American Politics

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

[color=#5f9f9f][B]Lol. Do you really expect credit for doing the most basic of things and admitting that Trump has no political strategy whatever?

Trump made mistakes != Trump has no political strategy. He made it through primaries with a series of very strategic political moves, but those same moves aren't serving him well in the general election.

I predicted, wrongly, that he'd adjust his strategy to take on Hillary, but he ended up not doing that and was burned for it - not badly, and not enough for him to outright lose the debate*, but probably enough to make him take her seriously.

*To be fair, though, a large part of my claim that Trump won the debate was because I felt that his language and his style were clearer and more accessible, and he pulled a few twists that should have pulled some voters to his side. However, I now realize that some of Hillary's tactics were a LOT more effective than I'd originally expected them to be and in that context I'm gonna tentatively call Hillary the winner for now.

This is most likely because, as a giant prick, Trump is especially vulnerable to being cockblocked. OH NO I SAID A MEAN THING ABOUT TRUMP *dies instantly and uses a burning cross as his tombstone*

You make statements like "Hillary and Trump have the same policies" and can only back it up with...wait, you didn't even bother to back it up!

I did, actually. You didn't care, so you didn't read it.

I'm not going to make another list for you to ignore. Do your own research.

[KamenAeons]

Me being a dolt with thinking this is the News forum for some reason.

Spoiler: show

Casual reminder that you should be backing up your posts with sources, and if you're requesting people to look at your posts, you should be linking to those posts in question.

4. Source your statements. There have been a lot of unsubstaniated claims being made on these forums lately from all parties. These kinds of statements are not condusive to a debate and will often weaken the integrety of both parties. In the interest of keeping our debates as on-topic and fact-driven as possible, I am asking you to present evidence for things you posit. Of course, there are certain things that cannot be sourced and some statements, however true they may be, that may simply not have enough evidence that can be presented in a concise or clear method. This isn't really a rule as much as it is a suggestion and you won't be banned or warned for "breaking" it, but if we can make an attempt to keep along these guidelines, the quality of our debates will improve.

*looks at forum type*

"Oh. Not the news forum. >>; "

My personal opinions on your current debate:

Rangeet isn't the only one reading the thread, Shuckle. Do take other spectators into account.

To my knowledge, Trump didn't answer any of the bloody questions in the debate. If you have any sources that say otherwise, show them to me. I'm fairly sure the point of a debate is to speak about the topic, not filibuster with your own anecdotes and personal attacks on the opposition.

I, for one, would like to see this research of yours since you've taken the time to write such lengthy responses.

[Rangeet]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

I did, actually. You didn't care, so you didn't read it.

Really? Then it shouldn't be very difficult for you to link the post. Maybe I missed it- in that case, I'm the one eating humble pie today! I doubt it, though, since you never told me how Hillary thinks global warming is a chinese hoax.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by KamenAeons

To my knowledge, Trump didn't answer any of the bloody questions in the debate. If you have any sources that say otherwise, show them to me. I'm fairly sure the point of a debate is to speak about the topic, not filibuster with your own anecdotes and personal attacks on the opposition.

I, for one, would like to see this research of yours since you've taken the time to write such lengthy responses.

For the first one, my memory's not super sharp on the actual questions from the debate, but I do recall that he basically walked all over Lester when "answering questions."

Trump wasn't there to talk policy and it showed. It led to success in some ways (ability to communicate message in clear terms, ability to defend himself from some attacks, a few twists), but looking at the debate from some specific lenses (who laid out their policies better, for example) he had a lackluster showing.

Trump said "I agree with Secretary Clinton" upwards of...mmm, 6-7 times? Each of those points were areas that I'd already said were areas of common interest. Trump and Clinton mostly differ in the actual plans they have to deliver on those problems. Clinton was more flexible with changing her debate strategy to attacking Trump's execution, but Trump had a better focus on attacking Clinton's execution more consistently.

I personally find them to be pretty close on healthcare reform, racial justice, education, energy, and national defense. Any debate on those subjects is going to be a little ridiculous as the candidates just try to smear each other and make each other look bad for the minute differences of opinion that they hold.

Trump's policy page has just recently been updated, though, so my information is actually out of date. I encourage you to take a look and try to judge for yourself whether or not his positions are anywhere near Hillary's - which is what I'll be doing too!

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/

We'll be seeing analyses of these soon enough, although I think the main focus will be on the tax plan and on his "detailed plan for defeating ISIS."

Next debate will be interesting - Trump FINALLY FUCKING REVEALS HIS POLICY POSITIONS AND DEFENDS THEM ON THE NATIONAL STAGE

But that's it, isn't it? You're desperate for Trump to prove that he's a decent candidate. How many times in this thread have you been trying to push the narrative that eventually he'll do something that proves he's not crazy? And how many times have you been let down? You're in an abusive relationship with Trump. "Just give him one more chance! He'll prove that he's not as bad! It's my fault for bringing up policy arguments in this thread!"

I wanted him to do this in fucking JUNE but I guess it takes Hillary to outright say it before he'll do anything...

[Shuckle]

Also can I just re-mention that he released his detailed plan for defeating isis and holy shit none of the news organizations reported this yet

this is FRESH NEWS you can read it RIGHT NOW

[Concept]

So to bust out an old tactic for bringing some level of sanity to a debate; what're three things you like and three you dislike about each of Trump and Clinton?

The thing is there are so many hundreds of different things any candidate will've come out with at one point or another that the chances of you not being able to find three of each are statistically insignificant, so if you can't you're either a) ignorant or b) a sheep who decides their opinions on a policy based on who said it not on what it was, and either way your opinion isn't worth a damn. Deliberately backhanded plus points don't count for shit, try to at least pretend to be a vaguely mature human being. Nor does vague shit like "X is a racist", try an example of that instead please!

[Rangeet]

I'm legitimately curious as to three significant points you like about Trump, Concept. I mean if you're referring to random things they said as opposed to actual facets of their personality or their policies then yes, Trump has flip-flopped significantly and I'm sure I could find some statements he made that I agree with. But I don't really see them as being productive.

[Concept]

• His historic pro-LGBT stance. Trump's been unambiguously pro-LGBT for a long time; certainly whilst Clinton was still backing DOMA and DADT in the 90's. He had the balls to say it during his acceptance speech at the Republican conference and got a cheer out of a Republican crowd for it. When South Dakota passed the law earlier this year about people having to use bathrooms of their birth gender (during Republican primary season, when Trump's trying to win votes from a historically anti-LGBT crowd) he came out and said that in his buildings in the state, transgender people can use whatever bathroom they damn well please. If pro-LGBT is your single priority this election... you should probably vote Trump. He's stronger on that.
• He backs the US government stepping in to regulate the prices of potentially lifesaving drugs, and also access to medical marijuana.
• He's generally been anti-special interests and large corporate donations to candidates (which are dodgy as shit). He played this one up heavily during the primary campaign, in fairness because he can afford to, but it's definitely a point where he and the Bernie Bro's can agree on against Clinton.

Honestly Geet like I said; there are literally hundreds of issues you could look at, the chances of not being able to find three things is so statistically insignificant that if you can't you're either ignorant or so biased you'll dismiss good points on the basis of who said them, rather than their own merits. Either way if that's the case your opinion is basically worthless.

[Rangeet]

Originally Posted by Concept

[LIST][*]His historic pro-LGBT stance. Trump's been unambiguously pro-LGBT for a long time; certainly whilst Clinton was still backing DOMA and DADT in the 90's. He had the balls to say it during his acceptance speech at the Republican conference and got a cheer out of a Republican crowd for it. When South Dakota passed the law earlier this year about people having to use bathrooms of their birth gender (during Republican primary season, when Trump's trying to win votes from a historically anti-LGBT crowd) he came out and said that in his buildings in the state, transgender people can use whatever bathroom they damn well please. If pro-LGBT is your single priority this election... you should probably vote Trump. He's stronger on that.

And yet he's pledged to pass this bill, attended an anti-LGBT event about the shooting in Orlando, and recently brought Rick Santorum (who is very, very homophobic) on board as advisor of his "religious council." So you're extremely wrong here, because as you can see he's done a full flop.

Additionally, Clinton has been all for supporting LGBT rights recently, so you can hardly say she's not the better choice. Also, Trump being president would lead to a conservative Supreme Court which would be downright terrifying for LGBT rights.

He backs the US government stepping in to regulate the prices of potentially lifesaving drugs, and also access to medical marijuana.

If you want to go in from the context of "at least he'll do this..." then sure, this is a point. But Clinton also supports regulating the prices, and in fact also thinks that the government should regulate the prices of all prescription drugs. She's also fully for rescheduling marijuana and even thinks that the federal government should respect state's rights on this, which Trump seems to not do.

Since this is effectively a two-party race, I just don't think I understand bringing up this point when Clinton either has the same views or is even more to the left.

He's generally been anti-special interests and large corporate donations to candidates (which are dodgy as shit). He played this one up heavily during the primary campaign, in fairness because he can afford to, but it's definitely a point where he and the Bernie Bro's can agree on against Clinton.

Trump's also bragged about buying off politicians which should raise a huge red "HYPOCRITICAL" sign on that entire statement. Clinton's also pledged to overturn Citizens United, so it really comes back to my previous statement that if you want to pick points that are nearly or actually the same for both candidates, I don't really see the point of it.

I assumed that this would be about things that are unique to each candidate, otherwise I'm not sure what it means if at all. And I put forward the same thing that I've done so many times before - Trump is simply a giant asshole of a man. Obviously I'm going to biased trying to find things to like about him. I guess that if I tried, I would maybe find some conceivable view he has that Clinton doesn't that I agree with. But why would I? Isn't it his job to get people to like him? Isn't it his job to put forward the views that he has which Clinton doesn't? If he fails to do even this much, how can he be a decent President? And then what's the point of this questionnaire at all?

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by Concept

[LIST][*]His historic pro-LGBT stance. Trump's been unambiguously pro-LGBT for a long time; certainly whilst Clinton was still backing DOMA and DADT in the 90's. He had the balls to say it during his acceptance speech at the Republican conference and got a cheer out of a Republican crowd for it. When South Dakota passed the law earlier this year about people having to use bathrooms of their birth gender (during Republican primary season, when Trump's trying to win votes from a historically anti-LGBT crowd) he came out and said that in his buildings in the state, transgender people can use whatever bathroom they damn well please. If pro-LGBT is your single priority this election... you should probably vote Trump. He's stronger on that.

I'm gonna say that this is very good, but I disagree with the closing statement. This actually has very little to do with Trump though, and more to do with the aftershocks of a Trump victory. Trump is not the leader of the "Trump Party" as much as some people would like it to be. He's the candidate of the Republican party, and we already have a Republican controlled congress. Granted, this isn't enough to override a veto without bipartisan support at the moment, but I fear that a Trump victory will embolden the Republican party and lead to more gains on their part. The Republican platform right now is very anti-LGBTQ+, which includes insanity like the support of conversion camps (This was posted in Time magazine but I don't have the source on me because tumblr's search algorithms are garbage).

There's more to a president than just their policies. It also includes the party they represent. If the party is batshit crazy on an issue even if the candidate isn't, I'm really not likely to vote for said candidate.

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

And I put forward the same thing that I've done so many times before - Trump is simply a giant asshole of a man. Obviously I'm going to biased trying to find things to like about him. I guess that if I tried, I would maybe find some conceivable view he has that Clinton doesn't that I agree with. But why would I? Isn't it his job to get people to like him? Isn't it his job to put forward the views that he has which Clinton doesn't? If he fails to do even this much, how can he be a decent President? And then what's the point of this questionnaire at all?

I'm not trying to get you to support Trump for President - god knows I'm very, very much against the man ever having any kind of power at all - my point is to encourage you to acknowledge that people you don't like still sometimes make a good point. To be perfectly frank, the mentality you've been displaying in the thread so far - the "no-one who I won't vote for can possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute" - is the sole common feature to oppressive regimes around the world, and has no place in civilised society.

Short version, I believe that kind of mentality is far more of a threat to a free society than even Trump could ever be.

>Emi

Refusing to vote for candidates who share a particular view with you because their party generally doesn't strikes me as a poor way to change that parties attitudes.

[Rangeet]

I've never said that Trump is literally incapable of making a good point (though he might well be incapable of actually expressing it, given what we saw in the debate). I think you guys know that I do very much have certain policies that reach "across the aisle", like with gun control and legalisation of drugs (though that latter one is reaching to the Libertarian aisle, not the Republican one.) But if you do want to talk about it in policy then it clearly needs to be something that is unique to Trump that I agree with. Otherwise your argument falls flat on its face, IMO.

And if your argument about Sanders and Clinton is that they couldn't get anything across a Republican Congress/Senate/etc, how do you expect Trump to get stuff like pro-LGBT laws across a Congress/Senate which will be even more Republican, if he gets elected? (Since those votes almost always go along party lines.)

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Rangeet

I've never said that Trump is literally incapable of making a good point

That's pretty much all you've been saying for the past god knows how many pages (that and open abuse directed at Shuckle). You're part of a big chunk of the left these days that spends its time attacking the very foundations of a free society by trying to rubbish or silence anyone who dares disagree even slightly. It's been a constant news topic over here lately with Corbyn supporters making death threats against, and throwing bricks through the windows of, Labour MPs who dare to disagree with him. When it comes to the whole political correctness as a weapon to shut down open debate, Trump - though using it as an excuse to be racist - has a point. It's the same thing we saw from the small but vocal element of Bernie Bros and Corbynistas, and it's far more dangerous than any policy the mainstream right wing in the West has come out with in decades.

And if your argument about Sanders and Clinton is that they couldn't get anything across a Republican Congress/Senate/etc, how do you expect Trump to get stuff like pro-LGBT laws across a Congress/Senate which will be even more Republican, if he gets elected? (Since those votes almost always go along party lines.)

You're putting words in my mouth here. I think Trump would be a godawful President and if I were American I'd vote Clinton (although I'd probably end up voting third party or spoiling my ballot if it were Sanders, for the reasons I went into above, despite largely agreeing with his positions on a lot of things). My point is simply that the Bernie Bro's, Corbynistas - the small but vocal self-righteous elements of the left that you've been acting like - are a lot more dangerous to the principles of a free society than mainstream rightwing parties generally, and it's time they grew up. I was trying to encourage you to stop openly demonising Trump and all ~100 million mostly normal Americans who're gonna vote for him. Your posts remind me of the "lock her up" chants directed against Clinton that were so popular amongst hardcore Trumpers a while back, and that's not ok.

[Rangeet]

Are you doing the free speech argument now? Because in that case I have the equal right of free speech to call people out for supporting terrible people and terrible candidates. I certainly have the equal right to call out people for supporting particularly horrible views. Those are the foundations of a free society. I'll never silence people, but I definitely will rubbish them if they put forward rubbish points. And nor have I ever put suggested violence or made death threats. Unlike Donald Trump.

If you have an issue with how I talk about Trump, then please state it clearly because I'm happy to discuss it. Just as he has the right to talk about things and Shuckle has the complete right to express his views in his thread I also have the right to tell both Trump and his supporters that they're being pieces of shit. And I'm happy to discuss this fact. I've always maintained that intolerance of intolerance is perfectly fine and in fact very much needed.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by Concept

>Emi

Refusing to vote for candidates who share a particular view with you because their party generally doesn't strikes me as a poor way to change that parties attitudes.

What good would voting do in this case? Is it going to tell them, "Hey, this guy has a pro-LGBTQ+ platform and got votes, clearly we should also be LGBTQ+ friendly!?" Probably not, especially since the socially conservative Mike Pence is his running mate. They're going to see it as any party is going to see it; as generic Republican support. Splitting the lines doesn't happen that much.

But the Presidential election, as much as its hyped, isn't really the most important thing one could vote for. I have the privilege in living with a state with good senators and hence could probably vote Trump with no lasting repurcussions on my state's political climate; this is not the same elsewhere. Republicans will use Trump's victory, just like Democarts will use Hillary's victory, to rally support on the Congressional and State level. "Trump won, so the nation is sided with us!" Regardless of intention. Regardless if the person who voted is a 21-year old transgender woman who aligns very liberal.

That's my concern. I don't think Trump will be terrible for LGBTQ+ rights, not in the same way that electing Ted Cruz will be (if you remember, I disliked Cruz much more than I disliked Trump). However, I don't want to see a new wave of social conservatism come into Congress, which Trump is showing support for, even if for different reasons. If Trump wins, its very likely that these social conservatives will come into office and not bother changing their stances.

This is obviously true on the other side too, but I think the best way for Republicans to learn that they cannot continually be out of touch with changing ethics and morality is that they need to lose, and continue to lose. Eventually, after losing enough times, they're going to have to make changes. That losing will have to start at Trump (and besides, I wouldn't vote in this election for purely LGBTQ+ reasons, so my vote would go to Clinton anyways), and will need to continue to happen on the Congressional level. This requires a lot, sure. But if you want lasting political change, history has shown that you need losses, not wins, to do it.

[Heather]

Originally Posted by Snorby

Everyone should check this website out- it's a way to submit questions for the candidates to answer at the second debate.

Posed one for electoral college reform. Check it out!

Also Concept you say that Trump is historically pro-LGBT but now he supports Cruz-level bullshit like HB2's bathroom laws, which, as I've explained before, are objectively counterproductive. If a Trump were running as a Democrat, he would be under more pressure to make sense. You would THINK Trump would know better: HB2 has hurt NC significantly as many organizations have pulled their major events out of the state as a direct result of the bill, which hurts the state's economy. You'd think a "good businessman" would have more strict obedience to Father Dollar, at least.

[Mozz]

Trying to convince non-American citizens that Trump might not be the next iteration of Hitler, and those voting for him aren't going to throw tan people/gays/whomever into camps seems like an incredible waste of time.

[Slash]

Originally Posted by Mozz

Trying to convince non-American citizens that Drumpf might not be the next iteration of Hitler, and those voting for him aren't going to throw tan people/gays/whomever into camps seems like an incredible waste of time.

To be fair, it's a hard sell on a lot of Americans who listen to what he says, too

[Sparkbeat]

/late, but from what I've seen, Shuckle is just viewing this as a game. He's not looking at policy, and he's not looking to support any candidate. He's just looking at potential strategy, and Clinton's is more obvious than Trumps. So, he talks about Trump to speculate about some bizarrely complicated potential political strategy because it interest him. However, I think you're looking waaaaay too much into it dude. I don't thing it's nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be. You could be right, but as it gets closer and closer to election day, you're theories only get more and more unbelievable. Honestly, I think Trump has just created a confusing mess. Props to you for trying to make sense of it, but I, and most people here, think it's just something with no rhyme nor reason.

The issue with what you're saying in regards to voting Trump to show support for Republicans changing their LGBT policy, Concept, is that they just won't acknowledge it. They'll see Trump winning as people showing support for stricter immigration laws and more forceful foreign policy. Trump isn't really running as Trump anymore, outside of his core values (Immigration, being a businessman in politics). Any unimportant issues(which LGBT policy is to Republicans) are now handled by Republican policy, not Trump policy. Even if he may have been more pro during the Primary, now that he's the candidate he'll be more in line with the party's views.

[Mozz]

Originally Posted by Slash

To be fair, it's a hard sell on a lot of Americans who listen to what he says, too

Yeah, about the same as with the other one.

[deoxys]

Trump the night of the debate: https://mobile.twitter.com/DylanByer...08777062117377

Trump today: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ate-was-rigged

Originally Posted by Shuckle, probably

You know, it may look bad, but what Trump is actually doing here is securing his voters even further by saying that. You can call it a lie or a flip flop, but that's actually not what it is! This was a brilliant move, and I expect nothing less. It might not be the right thing to do, but he's playing all of his cards right and further distancing the public from Hillary, and if he has to change his mind to do it then that's an A+ play in my book :^)

[Shuckle]

"When I first did it, I thought he was fine, I wasn’t thinking about it, but when I reviewed it and when I saw all of the commentary — because a lot of people thought he was terrible — and I looked at all of the commentary, I realized he was much, much tougher on me than he was on Hillary, it was like day and night," Trump said on Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor."

I mean

it's not like I haven't been saying he was kinda biased from the beginning.

But again this was just my personal opinion and I'm prepared to be wrong on it!

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

I mean

it's not like I haven't been saying he was kinda biased from the beginning.

But again this was just my personal opinion and I'm prepared to be wrong on it!

Yes, I'm sure the registered-Republican moderator is biased towards Hillary and wasn't just trying to actually get Trump to actually give a real answer to his questions for once and to get him to stop interrupting Hillary so much (which by the way she didn't do to him in the same vain)

Holt wasn't tough enough, truthfully, he actually let Trump really disrespect him. And the problem is he was probably afraid to be because of having people such as yourself calling him biased.

But fine... I'm not sure why I even bother

[Snorby]

Good thing you prepared, because you are indeed wrong to suggest the registered Republican moderator was biased toward Hillary Clinton. Accolades for Holt's performance were fairly widespread outside of the right wing, and as I believe had been mentioned before, the fact that Holt fact checked Trump more than Hillary is meaningless because Hillary made no factually incorrect statements throughout the entire debate (according to CNN, at least- and I don't recall hearing anything blasphemous from her).

If anything, given the ridiculous number of times Trump went over his allotted time and interrupted Hillary during her time, Holt went easy on him.

Holt wasn't biased just because right-wingers who're butthurt over Trump's miserable debate performance have resorted to bitching about him.

EDIT: Hah, Deo beat me to it.

[Shuckle]

I mean you actually convinced me, soooo

Politifact says otherwise Snorby. And that's with the pro-Clinton bias. (Yes, there is a pro-Clinton bias - they frequently rate Trump False for "ignoring nuance" but give Hillary Trues for doing the same)

Ex of this bias:

Clinton: "I was so shocked when Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans. That is just unacceptable."

We rated this claim Half True. At a press conference in Florida, Trump said he hoped Russia was able to find "the 30,000 emails that are missing." This was a reference to Clinton’s emails, not Americans’ emails more broadly. Trump later said he was being sarcastic.

Outright lie, but apparently Half True?

Trump: "I did not support the war in Iraq. ...The record shows that I’m right."

The record shows the \opposite. Trump did not comment much on the invasion at the time, and was vague when he did it.

Not showing support is the opposite of not showing support?