Trump is disgusting.
Hillary is corrupt.
Who's the lesser evil?
ParisNair
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Saint Jiub
Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate.
Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson
Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson
Holly2003
[QUOTE]
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b] Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate.
Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson[/QUOTE]
None of that three are "left"...
[b]Panchgani wrote: [/b] Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate.
Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson[/QUOTE]
None of that three are "left"...
Costa86
Tough call. There haven't been two Presidential candidates as bad as these in a quite some time. It's sad that it's come down to these two, etc., etc.
I'd have to say Clinton is probably the lesser evil. But if I could vote in the US, I wouldn't vote for either of them.
Obviously, thanks to this latest email scandal and the FBI reopening their investigation, Trump actually does have a running chance of winning. But Clinton will win.
I'd have to say Clinton is probably the lesser evil. But if I could vote in the US, I wouldn't vote for either of them.
Obviously, thanks to this latest email scandal and the FBI reopening their investigation, Trump actually does have a running chance of winning. But Clinton will win.
Mr.Jingles
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate.
Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson[/QUOTE]
John Oliver pretty much nailed why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are as much of a bad choice as Clinton or Trump. They are indeed much cleaner in terms of scandals, and they have some great ideas, but some of their proposals just don't make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU
Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate.
Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson[/QUOTE]
John Oliver pretty much nailed why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are as much of a bad choice as Clinton or Trump. They are indeed much cleaner in terms of scandals, and they have some great ideas, but some of their proposals just don't make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE]
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate.
Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson[/QUOTE]
John Oliver pretty much nailed why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are as much of a bad choice as Clinton or Trump. They are indeed much cleaner in terms of scandals, and they have some great ideas, but some of their proposals just don't make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU[/QUOTE]
......
John Oliver is a Clinton apologist that downplays Clinton's ethically challanged persona as merely irritating and no big deal (10 raisins in a cookie).
There are 3 billion "raisins" not to vote for Hillary:
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/[/url]
"In her current campaign, Clinton has pledged to rein in Wall Street. She has proposed higher taxes on high-frequency traders and an end to special tax breaks for hedge fund managers, and recently called for more aggressive enforcement of criminal statutes that govern the finance industry ... But her rhetoric has not alarmed her backers in the financial sector. So far, donors in the banking and insurance industries have given $6.4 million to her campaign and allied super PACs, behind only those in communications and technology, The Post found."
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html[/url]
"Then-Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the committee’s chairman at the time, called Lugar’s concerns a “legitimate question.” Kerry, who succeeded Clinton as secretary of state, suggested the potential at least for appearance problems if her official duties seemed to coincide with her husband’s fundraising efforts.
“If you are traveling to some country and you meet with the foreign leadership and a week later or two weeks later or three weeks later the president travels there and solicits a donation and they pledge to give at some point in the future but nobody knows, is there an appearance of a conflict?” Kerry asked."
[url=http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-email-to-chelsea-stars-in-benghazi-hearing/]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-email-to-chelsea-stars-in-benghazi-hearing/[/url]
In the email, Mrs. Clinton tells her daughter — who used the email pseudonym “Diane Reynolds” — that the attacks were undertaken by an “Al Queda-like group.”
The private email to Chelsea Clinton, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) said, was at odds with the message in the official statement put out by the State Department that same night under Mrs. Clinton’s name. In that statement, Mrs. Clinton made reference to an anti-Islam video that had sparked violent protests elsewhere in the region.
The email from Hillary Clinton
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Mrs. Clinton’s 2012 statement said.
Soon after the Benghazi attack, Susan Rice, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reiterated on Sunday talk shows that the episode came amid protests over the video.
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
Gary Johnson ... the libertarian candidate.
Don't vote for the left nut or the right nut ... vote for the Johnson[/QUOTE]
John Oliver pretty much nailed why Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are as much of a bad choice as Clinton or Trump. They are indeed much cleaner in terms of scandals, and they have some great ideas, but some of their proposals just don't make sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU[/QUOTE]
......
John Oliver is a Clinton apologist that downplays Clinton's ethically challanged persona as merely irritating and no big deal (10 raisins in a cookie).
There are 3 billion "raisins" not to vote for Hillary:
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/[/url]
"In her current campaign, Clinton has pledged to rein in Wall Street. She has proposed higher taxes on high-frequency traders and an end to special tax breaks for hedge fund managers, and recently called for more aggressive enforcement of criminal statutes that govern the finance industry ... But her rhetoric has not alarmed her backers in the financial sector. So far, donors in the banking and insurance industries have given $6.4 million to her campaign and allied super PACs, behind only those in communications and technology, The Post found."
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html[/url]
"Then-Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the committee’s chairman at the time, called Lugar’s concerns a “legitimate question.” Kerry, who succeeded Clinton as secretary of state, suggested the potential at least for appearance problems if her official duties seemed to coincide with her husband’s fundraising efforts.
“If you are traveling to some country and you meet with the foreign leadership and a week later or two weeks later or three weeks later the president travels there and solicits a donation and they pledge to give at some point in the future but nobody knows, is there an appearance of a conflict?” Kerry asked."
[url=http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-email-to-chelsea-stars-in-benghazi-hearing/]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-email-to-chelsea-stars-in-benghazi-hearing/[/url]
In the email, Mrs. Clinton tells her daughter — who used the email pseudonym “Diane Reynolds” — that the attacks were undertaken by an “Al Queda-like group.”
The private email to Chelsea Clinton, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) said, was at odds with the message in the official statement put out by the State Department that same night under Mrs. Clinton’s name. In that statement, Mrs. Clinton made reference to an anti-Islam video that had sparked violent protests elsewhere in the region.
The email from Hillary Clinton
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Mrs. Clinton’s 2012 statement said.
Soon after the Benghazi attack, Susan Rice, then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reiterated on Sunday talk shows that the episode came amid protests over the video.
Oscar J
Hillary does seem to lie and have agendas, but being the Democratic party's nominee her values naturally have a lot more appeal to more civilized and enlightened parts of the world, such as here in Scandinavia.
Trump is pretty much everything I despise in people, trapped into one person. He might also be genuinely dangerous to our civilisation - both due to his irrationality, but also because of his willful ignorance of well established facts and intention to tear up the Paris Agreement, which might prove fatal to our environment.
Trump is pretty much everything I despise in people, trapped into one person. He might also be genuinely dangerous to our civilisation - both due to his irrationality, but also because of his willful ignorance of well established facts and intention to tear up the Paris Agreement, which might prove fatal to our environment.
Mr.Jingles
The main problem with Trump is not the ignorant shit he says, but the shit he's done.
A lot of people claim Trump is a great businessman, which is about as true to say as saying as Lance Armstrong is a great cyclist.
Trump made a vast portion of his fortune by screwing others, he made contracts with smaller businessmen only to not pay them the agreed amount, and the reason why he picked smaller businessmen is because they would risk losing their business if they took Trump to court and they lost. It was then when Trump would apply the mob tactic of taking a much smaller percentage of the agreed amount, and keep it settled that way.
Not to mention also that Trump was one of those real state owners who would buy housing property that due to location would be worth more by demolishing and renovating, so rather than being honest with the tenants paying rent and giving them a fair amount to vacate the property and a deadline to leave, he'd mess up with the utilities (heat, AC, electricity, etc.) until the tenants get fed up and leave on their own.
Oh, and don't get me started with the issues about Trump not paying taxes and claiming false loses.
I understand why people don't trust Hillary Clinton, but at this point I'd rather take a dishonest person who admits she has fucked up, than the asshole who is always blaming someone else for his fuck ups, or is proud to screwing other people.
A lot of people claim Trump is a great businessman, which is about as true to say as saying as Lance Armstrong is a great cyclist.
Trump made a vast portion of his fortune by screwing others, he made contracts with smaller businessmen only to not pay them the agreed amount, and the reason why he picked smaller businessmen is because they would risk losing their business if they took Trump to court and they lost. It was then when Trump would apply the mob tactic of taking a much smaller percentage of the agreed amount, and keep it settled that way.
Not to mention also that Trump was one of those real state owners who would buy housing property that due to location would be worth more by demolishing and renovating, so rather than being honest with the tenants paying rent and giving them a fair amount to vacate the property and a deadline to leave, he'd mess up with the utilities (heat, AC, electricity, etc.) until the tenants get fed up and leave on their own.
Oh, and don't get me started with the issues about Trump not paying taxes and claiming false loses.
I understand why people don't trust Hillary Clinton, but at this point I'd rather take a dishonest person who admits she has fucked up, than the asshole who is always blaming someone else for his fuck ups, or is proud to screwing other people.
ParisNair
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
I understand why people don't trust Hillary Clinton, but at this point I'd rather take a dishonest person who admits she has fucked up, than the asshole who is always blaming someone else for his fuck ups, or is proud to screwing other people.[/QUOTE]
Your down-playing of Hillary's criminal, corrupt actions either means you are unaware of the extent of her actions or you are being dishonest. Admitting (did she? I might have missed it) that she "fucked up" does not cut it. She needs to be prosecuted, period.
I understand why people don't trust Hillary Clinton, but at this point I'd rather take a dishonest person who admits she has fucked up, than the asshole who is always blaming someone else for his fuck ups, or is proud to screwing other people.[/QUOTE]
Your down-playing of Hillary's criminal, corrupt actions either means you are unaware of the extent of her actions or you are being dishonest. Admitting (did she? I might have missed it) that she "fucked up" does not cut it. She needs to be prosecuted, period.
thomasquinn 32989
You are aware that Trump is also complicit in countless criminal activities, ranging from repeatedly defrauding suppliers (he settles out of court every time) to running scams (Trump University) and from highly questionable tit-for-tat real-estate deals with the Genovese mafia-family in Atlantic City to using illegal immigrants as cheap labor? Then there are the numerous sexual assault allegations and his own recorded remarks on the subject, the fact that some 70% of his statements in this campaign are lies (check politifact.com) and the fact that he constantly denies having made statements he made on the record (or on twitter). Clinton is no saint, but Trump is as dishonest as it gets.
I am pretty sure that Clinton is going to win, and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wants exactly that - if he wins, he has to deliver, if he loses, he can continue exploiting his voter base, turning them into loyal customers for whatever he chooses to unload on them. Trump has a strained relation with much of his own party, including crucial senate committee chairmen like John McCain, which, coupled with his thin skin and vindictive nature, would make it practically impossible for him to get anything done in congress - and make no mistake, a president is not nearly as powerful as people tend to think, congress has the last say on most things. Congress has been extremely dysfunctional for years, and it only promises to get worse with increasing polarization. And after the elections, the GOP is likely to lose seats, most of them belonging to comparative moderates, deepening the divide. Trump would have to deal with a split party and unified opposition, whereas if Clinton won, the Democratic party would be far less divided than the GOP. Plus, she has a lot of senate experience, and Trump has absolutely none.
This election is unusual, but not entirely unprecedented. Clinton represents career politics as it has looked since the end of WWII. Trump is very close to the kind of politics that dominated the 1865-1897 political landscape, the age of corrupt businessman-politicians and machine politics.
People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump. In truth, both candidates have plenty of dirt and baggage, but Trump is by far the worst. This truly is a less-evil kind of election, and Clinton is, in my opinion, the lesser evil for a number of reasons:
1) congress is where the real decisions are made, and congressional democrats are far more moderate than congressional republicans
2) Republican nominees for the Supreme Court would represent the fanatically religious conservative movement that dominates the GOP in the post-Nixon era, and that is a horror scenario for the whole world
3) Trump denies global warming, which WILL be the major issue in this generation
4) Trump has no real plan to deal with IS and the instability in the post-Bush middle east, but he does not take advise from any policy experts, as his campaigning has shown.
5) Vice-presidents. Both Trump and Clinton are pretty old (Clinton is 69, Trump is 70), so the chance of either one dying in office is real. Mike Pence, Trump's running mate, is a religious fanatic. Tim Kaine, Clinton's running mate, is also deeply religious, but does not force his views on others.
Neither one would make a great president. But Clinton can make a reasonably good president, whereas Trump is likely to be a terrible president, not just because I don't like his views, but mostly because I don't see how he could get much done. Even if you like his ideas, he has trouble translating them into concrete policies, he has little knowledge of the powers and limitations a president has and he has no experience in dealing with congress. A Trump-presidency would likely be four years of Trump bullying and publically fighting congress without getting much done, very likely spite-vetoes against legislation passed by a Republican house, assuming they can get it through what will likely be a Senate with a narrow Democratic majority, and unquestionably corruption scandals considering the people Trump surrounds himself with, not least of them Chris Christie.
Whichever one wins, and I'm fairly sure it will be Clinton, Obama is going to look pretty good. His approval rating is already pretty high for an outgoing president now (anything over 50% is a really good score, believe it or not), and his presidency is going to look even better in the future, that I am absolutely sure of.
I am pretty sure that Clinton is going to win, and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wants exactly that - if he wins, he has to deliver, if he loses, he can continue exploiting his voter base, turning them into loyal customers for whatever he chooses to unload on them. Trump has a strained relation with much of his own party, including crucial senate committee chairmen like John McCain, which, coupled with his thin skin and vindictive nature, would make it practically impossible for him to get anything done in congress - and make no mistake, a president is not nearly as powerful as people tend to think, congress has the last say on most things. Congress has been extremely dysfunctional for years, and it only promises to get worse with increasing polarization. And after the elections, the GOP is likely to lose seats, most of them belonging to comparative moderates, deepening the divide. Trump would have to deal with a split party and unified opposition, whereas if Clinton won, the Democratic party would be far less divided than the GOP. Plus, she has a lot of senate experience, and Trump has absolutely none.
This election is unusual, but not entirely unprecedented. Clinton represents career politics as it has looked since the end of WWII. Trump is very close to the kind of politics that dominated the 1865-1897 political landscape, the age of corrupt businessman-politicians and machine politics.
People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump. In truth, both candidates have plenty of dirt and baggage, but Trump is by far the worst. This truly is a less-evil kind of election, and Clinton is, in my opinion, the lesser evil for a number of reasons:
1) congress is where the real decisions are made, and congressional democrats are far more moderate than congressional republicans
2) Republican nominees for the Supreme Court would represent the fanatically religious conservative movement that dominates the GOP in the post-Nixon era, and that is a horror scenario for the whole world
3) Trump denies global warming, which WILL be the major issue in this generation
4) Trump has no real plan to deal with IS and the instability in the post-Bush middle east, but he does not take advise from any policy experts, as his campaigning has shown.
5) Vice-presidents. Both Trump and Clinton are pretty old (Clinton is 69, Trump is 70), so the chance of either one dying in office is real. Mike Pence, Trump's running mate, is a religious fanatic. Tim Kaine, Clinton's running mate, is also deeply religious, but does not force his views on others.
Neither one would make a great president. But Clinton can make a reasonably good president, whereas Trump is likely to be a terrible president, not just because I don't like his views, but mostly because I don't see how he could get much done. Even if you like his ideas, he has trouble translating them into concrete policies, he has little knowledge of the powers and limitations a president has and he has no experience in dealing with congress. A Trump-presidency would likely be four years of Trump bullying and publically fighting congress without getting much done, very likely spite-vetoes against legislation passed by a Republican house, assuming they can get it through what will likely be a Senate with a narrow Democratic majority, and unquestionably corruption scandals considering the people Trump surrounds himself with, not least of them Chris Christie.
Whichever one wins, and I'm fairly sure it will be Clinton, Obama is going to look pretty good. His approval rating is already pretty high for an outgoing president now (anything over 50% is a really good score, believe it or not), and his presidency is going to look even better in the future, that I am absolutely sure of.
BETA215
Nobody. All will fuck with us. No lesser evil, just bad people.
):
):
ParisNair
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump. [/QUOTE]
You are the one who has written paragraphs on Trumps ills and for Hillary all you have to say is "she is no saint".
Mr. Jinlges also behaved in exactly the same way.
It is you guys who are taking the selective approach, shamelessly too.
As far as accepting allegations are concerned, I'd rather trust Wikileaks than the lop-sided corrupt sold out media any day.
People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump. [/QUOTE]
You are the one who has written paragraphs on Trumps ills and for Hillary all you have to say is "she is no saint".
Mr. Jinlges also behaved in exactly the same way.
It is you guys who are taking the selective approach, shamelessly too.
As far as accepting allegations are concerned, I'd rather trust Wikileaks than the lop-sided corrupt sold out media any day.
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE]
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump. [/QUOTE]
You are the one who has written paragraphs on Trumps ills and for Hillary all you have to say is "she is no saint".
Mr. Jinlges also behaved in exactly the same way.
It is you guys who are taking the selective approach, shamelessly too.
As far as accepting allegations are concerned, I'd rather trust Wikileaks than the lop-sided corrupt sold out media any day.[/QUOTE]
...
Corrupt Media? You mean like ex-CNN reporter Donna Brazile who was fired for leaking debate questions to Hilary?
Don't forget the corrupt DNC and DoJ.
It is the Chicago way ...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-clinton-trump-kass-1106-20161104-column.html
[b]ParisNair wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump. [/QUOTE]
You are the one who has written paragraphs on Trumps ills and for Hillary all you have to say is "she is no saint".
Mr. Jinlges also behaved in exactly the same way.
It is you guys who are taking the selective approach, shamelessly too.
As far as accepting allegations are concerned, I'd rather trust Wikileaks than the lop-sided corrupt sold out media any day.[/QUOTE]
...
Corrupt Media? You mean like ex-CNN reporter Donna Brazile who was fired for leaking debate questions to Hilary?
Don't forget the corrupt DNC and DoJ.
It is the Chicago way ...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-clinton-trump-kass-1106-20161104-column.html
Donna13
Good question.
My favorite quotes from this election (just from my memory):
Michael Bloomberg, regarding Donald Trump: "I'm a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one".
Peggy Noonan on Hillary: She said that Hillary Clinton's irritating speaking style during speeches reminded her of her NY landlord yelling at the kids: "Get your bikes out of the hallway!"
Or something like that. As usual, I am too lazy to look up the exact quotes.
It's going to be Hillary, I'm afraid.
My favorite quotes from this election (just from my memory):
Michael Bloomberg, regarding Donald Trump: "I'm a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one".
Peggy Noonan on Hillary: She said that Hillary Clinton's irritating speaking style during speeches reminded her of her NY landlord yelling at the kids: "Get your bikes out of the hallway!"
Or something like that. As usual, I am too lazy to look up the exact quotes.
It's going to be Hillary, I'm afraid.
Mr.Jingles
[QUOTE] [b]ParisNair wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump. [/QUOTE]
You are the one who has written paragraphs on Trumps ills and for Hillary all you have to say is "she is no saint".
Mr. Jinlges also behaved in exactly the same way.
It is you guys who are taking the selective approach, shamelessly too.
As far as accepting allegations are concerned, I'd rather trust Wikileaks than the lop-sided corrupt sold out media any day.[/QUOTE]
Wikileaks sold out too. There's too many Russian hackers involved.
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
People like ParisNair and Panchgani take the selective approach, accepting all accusations against Clinton as true and downplaying all those against Trump. [/QUOTE]
You are the one who has written paragraphs on Trumps ills and for Hillary all you have to say is "she is no saint".
Mr. Jinlges also behaved in exactly the same way.
It is you guys who are taking the selective approach, shamelessly too.
As far as accepting allegations are concerned, I'd rather trust Wikileaks than the lop-sided corrupt sold out media any day.[/QUOTE]
Wikileaks sold out too. There's too many Russian hackers involved.