being willfully blind when it comes to the dangers with Hillary.
Scarborough revealed the story while he was interviewing former CIA Director Michael Hayden on "Morning Joe" about Trump's campaign.
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert went to advise Donald Trump,” Scarborough said. “And three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons — three times he asked. At one point, ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?’”
Again checks and balances. Trump can want to use nukes, but he can't make that call out of that blue like that unless under some crazy circumstances. Ya'll ? really think the president has a big red button on his desk that he can just push whenever he feels huh? lol
If Donald Trump becomes President he is going to use nukes on North Korea. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Bush II managed to ? up a lot of stuff. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Probably not. The president matters. Trump would definitely be worse than Clinton. I think that is what ppl are saying here.
A lot of you see the dangers with Trump, but are being willfully blind when it comes to the dangers with Hillary.
Can you please articulate the "dangers with Hilary" ...
I am curious how they are even comparable to the risks posed by Trump. -
I'm thinking some of y'all can't be serious.
More goes into electing a president than how racist you perceive that candidate to be ...
For a moment ... let's entertain the absurd notion that bigotry among Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump is remotely equal.
Hell - for the sake of argument, let's pretend Donald Trump doesn't have a single racist bone in his body.
Would you invite a random white guy off the street to perform brain surgery on your daughter?
That seems like a pretty important job.
If you had a choice between this ? off the street ... and a surgeon with 30 years of experience - would you just leave your daughters life to chance...
"Ehh ... what's the worst that could happen?"
You wouldn't? ... oh, he's not qualified, you say?
You don't think the President of the United States is an important ? job ...
that, maybe ... just maybe, requires a qualified candidate?
Trump is categorically the least qualified candidate for president in the history of the Untied States... it's not close.
He also has the most volatile, hubristic, and disrespectful attitude of anyone who has ever run for office.
He knows NOTHING and he believes he knows EVERYTHING.
And y'all want to elect that man president.
Make it make sense. -
I talked to a trump supportor yesterday who said the country been bad for a minute and with trump why not try something diffrent? Well,i can see that logic, except trump is a complete ? idiot who has no buisness in the postion hes in and will more than likley make ? worse
-
I think y'all might be putting too much emphasis on the "intelligence" of presidents.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Swiffness! wrote: »The loudest racist ain't always the one that folks need to worry about the most.
The loudest racist who is currently mainstreaming White Supremacy? Who is fully backed by all the most racist elements of the country? From the KKK to the FOP?
You sure about that?
Trump's level of white supremacist support is literally unprecedented in modern Presidential politics
and ya'll really
REALLY
REALLY
tryna argue
"He won't be that bad. What's the worst that could happen?"
Do some of ya'll not know how the government works? There is a thing called checks and balances. Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but the president's power is limited. This idea that Trump can singlehandedly ruin the world is some Chicken Little ? .
And again, Trump will most definitely be a ? president, but ya'll are lying to yourselves if you think Hillary will be a good one. Which do you want to die by, fire or poison? Poison may be the less terrible of the two, but either way, you'll still be dead.
Bush II managed to ? up a lot of stuff. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Probably not. The president matters. Trump would definitely be worse than Clinton. I think that is what ppl are saying here.
Bush wasn't the only person pushing for the war though. He was just the figurehead. After 9/11, people were looking for blood.
And no one is saying the president doesn't matter, but there is a limit to how much damage can be done. Some people are acting like Trump is just going to go around nuking every country he doesn' t like or is going to put black people back in slavery. Neither of those things is going to happen. Neither can happen. Trump can do some damage as president, but so can/will Hillary. A lot of you see the dangers with Trump, but are being willfully blind when it comes to the dangers with Hillary.
But the president picks his team too, has veto power, etc... And the Bush ppl were perfectly willing to act laterally and even illegally. Do YOU think a Gore presidency would have invaded Iraq? -
TheNuttinProffessor wrote: »I think y'all might be putting too much emphasis on the "intelligence" of presidents.
Ummmm ..... What????
How is intelligence or rather "intelligence" not important? -
-
Can you please articulate the "dangers with Hilary" ...
I am curious how they are even comparable to the risks posed by Trump.
She's a proven liar and will say whatever as long as it furthers her goal. We've already seen what lies can do.
She's in the pockets of corporations and other high profile/money players, so she's going to put their interests over those of the American people.
And unlike Trump, who many in his own party think is an idiot, she's smart enough to be able to push an agenda through. Again, most of the ? people believe Trump will do, he won't do because he will never get the support needed to do it. Clinton on the other hand is savvy and knowledgeable enough to get ? pushed through even if it's to the detriment of everyone. That makes her more dangerous than Trump in some ways.
But the president picks his team too, has veto power, etc... And the Bush ppl were perfectly willing to act laterally and even illegally. Do YOU think a Gore presidency would have invaded Iraq?
The president is the head of the executive branch. Yes, he's the one that fills that branch in, but the executive is not the only branch. For most major decisions, there has to be some degree of agreement between the executive and legislative branches and Trump will not get support from Congress for most of the bizarre ? he spouts. Also, the reason Bush was able to do a lot of the ? he did is because he had a lot of Congress on his side. Remember, it was heavily Republican at the time and even the Democrats bent to certain things because of the circumstances at play at the time.
As for whether or not Gore would have invaded Iraq, it depends on what is his interests were at the time. Maybe he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have made an equally bad decision that fit his interests that Bush didn't make. That type of speculation is pointless. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Can you please articulate the "dangers with Hilary" ...
I am curious how they are even comparable to the risks posed by Trump.
She's a proven liar and will say whatever as long as it furthers her goal. We've already seen what lies can do.
She's in the pockets of corporations and other high profile/money players, so she's going to put their interests over those of the American people.
And unlike Trump, who many in his own party think is an idiot, she's smart enough to be able to push an agenda through. Again, most of the ? people believe Trump will do, he won't do because he will never get the support needed to do it. Clinton on the other hand is savvy and knowledgeable enough to get ? pushed through even if it's to the detriment of everyone. That makes her more dangerous than Trump in some ways.
But the president picks his team too, has veto power, etc... And the Bush ppl were perfectly willing to act laterally and even illegally. Do YOU think a Gore presidency would have invaded Iraq?
The president is the head of the executive branch. Yes, he's the one that fills that branch in, but the executive is not the only branch. For most major decisions, there has to be some degree of agreement between the executive and legislative branches and Trump will not get support from Congress for most of the bizarre ? he spouts. Also, the reason Bush was able to do a lot of the ? he did is because he had a lot of Congress on his side. Remember, it was heavily Republican at the time and even the Democrats bent to certain things because of the circumstances at play at the time.
As for whether or not Gore would have invaded Iraq, it depends on what is his interests were at the time. Maybe he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have made an equally bad decision that fit his interests that Bush didn't make. That type of speculation is pointless.
So you're going to vote for Trump because he is more incompetent? lol. Ok. He IS a proven liar. About many many things. Even small things. What did Clinton lie about? Emails? lol. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »
Can you please articulate the "dangers with Hilary" ...
I am curious how they are even comparable to the risks posed by Trump.
She's a proven liar and will say whatever as long as it furthers her goal. We've already seen what lies can do.
She's in the pockets of corporations and other high profile/money players, so she's going to put their interests over those of the American people.
And unlike Trump, who many in his own party think is an idiot, she's smart enough to be able to push an agenda through. Again, most of the ? people believe Trump will do, he won't do because he will never get the support needed to do it. Clinton on the other hand is savvy and knowledgeable enough to get ? pushed through even if it's to the detriment of everyone. That makes her more dangerous than Trump in some ways.
But the president picks his team too, has veto power, etc... And the Bush ppl were perfectly willing to act laterally and even illegally. Do YOU think a Gore presidency would have invaded Iraq?
The president is the head of the executive branch. Yes, he's the one that fills that branch in, but the executive is not the only branch. For most major decisions, there has to be some degree of agreement between the executive and legislative branches and Trump will not get support from Congress for most of the bizarre ? he spouts. Also, the reason Bush was able to do a lot of the ? he did is because he had a lot of Congress on his side. Remember, it was heavily Republican at the time and even the Democrats bent to certain things because of the circumstances at play at the time.
As for whether or not Gore would have invaded Iraq, it depends on what is his interests were at the time. Maybe he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't have made an equally bad decision that fit his interests that Bush didn't make. That type of speculation is pointless.
So you're going to vote for Trump because he is more incompetent? lol. Ok. He IS a proven liar. About many many things. Even small things. What did Clinton lie about? Emails? lol.
Do ya'll cats not read? Where did I say I was voting for Trump? I said both candidates are terrible. I also acknowledged that Hillary might be the better choice, but she's nothing at all to get excited about.
And if you think those emails are a small thing, then I don't know what to tell you. Again, she committed a federal crime. If I did what she did at my job, I'd be doing time right now. The ? is not trivial. -
@The Lonious Monk
"Proven liar?" ...
Final Tally of Lies during the 1st 2016 Presidential Debate
Donald Trump: 16; Hillary Clinton: 0.
- Forbes
"Study shows that Trump actually tells the truth only 22% of the time"
- CNN
"During 5 hours of speaking, it was reported that Trump lied every 3 minutes and 15 seconds"
- CNN
Hilary couldn't hold a candle to Trump's historic disregard for the truth.
How can she be "more dangerous" when by your own criteria Trump is the golden standard of "dangerous"?
Trumps "Bizzare ? " is quickly becoming the new normal for the extreme right conservative platform. Have you noticed the base shift from moderate to the far right over the years?
Republicans across the country, even ones that loathe Trump are falling in line. Those same politicians (who all lie by the way) will do what they need to in order to stay in power. They don't give a ? about how policy will affect the minorities (Stop and Frisk) or the low to middle class (Massive Tax Breaks for the Rich).
It baffles me how some of y'all compare the current republican values to that of democrats, and have the audacity to claim that they are virtually identical - or that they will have the same effect on minorities and the lower to middle class.
Republican presidents of the past would be considered Democrats, today.
And you don't think he will get support from Congress?
Uhh ... Which Congress are we taking about?
The 2014 elections gave the Republicans control of the Senate (and control of both houses of Congress) for the first time since the 109th Congress. With 247 seats in the House of Representatives and 54 seats in the Senate, this Congress began with the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929–1931
Add to that the swath of elected officials that Trump would get to put into the Executice office and various other areas of his Adminstration.
I have a hunch that they will be Republicans that he can influence with his agenda.
