Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by gugi

I am not defending anybody, I just marvel how people are able to find every fault with the opposing side, while turning a blind eye to the exact same faults sometimes in a worse manifestation on their side.

I'm not impressed by cherry-picking Bill Clinton among all politicians and businessmen who have rubbed shoulders with that guy. I'd be impressed when you apply the same standard to people you are going to vote for as for people you are going to vote against.

What makes you think I'm going to vote for any of these losers? I'm essentially an Anarcho-capitalist. If you want me to list all of the reasons that Trump is a terrible candidate, I would be happy to do that. I think it can best be summed up by saying that, with but rare exception, the Republican voters will ALWAYS, choose the worst possible candidate. The truth is, however, that NOBODY knows if Trump would turn out to be a good President or a bad President. There's simply no evidence and none can be gleaned from the things he says because his statements contradict one another, sometime even in the same paragraph. What I do know, is that Hillary would be a terrible, terrible President. I give Bernie Sanders marks for coming out of the closet and proclaiming that he is a socialist. That's brave. We know that if he had his way we'd be just like Venezuela or Cuba. So good for him, for admitting that he wants American turned into a third world country.

Imagine there are three cups. You must drink from one cup. Two of the cups you know for certain are poison. The third might be poison or it might not. Assuming you are not suicidal, which cup would you prefer drink from? Welcome to the 2016 Presidential Race.

Originally Posted by Uzi

What makes you think I'm going to vote for any of these losers? I'm essentially an Anarcho-capitalist. If you want me to list all of the reasons that Trump is a terrible candidate, I would be happy to do that. I think it can best be summed up by saying that, with but rare exception, the Republican voters will ALWAYS, choose the worst possible candidate. The truth is, however, that NOBODY knows if Trump would turn out to be a good President or a bad President. There's simply no evidence and none can be gleaned from the things he says because his statements contradict one another, sometime even in the same paragraph. What I do know, is that Hillary would be a terrible, terrible President. I give Bernie Sanders marks for coming out of the closet and proclaiming that he is a socialist. That's brave. We know that if he had his way we'd be just like Venezuela or Cuba. So good for him, for admitting that he wants American turned into a third world country.

Imagine there are three cups. You must drink from one cup. Two of the cups you know for certain are poison. The third might be poison or it might not. Assuming you are not suicidal, which cup would you prefer drink from? Welcome to the 2016 Presidential Race.

See, the problem is that you essentially said Bill Clinton is a pedophile that's why Hillary Clinton will make a terrible president and we don't know whether Trump is or isn't a pedophile and he may or may not make a good president. So best vote for Trump on the chance that he turns out good (that last paragraph is rhetorical even with question mark at the end of the sentence.)

I didn't say you are voting for Trump, you are the one making the case for it.

I really don't really care who you vote for or against. I would find it interesting if you can explain your choice by judging the candidates by the same criteria and explaining how one is better/worse than the other on those.

The joys of poking the hornet’s nest we call human nature… Har!

Originally Posted by gugi

See, the problem is that you essentially said Bill Clinton is a pedophile that's why Hillary Clinton will make a terrible president and we don't know whether Trump is or isn't a pedophile and he may or may not make a good president. So best vote for Trump on the chance that he turns out good (that last paragraph is rhetorical even with question mark at the end of the sentence.)

I didn't say you are voting for Trump, you are the one making the case for it.

I really don't really care who you vote for or against. I would find it interesting if you can explain your choice by judging the candidates by the same criteria and explaining how one is better/worse than the other on those.

Gugi, my friend. Bill isn't THE reason Hillary would be a terrible president. She's earned that distinction on her own.

1. Egypt -- Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.
2. Benghazi -- Ignoring requests for additional security, then allowing the Ambassador, and others, to be killed without sending help and just going to bed for a pleasant night's sleep.
3. Russia -- Refusing to understand the threat that Putin poses in Europe.
4. Supporting massive troop withdrawals in the middle-east creating a vacuum which was filled by ISIS.
5. Refusing to identify the enemies of the U. S.
6. Trading favors to foreign governments and foreign interests in exchange for large "donations" to the Clinton Foundation.
7. Violating security protocols which, unless all foreign governments are completely incompetent, allowed top secret information to be accessed by foreign governments.
8. Putting an innocent man in jail for a film which is now proven to have NOT been the cause for the attacks on Benghazi -- he's still there by the way -- for exercising free speech.
9. For being a socialist (although she calls it "Progressive.")
10. Lying to congress while under oath and to the American people on a daily basis.
11. Refusing to release her speeches to Goldman Sachs.

I could go on, but the fact that she's married to and defends an alleged rapist and pedophile pales in comparison.

Originally Posted by gugi

See, the problem is that you essentially said Bill Clinton is a pedophile that's why Hillary Clinton will make a terrible president and we don't know whether Trump is or isn't a pedophile and he may or may not make a good president. So best vote for Trump on the chance that he turns out good (that last paragraph is rhetorical even with question mark at the end of the sentence.)

I didn't say you are voting for Trump, you are the one making the case for it.

I really don't really care who you vote for or against. I would find it interesting if you can explain your choice by judging the candidates by the same criteria and explaining how one is better/worse than the other on those.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect anyone posting this, not named Gugi, would get a temporary ban from someone named Gugi.

Originally Posted by UKRob

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect anyone posting this, not named Gugi, would get a temporary ban from someone named Gugi.

No, not at all.

If you think that is the case.

On a different note just keep in mind Trump was nothing but a playboy. He had so many girlfriends going on at the same time I wondered how he kept track of them. He ain't no moral icon.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

No, not at all.

If you think that is the case.

On a different note just keep in mind Trump was nothing but a playboy. He had so many girlfriends going on at the same time I wondered how he kept track of them. He ain't no moral icon.

Whatever Trump is, or was, is irrelevant in my case because I don't have a vote. However, I do have an opinion - and in my opinion I see huge discrepancies between an ex president with a proven record and a potential president who you seem to be judging in advance.

Right, just as I said - attacks on one side only and not addressing the same issues on the other.
I guess I'll put in the other side on these very matters you chose, just as an example of what I think would've been a more rational approach.

1. Supporting questionable organizations is long-standing american practice. Even if Trump is against it he will have to sign on it to get the foreign policy hawks in the republican party behind him, and he isn't winning the presidency without that. But if anything he is 'the goal justifies the means' guy so I doubt he has any problems with that.
2. That's probably mischaracterization, and I am not sure she had any say on what help is sent or not. I would imagine that it's either up to the military or if there are competing interests that make it a hard decision it gets kicked up the chain of command to the president.
3. Trump has defended Putin as 'innocent until proven guilty'. This is a good principled position, but Russia definitely likes Trump and his views. If they are a big threat their support for Trump should be a big concern.
4. I think most americans have been supportive of massive troop withdrawal and leaving the middle-east problems to the middle-east people to solve, instead of pouring more american blood and treasure with little return on investment. Donald Trump seems to want to go even beyond that and pull from other places in the world as well.
5. This seems rather silly.
6. Since Trump hasn't had political influence to trade with international interests, he can't be compared directly. So, I suppose the question may be - to what extent has he purchased political influence, i.e. has he partaken in the same practice just on the other side.
7. I suppose this is about her using a private email server for government business. As I posted previously it seems she put a considerable effort to keep matters of national security out of it. She is being investigated over how successful she has been in that. Trump has never been entrusted to handle matters of national security, so we don't know how careful or careless he would be with keeping them secret.
8. I am not familiar with the case, but I don't believe she has ever been a judge or recently served jury duty in criminal case.
9. Oh, wow!
10. Double wow!
11. There is probably something in there that may cost her votes. I am not sure candidates releasing private speeches is the norm in presidential elections. Donald Trump has refused to release even his tax information which is a long-standing norm in presidential elections.

Originally Posted by UKRob

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect anyone posting this, not named Gugi, would get a temporary ban from someone named Gugi.

What exactly, in your opinion, warrants a ban?

I am pretty sure that my bans have been fair and by the book.

Originally Posted by gugi

What exactly, in your opinion, warrants a ban?

I am pretty sure that my bans have been fair and by the book.

What about drawing conclusions and putting words into someone's posts that had not actually been said?