a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016

[Terrik]

.

Your posts suggest that when someone attacks Trump we should just let those assertions go unchallenged, even when they are incorrect. I understand that some people are content with misinformation as long as it fits their narrative, and I've heard ignorance is bliss, but if you two plan to remain ignorant then this thread is probably not going to meet your needs.

Perhaps you should visit https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/ instead.

Alas, that seems to be mostly about Trump and how bad he is, rather than Clinton and how good she is.

This was the main thrust of Steinman's post.

Your posts suggest that when someone attacks Trump we should just let those assertions go unchallenged, even when they are incorrect. I understand that some people are content with misinformation as long as it fits their narrative, and I've heard ignorance is bliss, but if you two plan to remain ignorant then this thread is probably not going to meet your needs.

Perhaps you should visit https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/ instead.

Alas, that seems to be mostly about Trump and how bad he is, rather than Clinton and how good she is.

This is the only point you deemed necessary to respond to.

Stienman is absolutely correct that you can hate Trump all you want, but do so factually. I assume you only want to post things that are true. I would also assume then you'd be willing to concede when something isn't quite as correct as thought, even if you thought differently when you posted it.

And I hate to say this, but there might be a reason why some people aren't responding to the "OMG HITLER" calls of alarm.

Even in recent memory, for 8 years, American left wingers were calling Bush,Hitler. When I visited D.C., outside the White House, people were sitting there with signs and shirts "Bush=Hitler".

In fact, I can't recall a single time in my life where the Republican candidate wasn't deemed some sort of uncompromising evil. Even if Trump wasn't the nominee, I'll bet any candidate that might have been chosen would have somehow have been painted as some sort of lecherous creature that had only been brought out of the deepest dungeons for this election. The point being, you've(plural) rung the same bell for every single Republican candidate for so long, it just becomes background noise.

There's absolutely no way I'm voting for Trump or Clinton, but this kind of rhetoric just makes me roll my eyes.

 

[blotsfan]

The point being, you've(plural) rung the same bell for every single Republican candidate for so long, it just becomes background noise.

Then they should stop being the party of bigotry.

 

[Denbrought]

Then they should stop being the party of bigotry.

Please, no victim-blaming.

 

[DarkAudit]

I doubt you'd find any of the other GOP contender events that made non-true believers actually fear for their safety. For example the event where a lady was removed by security and The Donald made an offhand remark that she "looked like Hillary." The press on hand was reporting concern for her well-being after that point as the crowd started that "lock her up" chant.

Again, people who have studied the events then and now, and have no reason to go into the GOP=HITLER reflex, have made the comparisons. These are not your placard-carrying loony left protesters. These are actual, you know, historians.

 

[Bubble181]

I doubt you'd find any of the other GOP contender events that made non-true believers actually fear for their safety. For example the event where a lady was removed by security and The Donald made an offhand remark that she "looked like Hillary." The press on hand was reporting concern for her well-being after that point as the crowd started that "lock her up" chant.

Again, people who have studied the events then and now, and have no reason to go into the GOP=HITLER reflex, have made the comparisons. These are not your placard-carrying loony left protesters. These are actual, you know, historians.

The reason the Trump = Hitler call doesn't have a lot of effect isn't that it isn't true, it's that the Boy cried Wolf too often.

Bush was called Hitler a thousand times, every right wing politician has been called Hitler a bunch of times. Just like people on the right have been calling Obama, a communist. Which leaves, you know, no room to call, say, Bernie something "worse", even though he's easily further to the left. Deliberately placing your opponent on the far end of the spectrum to make people fear them works for a while. Afterwards, it explodes in your face, because anything on that side is looked at as equally extreme.

 

[Dave]

Yeah, but those other guys haven't been talking about deporting based on race, isolating a targeted race/religion, or advocating violence. So Trump = Hitler is a lot closer than most people are comfortable with.

 

[strawman]

I shouldn't have insulted you and charlie, sorry about that.

Spoiler: Boring offtopic stuff

I really wish we could all sit down together and just talk face to face.

I spent over an hour looking into the financial aspects of real estate on fifth avenue and understanding the situation Trump's headquarters is in. I then posted what I found. I only did so because the article posted about the sudden increase didn't set off alarm bells for me, but was obviously written so people would get the impression that this was a bad money-grubbing thing, and my friends** here were responding just as the article intended. I summarized the content as best as I could because I've been mocked here in the past for posting lengthy content.

I'm not interested in Trump. I'm not interested in defending him specifically. If you posted the same thing about Hillary I believe I would have done the same thing.

I am interested in understanding truth, and separating fact from fiction. Because of that I wasted a lot of time understanding the situation well enough that I felt I could speak on it authoritatively. Yes, it was in defense of a person I don't like. But more important to me it was in defense of truth - or at least truth insofar as I can discern. I know you two don't like Trump, and that dislike extends to fanaticism, where any defense of Trump - even if it's true - is as evil as you perceive the man himself to be. Thus CDS's amusement, and your signal that would compare the defender to a nazi sympathizer.

I understand all this and yet it still hurts to be mocked for doing what I do - trying to understand the truth and share it. I can't fault you two for your political activism. The message and propaganda you are pushing is useful and relevant to your cause, and the attempt to discredit any and all ideas or people that might allow your opposition some breathing room is repugnant to you. The fear you must feel at the thought that Trump could possibly become president is potent and real and is probably worth almost any action to prevent. I don't blame you or think you're bad or evil for attacking me personally.

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to write and post this. I guess to some degree I want to reassert my humanity - I am a real person on the other side of the keyboard - in the hopes that maybe you'll take me more seriously, but I honestly don't think that it will change how you interact with me because the problem you're facing isn't me - it's Trump. This post will do nothing to change your feelings about Trump, so your actions towards me won't change.

I guess, re-reading this, I'm just trying to express my sincerity. I believe if we were face to face you'd see that I'm not interested in either candidate but I am* going to push back against misinformation or misleading communications.

*Well, when I have time. I always have something else I should be doing that I'm avoiding when I'm here, besides which everyone here is very intelligent and relatively few false things are posted. It's even rarer to see people here getting fooled by a story that is intended to deceive.
** You're all my friends. I wrote "people here" first, but that's not true - I wasn't just responding because "people" believe something, I was responding because "people I care about" believed it.
Yes, I really did spend 60+ minutes writing and rewriting this post. I really should just delete it and move on, it feels like I'm exposing a weakness or fault, or worse - seeking attention. Bleah. This thread isn't about me! -sigh-

[DOUBLEPOST=1472135137,1472134868][/DOUBLEPOST]Of course I should have guessed that given an hour there'd me posts between mine and @DarkAudit's. Anyway the above post of mine was in response to DarkAudit, this should help the "you" and "your" make more sense.

 

[DarkAudit]

Delete that post and I'll come to Michigan and hit you with a rolled up newspaper!

 

[Bubble181]

I doubt you'd find any of the other GOP contender events that made non-true believers actually fear for their safety.

I'm fairly sure some of the attendants to Jeb Bush rallies felt in real danger of being bored to death. [DOUBLEPOST=1472135256,1472135226][/DOUBLEPOST]

Delete that post and I'll come to Michigan and hit you with a rolled up newspaper!

You're aware the guy's got a home-grown army, right?

 

[DarkAudit]

You're aware the guy's got a home-grown army, right?

The cause is just, I'll take my chances.

 

[strawman]

Delete that post and I'll come to Michigan and hit you with a rolled up newspaper!

Save the comics section for me, either way.

 

[Denbrought]

Yeah, but those other guys haven't been talking about deporting based on race, isolating a targeted race/religion, or advocating violence. So Trump = Hitler is a lot closer than most people are comfortable with.

Dunno man, Clinton is complicit in wayyy more massacres, summary executions, and civilian deaths than Trump.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Dunno man, Clinton is complicit in wayyy more massacres, summary executions, and civilian deaths than Trump.

Then again, Trump has been in bed with the Mob his whole life.

 

[Bubble181]

Then again, Trump has been in bed with the Mob his whole life.

And Clinton with interns.


Oh, wait, wrong Clinton.

 

[ScytheRexx]

Dunno man, Clinton is complicit in wayyy more massacres, summary executions, and civilian deaths than Trump.

You are right! Trump feels we should be way more active in taking part in massacres, executions, and civilian deaths. Why be complicit to atrocities when we can embrace it and just bomb the loved ones of a known terrorist? USA! USA! USA!

 

[Denbrought]

Then again, Trump has been in bed with the Mob his whole life.

Decapitating a race horse and drone striking a wedding just don't seem that comparable.

You are right! Trump feels we should be way more active in taking part in massacres, executions, and civilian deaths. Why be complicit to atrocities when we can embrace it and just bomb the loved ones of a known terrorist? USA! USA! USA!

Oh shit, it's almost like there's different flavors of evil No wait, either Trump is Hitler or Clinton is the Devil! NO NUANCE HERE

 

[ScytheRexx]

I think the big issue is that, yes, lots of people use the "this guy I don't like = hitler" argument in the past, but let's not have that take away from the fact that a lot of Trumps platform (Make America Great Again, It's all those brown peoples fault, etc.) really does mimic one of the big reasons Hitler rose to power, using xenophobia and a strong, vocal base that was pissed over feeling tread upon (you know, from losing that whole WW1 thing). Add in his ties to Russia and the fact he has in the past called himself a "Dictator" and it just seems silly to ignore just because other people overused it in the past. That isn't an excuse to let stuff slide, because while it might be funny to laugh at the kid who cried wolf, it's not funny when that wolf shows up to eat the whole town one by one because now no one pays attention to wolf warnings at all.

 

[Bubble181]

I think the big issue is that, yes, lots of people use the "this guy I don't like = hitler" argument in the past, but let's not have that take away from the fact that a lot of Trumps platform (Make America Great Again, It's all those brown peoples fault, etc.) really does mimic one of the big reasons Hitler rose to power, using xenophobia and a strong, vocal base that was pissed over feeling tread upon (you know, from losing that whole WW1 thing). Add in his ties to Russia and the fact he has in the past called himself a "Dictator" and it just seems silly to ignore just because other people overused it in the past. That isn't an excuse to let stuff slide, because while it might be funny to laugh at the kid who cried wolf, it's not funny when that wolf shows up to eat the whole town one by one because now no one pays attention to wolf warnings at all.

That's pretty much the moral of the story, isn't it? I'm not saying Trump doesn't have a lot of parallels to Hitler - he does - nor that I think he's a good presidential candidate - he isn't. I'm not even justifying anything.... Just offering an explanation as to why so many on the right seem impervious to the whole "he's pretty much Hitler" argument.

 

[ScytheRexx]

That's pretty much the moral of the story, isn't it? I'm not saying Trump doesn't have a lot of parallels to Hitler - he does - nor that I think he's a good presidential candidate - he isn't. I'm not even justifying anything.... Just offering an explanation as to why so many on the right seem impervious to the whole "he's pretty much Hitler" argument.

Yes, but in the moral the worst that happens is the kid gets eaten for his own hubris. The scope of this situation is beyond that because in this situation the wolf will get everyone, even the villagers that decided to stop listening. We all will go down with the ship, not just the kid that decided to be a dip-shit and cry wolf a few times. I heard people call Obama a "Muslim Terrorist" for 8 years, but even being sick of it, I am not going to ignore it if a guy stands up and runs for president openly going over the bullet policies of Osama Bin Ladin. I would be a fool to just write that off.

 

[GasBandit]

So. Much. Godwin.

 

[DarkAudit]

So. Much. Godwin.

If the swastika fits...

 

[Null]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting

Tuesday afternoon, Stephen Braun and Eileen Sullivan of the Associated Press released the results of a review of State Department appointment data that they used to make some striking claims about Hillary Clinton’s schedule as secretary of state.
According to their reporting, Clinton spent a remarkably large share of her time as America’s chief diplomat talking to people who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. She went out of her way to help these Clinton Foundation donors, and her decision to do so raises important concerns about the ethics of her conduct as secretary and potentially as president. It’s a striking piece of reporting that made immediate waves in my social media feed, as political journalists of all stripes retweeted the story’s headline conclusions.

Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Here’s the bottom line: Serving as secretary of state while your husband raises millions of dollars for a charitable foundation that is also a vehicle for your family’s political ambitions really does create a lot of space for potential conflicts of interest. Journalists have, rightly, scrutinized the situation closely. And however many times they take a run at it, they don’t come up with anything more scandalous than the revelation that maybe billionaire philanthropists have an easier time getting the State Department to look into their visa problems than an ordinary person would.

The AP released a card/infographic saying that "At least 85 of the 154 people who met or had phone conversations with Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State donated or pledged commitments to her family charity." However, that 154 number is arrived by extreme cherry picking - it excludes from the denominator all employees of any government, whether US or foreign, literally cutting over 1,000 instances from their number. So what appears to be more than half of the people she met with being donors (85/154) becomes at most, a little over 7% (85/1154+).

While I still think the Clinton Foundation is rife with the potential for conflicts of interest, what was supposed to be a huge expose on influence peddling doesn't really seem to have a lot of meat on it.

 

[GasBandit]

If the swastika fits...

I think I've reminded you about this before, but you remember that Godwinning is making the comparison, and it means the person doing so automatically loses the argument, right?

 

[DarkAudit]

I think I've reminded you about this before, but you remember that Godwinning is making the comparison, and it means the person doing so automatically loses the argument, right?

There was no argument there. I was just having one last troll before bed. [emoji3]

G'... night?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GasBandit]

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting



The AP released a card/infographic saying that "At least 85 of the 154 people who met or had phone conversations with Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State donated or pledged commitments to her family charity." However, that 154 number is arrived by extreme cherry picking - it excludes from the denominator all employees of any government, whether US or foreign, literally cutting over 1,000 instances from their number. So what appears to be more than half of the people she met with being donors (85/154) becomes at most, a little over 7% (85/1154+).

While I still think the Clinton Foundation is rife with the potential for conflicts of interest, what was supposed to be a huge expose on influence peddling doesn't really seem to have a lot of meat on it.

If it was even one person, it should at very least disqualify her from office, if not land her in prison. Especially given that one of those who apparently paid-for-play was a foreign head of state, Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?41392...tton-hillary-clintons-state-department-emails

He couldn't get a meeting with Sec of State Clinton through normal channels, so then he donated $32 million to the Clinton foundation, and then Doug Band (head of the foundation) made a call to Huma Abedin (Clinton's chief hench in this scheme it seems), and voila, 2 days later he gets a meeting.

 

[ScytheRexx]

I think I've reminded you about this before, but you remember that Godwinning is making the comparison, and it means the person doing so automatically loses the argument, right?

You do know that Mike Godwin, in making Godwin's Law, never intended it to be used as a simple "You lose" term, right?

His original intention behind the law was to bring up the fact that people were cheapening the Holocaust by swinging around the Hitler comparison too liberally ("That sandwich guy didn't give me my mustard. Hitler!").
He actually disagrees with the fact that the internet turned it into a "You lose" phrase since it squashes legitimate discussion and comparison to Hitler, the Nazi's, and the Holocaust, but don't take my word for it...

I don’t personally believe all rational discourse has ended when Nazis or the Holocaust are invoked. But I’m pleased that people still use Godwin’s Law to force one another to argue more thoughtfully. The best way to prevent future holocausts, I believe, is not to forbear from Holocaust comparisons; instead, it’s to make sure that those comparisons are meaningful and substantive. This is something a pleasantly surprising percentage of commentators in this political season have managed to do (like this piece on Trumpby New America and CNN analyst Peter Bergen). And I’m pleased in any season to see more people revisiting the history books.

It’s still true, of course, that the worst thing you can say about your opponents, in our culture, is that they’re like Hitler or the Nazis. But I’m hopeful that we can prod our glib online rhetorical culture into a more thoughtful, historically reflective space. In 2015, the Internet gives more and more individuals both the information and the skepticism to question what politicians and others say in their Hitler-centered hyperboles. Just as importantly, the Internet gives us the tools to share our criticisms — including the appropriately appalled reaction to Trump’s statements — with one another more widely.

 

[GasBandit]

You do know that Mike Godwin, in making Godwin's Law, never intended it to be used as a simple "You lose" term, right?

It grew to that pretty quickly though. And really, if you read between the lines of that quote, it's pretty clear he considers Hitler comparisons to be the least thoughtful.

And besides, the creator of the "GIF" format thinks you pronounce it with a soft G, too.

 

[ScytheRexx]

It grew to that pretty quickly though. And really, if you read between the lines of that quote, it's pretty clear he considers Hitler comparisons to be the least thoughtful.

When thrown without proper research, yes, but he agrees with the comparisons when made towards comments Trump has made. The guy who literally felt we were using Hitler too liberally in discussions nodded and said, "Yes, this is something where such discussions actually make sense." The fact it became a "You lose" button flies in the face of what it was supposed to do, as now it simply squashes all discussion on the subjects, even when valid, and prevents us from being able to discuss it enough to, you know, learn from history and hopefully prevent another Holocaust or similar atrocity.

And besides, the creator of the "GIF" format thinks you pronounce it with a soft G, too.

Yes, because a guy that feels a soft G sounds better then hard G is the same as a man trying to get people to think and apply reason to history as to prevent a huge genocidal massacre from repeating itself. I mean, really, we should just never listen to anyone ever again and let the Internet hive mind take control of all reason and logic. GG EZ.

 

[blotsfan]

And besides, the creator of the "GIF" format thinks you pronounce it with a soft G, too.

I don't get your point. That's how it's pronounced.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

I don't get your point. That's how it's pronounced.

Concepts take on new or different meanings beyond what the inventor intended.

 

[blotsfan]

I was just being snarky about how I use the soft g in gif.

 

[Bubble181]

I was just being snarky about how I use the soft g in gif.

I'm sorry, this is a serious political discussion thread. There's no place here for snarkiness, jokes, or attempts to challenge people's preconceptions. Please use the "Random" thread for such posts. This thread is srs bizniz.

Also, here, have a panda:

 

[GasBandit]

I don't get your point. That's how it's pronounced.

Now you really ARE Hitler!

Yes, because a guy that feels a soft G sounds better then hard G is the same as a man trying to get people to think and apply reason to history as to prevent a huge genocidal massacre from repeating itself. I mean, really, we should just never listen to anyone ever again and let the Internet hive mind take control of all reason and logic. GG EZ.

It's still a ridiculous comparison. Trump can't actually do that, no president can - by design.

Also I'm half-tempted to replace GG EZ in the filter here, as well

 

[SpecialKO]

Also I'm half-tempted to replace GG EZ in the filter here, as well

Only if you replace it with "I am JCM"

 

[ScytheRexx]

It's still a ridiculous comparison. Trump can't actually do that, no president can - by design.

You say that, but then we have other democratic nations that still decided it was a great idea to elect an ass-hat that just up and changed all the rules. Multiple nations in fact.

We like to think we are protected by an almighty piece of paper, but the fact is that such a paper didn't stop the Civil War, it didn't stop FDR from going two terms over the limit because of popular support, or Japanese Internment, it didn't stop the Patriot Act, or wire-tapping. It won't stop whatever else the Government decides to do that is in our "best interest" regardless of who gets stepped on while getting there.

All it takes is someone with enough sway to change the rules when it suits them. We have been lucky that we have elected leaders that have only done a heavy job of bending most of the rules, I don't want to have a guy in charge that might be willing to just break them in the interests of his own dramatic ego. Maybe you have more faith in the system, I honestly don't want to take that chance.