US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[skyguy918]

When he proves ignorance of the biggest foreign policy issues? (e.g. not knowing what brexit was a day before the referendum, not knowing Russia already is at war with the Ukraine)
Ignorance means unqualified not disqualified. Also see here
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148152679301/experience-is-overrated
When he mocks, ridicules and attacks pows, Gold star parents, Marines and generals?
You cannot expect to attack Trump and not have him attack back whether or not you like that tactic (I do not like it). That has been his long standing marketing tactic which has worked. Whether or not he is a good businessman (I am skeptical that he is) he has proven himself as an expert marketer. As such it should not be disqualifying. IT WORKS
When he proves a pathological liar about even the most trivial things?
Is it better to be a pathological liar about important things like Hillary?
When he suggests his policies will be contrary to the Constitution? (freedom of speech, freedom of the press)
That is blown out of proportion by his detractors and if you were honest with yourself you would know it. There is only one candidate who said publicly said they would nominate judges who would be willing to criminalize political speech against HER.
When he shows he can't handle criticism and goes on a rampage after even the slightest insult?
That has been his long standing marketing tactic which has worked. Whether or not he is a good businessman (I am skeptical that he is) he has proven himself as an expert marketer. These techniques won him the nomination against all predictions.

I'm not saying that this would necessarily change anything about your answer, but if you think all of this is his 'marketing skill' as opposed to his core character, you're nearly as crazy as he is.

[yoohoo]

Regarding Israel, the Dem party as a whole has Israel at the bottom. I can't imagine Trump would not fully support Israel and go against what the party believes

[aygart]

I'm not saying that this would necessarily change anything about your answer, but if you think all of this is his 'marketing skill' as opposed to his core character, you're nearly as crazy as he is.

How someone markets is indicative of their core character. I just means that therefore I don'tr consider it disqualifying.

[skyguy918]

How someone markets is indicative of their core character. I just means that therefore I don'tr consider it disqualifying.

So ultimately you agree these things are indicative of character issues, but that you don't view character as disqualifying. Yet you're attempting to cover that up with some nonsense about Trump the marketer?

[aygart]

So ultimately you agree these things are indicative of character issues, but that you don't view character as disqualifying. Yet you're attempting to cover that up with some nonsense about Trump the marketer?

it means it is no worse than the despicable things Hillary and others have done to gain and stay in power.

[Baruch]

This campaign is getting pretty nasty and we're just at the beginning of 3 month long journey!

It's sad to see how the media can really rip to shreds a person they don't like and have such influence on the country... I hope Donald wins just to show them they don't always control things in America. However, I don't see things changing even after The Donald becomes president, the media will try to shame him and make the economy look terrible resulting in low consumer confidants etc....

Upsetting reality!

Blaming the negative image of Trump as being the fault of the media, reminds me of this clip of Chris Rock (warning: lots of language) skip to 7 minutes in. (BTW, it's the best 8 minutes in comedy history)

[Baruch]

3 a.m. | The SIMPSONS

[Baruch]

My 6 year old son told me that another kid told him, that Hillary's gonna kill the yidden, and Trump is gonna kill the Arabs.
Who on this thread's son was my son talking to?

[good sam]

3 a.m. | The SIMPSONS

Lol, his frequent contacts.

[good sam]

Fair or no?

[churnbabychurn]

https://youtu.be/sw0ewq8LbrM

#is he for real??

[thaber]

https://youtu.be/sw0ewq8LbrM

#is he for real??

he literally sounds like the kid trying to guess the right answer on the test. He's really gotta brush up on his policy stuff, and be able to articulate clear positions. 

[efflpetzel]

https://youtu.be/sw0ewq8LbrM

#is he for real??

OMG. Cringewothy

Unbelivable in this day & age the Republican party nominee so ignorant on matters of such importance

[Moshe123]

But he's a marketer. Make America Great Again

[ExGingi]

OMG. Cringewothy

Unbelivable in this day & age the Republican party nominee so ignorant on matters of such importance

I've said it before, and I will say it again.
1. If you don't vote in one of a handful of states - don't worry, you won't make a difference.
2. Go into political hibernation until November.
3. If you do vote in a state where your vote can make a difference, emerge in November and think only about the issue where the POTUS really has significant power - SCOTUS nominations.

Follow the above 3 simple instructions and you should feel better.

[aygart]

When he suggests his policies will be contrary to the Constitution? (freedom of speech, freedom of the press)

This is an oft quoted and never proven accusation.

CLINTON: Yes, but that right like every other of our rights, our First Amendment rights, every right that we have is open to and even subject to reasonable regulations.

but Trump is the one contrary to the constitution? We know her definition of "reasonable" is what she wants to do.

[skyguy918]

I've said it before, and I will say it again.
1. If you don't vote in one of a handful of states - don't worry, you won't make a difference.
2. Go into political hibernation until November.
3. If you do vote in a state where your vote can make a difference, emerge in November and think only about the issue where the POTUS really has significant power - SCOTUS nominations.

Follow the above 3 simple instructions and you should feel better.

It's getting annoying. Obviously some people don't agree with your perspective, and at the very least find it interesting to discuss regardless of their actual vote. Repeating the same line literally any time anyone makes a post against Trump is not constructive to the conversation.

[Yehuda57]

Fair or no?

Viciously attacked? Hardly. But for argument's sake, let's say he was.

Is he allowed to respond? Of course. No one has an issue with a response*. It is the substance of the response that is the issue.

Hilary voted for the Iraq war because she had a vote. Trump didn't have a vote. One of his oft repeated lies is that he was against the war. He wasn't. He was for the war. Yet he continues to repeat the lie even though it has been proven wrong. He hardly ever gets called on it by the media.

*The only people who should take issue with a response are Trump supporters. Most people didn't watch the Kahns at the DNC. Their presentation was before prime time and it was primarily seen by people already supporting Hilary. Had he ignored it, and given a vaguely empathetic response in the interview, it likely would have faded from memory pretty quickly. Now the Kahns are on every channel sucking up news coverage on a day when Hilary lied blatantly and badly about the FBI investigation.

[zale]

I've said it before, and I will say it again.
1. If you don't vote in one of a handful of states - don't worry, you won't make a difference.
2. Go into political hibernation until November.
3. If you do vote in a state where your vote can make a difference, emerge in November and think only about the issue where the POTUS really has significant power - SCOTUS nominations.

Follow the above 3 simple instructions and you should feel better.

Your point #3 is completely untrue. I advise you to brush up on American history.

The president of the United States might not be able to single-handedly enact a policy, but he or she shapes the direction of the country and its prestige among the nations.

When a strong leader sits in the oval office, the world trembles. A strong leader does not need to lift a finger or fire a single bullet in order to bring law and order. The Soviets were terrified of Ronald Reagan. The Viet Kong were terrified of Richard Nixon. Heck, the Soviets even feared JFK, whom by today's standards would be called a "Right wing nut" by Bernie supporters.

Obama made America look weak. He made threats to Syria and they called his bluff. ISIS runs around doing whatever the hell it likes, raping, pillaging, terrorizing, cooking people alive for fun, and Obama authorizes a few drone strikes to make it look like he's being "tough". He emasculated the U.S. Army. Military officers report having their hands tied behind their back because of Obama's radical Leftist policies.

Blame the Supreme Court all you like, but it was Obama who led the charge for the government to acknowledge gay marriage and transgender bathroom and locker room rights. It was Obama who instigated the violent Black Lives Matter movement by coming out and saying that Trayvon Martin could have been his son, and that the death of thug Michael Brown who robbed a store and tried to take the gun of a police officer "stains the heart of Black children". Obama, a sitting U.S. president, defended a criminal. This gave Blacks all the ammunition they need to riot and attack, and eventually shoot and kill police.

So tell me again how it only matters who the president nominates for the Supreme Court?

Do you want Hillary to support every Black thug who gets shot by the police? Do you want Hillary to come out in support of whatever the next mission of the Leftist kooks come up with? Human-animal marriage rights? Rights to walk around naked in the streets? Rights to kill babies for the first 30 days after they are born, because they are not fully developed yet?

[Yehuda57]

This is an oft quoted and never proven accusation. but Trump is the one contrary to the constitution? We know her definition of "reasonable" is what she wants to do.

A partial list:

The Muslim ban, his immigration policies, the ability to shut down mosques, and others go against a few amendments.
His love of eminent domain to infringe on property rights goes beyond lawful, and against the Constitution.
His stated desire to widen libel laws so he can sue reporters  goes against freedom of the press. His ban on any media agency he feels slighted by shows it isn't just talk.
He wants to ban parts of the internet which limits free speech.
He is pro-torture, proposed killing innocent civilians (family of terrorists), and doesn't care to bother with due process.

And he rather likes the ways dictators like Putin, Hussein and others run things, clearly exhibiting a disdain for democratic process and the freedoms offered by the constitution.

Now Hilary.

She says she wants to regulate some of the amendments? Sure. But within the confines of the law. She at least expresses a knowledge and understanding of the Constitution and wants to change certain interpretations of it. It is within reason, and a large portion of the country agrees with her, even if we don't.

Trump, OTOH, displays an almost willful ignorance of even the most basic tenants of the Constitution, and his "policies" (they are more incoherent, off the cuff ramblings than thought out policies) contradict it in numerous ways.

Ignorance of the the Constitution and a desire to gut it - not reform it under the law of the land - is disqualifying, to borrow a term.

ETA: When right wingers complain the SCOTUS got something wrong - like eminent domain, Obamacare, marriage, and others, that is ok. But when Hilary says they got something wrong? EVIL.

The worst thing Trump has done is make Obama and Hilary sympathetic politicians. I feel disgusting.