SEGAbits Forums

Off Topic => Everything Else => Topic started by: pcm92 on July 15, 2015, 07:56:03 am

Title: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on July 15, 2015, 07:56:03 am
I'm a Native American. Which candidate are most Native Americans going to support?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on July 15, 2015, 11:43:39 am
I support the Abstention guy, he always gets a load of votes.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on July 15, 2015, 11:52:59 am
Define Native American.

Given the climate of today's issues I'm not honestly sure if I'm thinking of the same Native Americans others are.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on July 15, 2015, 08:38:31 pm
Native Americans consist of many distinct tribes, bands and ethnic groups, some of which survive as intact, sovereign nations. Mostly found in the United States. I think most tribes are split on political views though. Maybe I should just join a tribe and find out. I also should have asked on a website like answerbag. I was in a hurry when I asked though. Hopefully, this thread will not create controversy. I just can't seem to find out who I want to vote for. I definitely don't want it to be a Clinton vs Bush thing though. What's the guys name who is of India Indian decent that's running?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on July 15, 2015, 08:45:13 pm
'a member of any of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.'
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on July 15, 2015, 09:19:52 pm
I wanted to be clear, because as I stated given the current political climate I wanted to make sure we were speaking of the actual Native American tribes and not super ultra nationalistic macho folk parading about.

As to the candidate, do your research and vote for the one who represents your wishes best, not whom the majority of your sect will vote for.

And I believe the answer to your other question is Bobby Jindal of Lousiana is the "India Indian". Born here in the US as a Hindu but later convereted to Roman Catholicism.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: RONMAN321 on August 11, 2015, 12:55:54 pm
They will probably rig the whole thing up to be Bush vs Hillary vs Trump.
That Trump guy probably drops out of becoming a Republican and runs independant steering away peoples votes and then Hillary wins, then we are all screwed.

The good guys are Rand Paul or Ben Carson, because they actually mention REAL policies that they want to work on.... everyone else only talks about themselves and their status of being rich that doesnt help the average American.... but as you know mainstream only covers the wealthy political status big namers, kinda sickening really. Hopefully people in 2016 will wake up to that.

Who knows.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on August 13, 2015, 05:47:00 pm
My money's on either Rubio, Cruz or Fiorina. I'm rooting for all of three of 'em.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on August 18, 2015, 01:41:03 pm
I guess pcm92 could be making money from welfare if he or she is actually Native American. Wouldn't that mean you would also be Democratic? I'm sure that could have upset you to hear Bobby Jindal is a Republican. Would it be offensive if I asked "If a Republican wins, would you go into another Ghost Dance War"? Nothing against Native Americans. Just asking. If I seemed to offensive, I am willing to smoke a peace pipe with you.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on August 20, 2015, 03:21:14 pm
I guess pcm92 could be making money from welfare if he or she is actually Native American. Wouldn't that mean you would also be Democratic? I'm sure that could have upset you to hear Bobby Jindal is a Republican. Would it be offensive if I asked "If a Republican wins, would you go into another Ghost Dance War"? Nothing against Native Americans. Just asking. If I seemed to offensive, I am willing to smoke a peace pipe with you.

Ghost dance war?
Peace pipe?

Do you really have to stereotype Native Americans like that? No. I'm not on welfare. I'm not even completely Native American. Only half. I guess it depends on there tribe if we are Democratic or Republican. There were many tribes before the United States began. I consider myself an independent. Definitely can't say that I support Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on August 23, 2015, 08:17:57 pm
Just asking. You're right the Democratic/Republican thing depends on the tribe. What tribe would you say that your family tree has in it?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on September 02, 2015, 10:41:56 am
Chickasaw, so I guess that means Republican. That must mean you were wrong about me being Democratic. This concludes that I CAN vote for Bobby Jindal.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on September 15, 2015, 11:56:21 am
You can vote for whoever you want. I'm not stopping you. Bobby Jindal doesn't really have much of a chance in winning though. Donald Trump will probably be the winner. Not sure if that's good or bad. I guess we'll see...
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on September 15, 2015, 12:27:32 pm
Is Deez Nutz still on the run?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on September 15, 2015, 03:46:25 pm
Is Deez Nutz still on the run?
You can always write-in a person that's not on the list. I just hope no one is planning to actually vote for the Democratic cat. Yeah. That's right. A feline is literally running as a Democrat. This upcoming election is THAT pathetic.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on September 15, 2015, 05:16:41 pm
You can vote for whoever you want. I'm not stopping you. Bobby Jindal doesn't really have much of a chance in winning though. Donald Trump will probably be the winner. Not sure if that's good or bad. I guess we'll see...

I'm not even an american and even I know he would be bad news for you all.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on September 15, 2015, 06:46:44 pm
You can always write-in a person that's not on the list. I just hope no one is planning to actually vote for the Democratic cat. Yeah. That's right. A feline is literally running as a Democrat. This upcoming election is THAT pathetic.
... Lan Di
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on September 15, 2015, 10:29:44 pm
If they elect a phony candidate, then will the U.S. move on to the next candidate with the most votes or will they have a re-election?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on September 21, 2015, 03:09:38 pm
Sadly Bernie Sanders can't win in a corrupt government like ours. But hey, i'll be voting from him in the primaries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Czq0Eb2Uw
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on September 24, 2015, 12:36:52 pm
Sadly Bernie Sanders can't win in a corrupt government like ours. But hey, i'll be voting from him in the primaries.
Are you voting for just the primaries? I mean, it's quite obvious that it will be Clinton vs. Trump, so I'm really not sure if Bernie stands any chance, unless he decides to run for vice president under Clinton. He seems like an ok guy. Clinton doesn't seem cool at all. Let's all hope she doesn't win. That would be very saddening. :(
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on September 24, 2015, 01:28:34 pm
Trump's popularity with voters is greatly exaggerated. Just check out the fancy charts in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/22/donald-trump-wont-win-republican-presidential-nomination
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pirovash88 on September 24, 2015, 04:12:04 pm
I don't want to live in a world where Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are my only 2 options. I should run off to Canada if that happens..
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on September 24, 2015, 08:58:54 pm
I don't want to live in a world where Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are my only 2 options. I should run off to Canada if that happens..
I agree with this completely. It would be more amazing if it was Cruz vs. Sanders. Would you consider a different country? I don't like Canada. If Hillary wins, I'm moving too. We could move together. Do any of these countries interest you?

Australia
Dominican Republic
Egypt
India
Jamaica
Malaysia
Panama
Peru
Russia
Switzerland
The Philippines
Venezuela
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Nirmugen on September 24, 2015, 09:10:23 pm


We could move together. Do any of these countries interest you?

Venezuela


0_0 As a native South American guy, I should say "DON'T TRY TO MOVE THERE".

You can try my country, dollars are "rare" and you can changed for the highest price available. Technically speaking, you can be rich for a fixed time.

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on September 25, 2015, 01:54:21 am
Trump, for better or for worse, is known to most people through television, hence his high numbers. Not sure if his poll numbers will actually translate into votes. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, on the other hand, I beleive their supporters and overall numbers seem to be genuine.

Cruz is one of my favorites, but I'm starting to think he's never going to get that much higher in the polls. Rubio is the strongest one, but right now he's a bit lost between the big three (Carson, Trump, Fiorina). Scott Walker is out, sucks but overall he was barely a presence. I hope Jeb and Huck are next, 'cause they ain't going nowhere.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on September 25, 2015, 10:31:24 am
I'm not using a computer to type this, so I'm not really sure how to quote two people. I'll just do it a different way.

Nirmurgen: What's wrong with Venezuela? What country are you from?
Maxcady: Yes. Bobby Jindal will probably soon drop out too. Which is very unfortunate because he was my favorite.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pirovash88 on September 25, 2015, 11:39:50 am
I agree with this completely. It would be more amazing if it was Cruz vs. Sanders. Would you consider a different country? I don't like Canada. If Hillary wins, I'm moving too. We could move together. Do any of these countries interest you?

Australia
Dominican Republic
Egypt
India
Jamaica
Malaysia
Panama
Peru
Russia
Switzerland
The Philippines
Venezuela

No. I would never go to Central/South America or the Middle East/Africa.

I wouldn't mind going to Europe or Canada though, haha.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Nirmugen on September 25, 2015, 01:15:00 pm


I'm not using a computer to type this, so I'm not really sure how to quote two people. I'll just do it a different way.

Nirmurgen: What's wrong with Venezuela? What country are you from?

At this moment, everything. It's like 80's agonizing Soviet Russia in a nutshell, plus a corrupt government.

I'm from Argentina, we are in the same way but some federal provinces inside the country like mine are independent and autonomous to be threatened by that....again. That's why you will have no problem whatsoever.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on September 25, 2015, 10:08:15 pm
Nirmurgen: Ah. Ok. I knew Columbia has been having a war since the 1960s. I was unaware Venezuela was.
Pirovash88: Switzerland is in Europe. That's on the list.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on September 26, 2015, 07:55:04 am
One of my co-workers is from Venezuela. Some of the stories he shared with us are downright inhuman. Nicolas Maduro is far more radical than Chavez. There's barely a functioning economy, press is highly regulated and under control. Besides the corrupt dictator-ish goverment, crime is a daily occourence: murder, extortion, kidnappings and violent assault in particular. Travels are highly restricted. Supermarket goods are being rationed out. Most of the major industries have either left the country (most of the famous Venezulean beverages and foods are being produced in Equador or Columbia) or are enterily shut down.


Yeah, Jindall is probably gonna drop out sooner or later, but at least he took time to bruise Trump's ego.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on September 26, 2015, 10:45:45 am
One of my co-workers is from Venezuela. Some of the stories he shared with us are downright inhuman. Nicolas Maduro is far more radical than Chavez. There's barely a functioning economy, press is highly regulated and under control. Besides the corrupt dictator-ish goverment, crime is a daily occourence: murder, extortion, kidnappings and violent assault in particular. Travels are highly restricted. Supermarket goods are being rationed out. Most of the major industries have either left the country (most of the famous Venezulean beverages and foods are being produced in Equador or Columbia) or are enterily shut down.


Yeah, Jindall is probably gonna drop out sooner or later, but at least he took time to bruise Trump's ego.
Sounds like a bad place to visit. Guess I'll keep that off my bucket list. Yeah. I actually think Trump is better than Clinton. Not by much though. I just don't support someone who lies and someone who stays married to a cheater just for the money. Like I said, Sanders or Cruz would be the best candidates at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on September 29, 2015, 10:53:02 am
Speaking of Sanders, is it just me or there is a lot of bad blood between Obama and Clinton? Ever since Hillary left her position after the whole Bengazhi / Clinton Foundation / Private Server scandal, I feel there's this silent conflict between the two as if the Obama administration really doesn't want Clinton to be the frontrunner, hence why Sanders or Biden seem to be in a much better place than before.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Nirmugen on September 29, 2015, 11:09:31 am
I think (from a Not-US Citizen perspective) that Obama don't want to be in a bad alliance with those democrats like Clinton.
He could stay silent or neutral about that until the elections.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on October 17, 2015, 10:34:41 pm
Could Barack Obama run as a vice president or is that also illegal? I mean, if he ran as Hillary Clinton's VP, then Hillary resigned, he would be president again, right?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on October 19, 2015, 02:49:02 pm
Could Barack Obama run as a vice president or is that also illegal? I mean, if he ran as Hillary Clinton's VP, then Hillary resigned, he would be president again, right?

The limit on ELECTED officials per the 22nd amendment is a maximum 8 years. If the president were to die in office or not be able to function, BO would probably be able to achieve more service through the second way, SUCCESSION which as far as I'm aware doesn't have the same limit as Elected does.

At least again as far as I've read up on it. The other school of thought is that he would remain VP(being illegible for presidency) and the Speaker of the House would ascend to the presidency instead.

The third school of thought says no, because a VP must be eligible for presidency and a president serving 2 terms is not eligible for re assuming the presidency.

The constitution is really really weird on it. People tend to agree that it could happen, but no one wants to test those waters.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on October 19, 2015, 07:59:39 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmwGAd1L-o

tldr; of the debate.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on October 19, 2015, 10:51:10 pm
Lol. The Jim Webb part of the video was the funniest part. Yeah. Bernie Sanders definately won that debate. By the way, what does "tldr" stand for?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on October 19, 2015, 11:00:29 pm
'too long didn't read'
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on October 20, 2015, 12:54:41 pm
Jim Webb just dropped out. I thought he would run as an independent. I can see that Bernie has gained even more supporters. Maybe he could win. Hillary is in too much trouble to win, i.m.o. We should probably vote for Sanders and Carson! Hillary or Trump? We would be doomed either way, right?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on October 20, 2015, 02:58:00 pm
I do think that the mainstream media is trying to push Hilary with decieptive polls and everyone suggesting that 'she won the debate' when a lot of what she spouted wasn't true at all. For example: She didn't stop Wall Street in 2008 because she was on their pay book. Look at her big donors, big banks:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

Her big contributors includes Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chas, Morgan Stanley and such.

As for the media pushing her: They did after polls debates that had Bernie winning, then pulled said polls, then posted articles all around saying Hilary won. Now they do a new poll that reveals that Hilary won by 80% or something yet the poll they posted, more than half that where polled did not watch the debate and probably just saw the media tell them Hilary won or they just know her cuz no one knows anyone else on that stage really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbO-Emwj2J4
Its really sad that corporations are trying to save themselves and deceive the American public.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on October 20, 2015, 05:21:06 pm
Too bad all the other Democratic candidates are probably funding her campaign without our knowlege. The government probably already decided that she will be the president regardless of what we think. Welcome to communism!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on October 27, 2015, 10:51:29 am
Hot damn, Ben Carson just blew past Trump.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRqgmXoANy0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRqgmXoANy0)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pirovash88 on October 27, 2015, 05:20:57 pm
I guess i haven't lost all faith in this Country yet then.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Nameless 24 on October 28, 2015, 06:11:08 am
Would rather be voting for the future President in America than live here under a Tory Government. :\
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 06, 2015, 10:43:39 pm
Anyone else notice that since Carson is in the lead for the GOP, the democrats are complaining about him now? They are not complaining about Trump anymore! It's pathetic that they have to use mudslinging this much just to try and sway the vote more towards their favor.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 07, 2015, 08:47:16 am
No one will respond.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on November 23, 2015, 02:22:41 am
That's standard procedure for Democrats, no need to dwell on it. Anyway, there's a bit of a shake-up on the GOP side, Carson's down, Trump's up. The big news is that Rubio and Cruz are this close to snagging the number 2 spot.


Americans seem to enjoyed Trump's responses to the Paris massacre and while Carson did OK too, he didn't seem to come off as tough. It's one of those situations where Carson's polite and soft spoken atittude works against him, IMO.



I've mention before, Rubio is the strongest overall out of all the candidates, though Cruz is also very likeable.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 23, 2015, 08:16:09 pm
That's standard procedure for Democrats, no need to dwell on it. Anyway, there's a bit of a shake-up on the GOP side, Carson's down, Trump's up. The big news is that Rubio and Cruz are this close to snagging the number 2 spot.


Americans seem to enjoyed Trump's responses to the Paris massacre and while Carson did OK too, he didn't seem to come off as tough. It's one of those situations where Carson's polite and soft spoken atittude works against him, IMO.



I've mention before, Rubio is the strongest overall out of all the candidates, though Cruz is also very likeable.
The only reason Carson lost first place was because he "lied" about being violent. I would be ok with Marco Rubio being in first place. He's a lot better than Donald Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 26, 2015, 01:08:57 pm
Just seen what Trump did and said here in the UK...how on earth is he still in the running?

It's just...bewildering.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on November 26, 2015, 03:36:52 pm
If Hillary can run despite having so much bad press (Clinton Foundation and the Benghazi debacle), I'm not suprised Trump can still make it.


It pains me to say but Trump does have one good thing going for him. Yes, he's a bit of a bully and sometimes he acts very alpha male-ish. But the fact that remains is that he means what he says and says what he means. That's the sad aspect of politics, you can say the biggest pile of horses***, but if you say with just enough conviction people will buy into it.


I heard he got a lot of flack over his comments on some muslims cheering on 9/11, but there's enough evidence to suggest that he wasn't too far off from the truth, though.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on November 26, 2015, 04:01:58 pm
I have no interest in the election this year. Barely anyone besides Trump is getting attention at the moment. There is no one on the democratic side that stands out, IMO. There is no Obama. Republican party is getting all the attention with all the racist and crazy things Trump says.

Democratic party isn't doing much to appeal to younger people at the moment I feel, and that is without a doubt what helped Obama win. will be interesting to see how things go.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on November 26, 2015, 04:11:54 pm
Obama was, IMO, both the best and worst thing that's ever happenned to the Democrat Party. But as his term is slowly coming to an end, it's clear that the party never thought that much ahead.


Jim Webb? Hillary? Sanders? Martin O' Malley?




Things seem much more interesting on the Republican Party's side right now. Carson, Trump, Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz. Can't wait for the next shake-up.


Scott Walker dropped very early on, but I can't say that I was surprised. He was barely a presence and he blew through all his campaign money in one go. Rand Paul looked promising, but I don't he's going anywhere. Same with Kasich and Jeb. I have no idea why Jeb is still running other than being Trump's punching bag.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 27, 2015, 01:41:30 pm
If Hillary can run despite having so much bad press (Clinton Foundation and the Benghazi debacle), I'm not suprised Trump can still make it.


It pains me to say but Trump does have one good thing going for him. Yes, he's a bit of a bully and sometimes he acts very alpha male-ish. But the fact that remains is that he means what he says and says what he means. That's the sad aspect of politics, you can say the biggest pile of horses***, but if you say with just enough conviction people will buy into it.


I heard he got a lot of flack over his comments on some muslims cheering on 9/11, but there's enough evidence to suggest that he wasn't too far off from the truth, though.

I'm surprised he didn't get more flack for insulting a disabled person to be honest. I mean, wow. That's just low.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on November 28, 2015, 01:04:20 pm
Going back to Obama, he's a great guy. He's really passionate about everything. He just wants fairness for everyone, and there has been a lot of change under his leadership. Change takes time, especially at government level.

His latest speech, he's really angry about all the shootings recently. You can tell he really cares, unlike most presidents.

Say what you will about Obama's policies, but I don't think we are gonna see such a passionate person leading the white house for a long time from either party. Which is a shame.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 28, 2015, 01:25:21 pm
Going back to Obama, he's a great guy. He's really passionate about everything. He just wants fairness for everyone, and there has been a lot of change under his leadership. Change takes time, especially at government level.

His latest speech, he's really angry about all the shootings recently. You can tell he really cares, unlike most presidents.

Say what you will about Obama's policies, but I don't think we are gonna see such a passionate person leading the white house for a long time from either party. Which is a shame.
You want the government to take away all our guns? That couldn't possibly start a coup, could it? The ACA is affordable? Yeah. Maybe for the ones on welfare. Wish the government would have to live by what they tell us to live by. Like Spock said, welcome to communism.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 28, 2015, 03:04:50 pm
Well, if you're going to try and debate gay marriage, which I support anyway, then it belongs in another thread.

http://segabits.com/forums/index.php?topic=3666.0

As far as calling all Republicans racist, I would suggest you rethink that. Have you ever heard of Allen West or Benjamin Carson? Condoleezza Rice? Can you call them racist against African Americans? I must admit that I disagree with Donald Trumps recent bullying against a disabled reporter, but there are plenty of other Republicans that are so much better than a socialist and a coward. The socialist being the lesser of the two evils. Barack Obama was much better in his first term imo.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on November 28, 2015, 03:13:41 pm
Sorry I guess i got a bit off topic there.

But yeah, Not saying all republicans are closed-minded, but as of recent it seems like all the ones who get voted in to run in the main election are super extreme. I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump ends up being the the republican running for president.

I wish there was a more popular moderate party in general. I don't like the extremes on either side of the spectrum, democratic, or republican, but that is all people vote for, so you gotta choose one if you actually want to have a say with your vote sadly
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 28, 2015, 03:30:06 pm
Ok. I agree with you on this part. It's possible that I might vote for someone in the primaries, but if Trump and Clinton go head to head in the general, then it's time for me to leave. As far as your gun stance, I would say the thing that makes America amazing and sets our Country apart from Tyrannical, Communistic, and Dictatorial types of government is our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. As Americans, we are Protected from our Government not to have the ability to become Tyrannical by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We, as Americans are hoping and praying that Obama will not again try to override the Congress, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court to confiscate the Second Amendment. Obama's goal is to disarm Americans and Federalize the National Police Force. He used to be a good president. Then, something changed during his second term. It must be a curse that happens during every presidents second term.

Reagan - Iran/Contra affair

George H.W. Bush - Had no second term

Bill Clinton - Health care and Monica Lewinsky Scandal

George W. Bush - Hurricane Katrina aid delay

Barack Obama - pretty much everything he did in his second term

There are other parties out there such as the Constitution party, the Green party, and the Libertarian Party. In the end, none of these will ever be able to win a presidential election. You can try. It just won't happen.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 28, 2015, 06:20:48 pm
This site would help.

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz

You could also look up the individuals without taking a quiz on the website ontheissues.com because this two have helped me decide my favorite primary candidates. Meaning, everyone other than Trump and Clinton. It's up to you who to vote for.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 28, 2015, 06:50:06 pm
Vote for who you want to. Just keep this in mind:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/1337/left-stop-eating-authentic-ethnic-food-you-racist-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=112415-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 29, 2015, 07:42:59 pm
I don't think the government can tell us not to eat certain foods, can they? Oh wait! They can. Michelle Obama says that children in schools can only eat one apple and a chocolate milk to reduce obesity rates. What if the children wanted to be fat? Most children are going to just carry their lunch to school anyway. Why would they want to stand in line to get served an apple with a small milk, when they can have a full meal for less money? Not sure about this "ethnically correct" food though, Spock. Lol. I think we will still have Chinese, Japanese, and Mexican restaurants in America.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 30, 2015, 02:57:33 am
I understand why guns were written into the US constitution, just don't like seeing people abusing their rights and using it to intimidate other innocent citizens based on their religion/color of their skin who have as much of a right to be here as we do.

I've seen pictures of people carrying guns in grocery stores and airports. like, whats the point. They aren't defending anything, they are trying to be seen as cool or intimidating. I'd be pretty scared seeing seeing a group of people walking around with big guns somewhere public like a store just because they can...

I personally never want to own a gun, too much that can go wrong.

Although I will say, the government is so much more powerful then we'll ever be. If we ever did rise up against them, we'd be dead so fast. Even with our own big guns.

I guess I should do some research on the people who are running for president this term so I can make a meaningful vote instead of just picking one side.

I actually don't see the point. It was written in a time where it was needed. It isn't that time now and all it does is escalate already horrible events. I can't see how on earth they'd enforce a gun ban now mind. There's far too many out there and in the hands of people who would refuse to give them up.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 30, 2015, 02:08:27 pm
I actually don't see the point. It was written in a time where it was needed. It isn't that time now and all it does is escalate already horrible events. I can't see how on earth they'd enforce a gun ban now mind. There's far too many out there and in the hands of people who would refuse to give them up.
Like I said before, it would start a coup d'éat. Too many people own guns. The only way to defend yourself in this incredibly violent country is to have a gun yourself. As far as hunting, I really can't say that I've ever done that. Does the government think that there is anything wrong with carrying a gun just in case you get robbed? Certainly not! That's what makes this country great. Do you think we should ban guns to get rid of crime? Hmm... Maybe we should also ban crystal meth and cocaine so that no one uses it.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 30, 2015, 02:25:55 pm
I suppose it's just a cultural thing that's set in stone and as we said, it's far too late to be calling for a ban. Here in the UK, they're illegal unless you have a license. I suppose the real question is, what do America do to prevent them getting into the wrong hands? A stronger screening process for those wanting one? Check their mental state etc...
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 30, 2015, 02:34:27 pm
I suppose it's just a cultural thing that's set in stone and as we said, it's far too late to be calling for a ban. Here in the UK, they're illegal unless you have a license. I suppose the real question is, what do America do to prevent them getting into the wrong hands? A stronger screening process for those wanting one? Check their mental state etc...
They do a background check to make sure you have never committed any major crime or have ever been to a mental institution.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 30, 2015, 02:40:03 pm
Hmmm, there's other tests that can see if they have the right mentality too mind. I dunno. It's one of those things I guess the American people have to decide on. Tragic incidences like we've seen will continue though.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 30, 2015, 03:07:15 pm
TAD, You said you live in the U.K., right? Do you live in England, Ireland Scotland, or Wales?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 30, 2015, 03:11:39 pm
England.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 30, 2015, 03:23:27 pm
Yeah. I imagine the laws would be a lot different there. The U.S. has the most firearms out of any other country.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 30, 2015, 05:24:54 pm
TAD, You said you live in the U.K., right? Do you live in England, Ireland Scotland, or Wales?

I thought Scotland declared independence. Also, I think Northern Ireland is a different territory than Ireland, so you forgot them.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 30, 2015, 05:39:41 pm
No, Scotland are not independent. They had a vote on it, but decided they'd be buggered without the rest of the UK. Northern Island are separate though. In typical British humour, here's how this family works:

Wales hate the English, Scotland hate the English, Ireland hate the English and the English hate the English.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 30, 2015, 09:38:35 pm
Leaving the geographical lesson aside, Tad. Which candidate would you support if you were an American citizen?

Crackdude, doesn't Portugal have an upcoming election?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on December 01, 2015, 02:34:05 am

Here's one minor off-topic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there's the upcoming election in January 2016 for President of Portugal (last October it was elections for Prime Minister).


The Socialist party has two candidates (one outsider and one of the old guards), the Communist party has their candidate, the Left Bloc has their one as well. Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa is the big candidate since he's been a major political pundit on one of the highest rated commentary shows.

[/size][size=78%] [/size][/size]I hope he wins on the first round because I don't the trust the current PM and his contract with the three far left parties. Seriously, this bullsh** pisses me off to no end.  The far left has way too much sway in politics and culture.
[/size][size=78%]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/size]
[/size]
[/size]If I was a US citizen, my vote would go to either Cruz, Rubio, Carson orFiorina. 
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on December 01, 2015, 02:47:05 am
Leaving the geographical lesson aside, Tad. Which candidate would you support if you were an American citizen?

Crackdude, doesn't Portugal have an upcoming election?

Hmm, don't think I know enough to say really. I'm just surprised that Trump is still popular considering some of the things he says/does. Having said that though, he's the only real one who's even been mentioned on the news over here, so his shocking comments and behaviour is having an impact. For the wrong reasons of course, but it's publicity.

I think politicians in your country suffer the same problem ours do. They want to do things, but get stopped by others. Of course, being able to stop them is needed (we rightfully just stopped the tories from cutting tax credits like they promised they wouldn't before getting elected), but at the same time they were elected to do what they said. Seems as though other people's ideologies are stopping what the people voted for, for the wrong reasons at times. Once I take a closer look at the candidates, I'll get back to you though.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on December 01, 2015, 05:10:48 am

The european media is very sympathetic (I'm being nice) to Democrats, hence why anything that makes Republicans bad (by going through portuguese newspapers you get the impression that Carson, Rubio, Fiorina or Cruz don't even existed) will get coverage. But on the social media side of things, portuguese people are getting more exposure to those republicans.
[size=78%] [/size]

Still, I hate playing Devil's advocate for Trump but was that reporter's disability common knowledge? Trump claims that he was simply mimicking a panicked reporter who had submmited an errouneous report and also that he also claimed had no idea who he was or that he had such disability?


That doesn't make him any less of a jerk / bully and at worst it's an unfortunate coincidence, but I still sense a touch of contrivance in this latest media frenzy.


Trump's already reached his peak so he's got nowhere to go but down. He and Jeb Bush can go suck eggs for all I care.



Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pirovash88 on December 02, 2015, 03:30:28 pm
Another mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA. WTF!!

When is this BS going to stop? We need more strict gun laws.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on December 02, 2015, 03:49:12 pm
Awful news.

Thoughts go out to all those effected.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 02, 2015, 05:52:58 pm
These are sad times. I admit that it's tragic to see these events on the news. The problem is that our president said that there is no parallel anywhere else in the world. Honduras has the highest murder rate by firearms. Not the U.S. Notice that there have been more mass shooting reports on the news since he has been the president. They most likely happened this frequently before. We were just uninformed. Now we are informed way too often. It must be Russia's president saying "I exposed your b.s. in Syria." Then Obama responds with "Look over there! It's a mass shooting!" Take away guns and the only people with them will be the criminals breaking into your house or stealing your car.

Oh! By the way, Rubio and Cruz are fighting for second place behind Trump...
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on December 02, 2015, 06:57:07 pm
Awful news. Mass shootings seem to be becoming more and more common.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on December 03, 2015, 02:53:37 am
The people on NEOGAF are making me sick... As soon as the suspects were confirmed to be islamic they switch from the "mass shootings / gun control" narrative to the "persecution complex / islamophobia / woe are all muslims" angle.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on December 03, 2015, 03:06:29 am
It's to be expected. The Quran doesn't help as it quite openly talks about these things.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on December 03, 2015, 07:47:41 am
The people on NEOGAF are making me sick... As soon as the suspects were confirmed to be islamic they switch from the "mass shootings / gun control" narrative to the "persecution complex / islamophobia / woe are all muslims" angle.

Don't worry they have the other 300 odd shooting incidents to back them up.

It's to be expected. The Quran doesn't help as it quite openly talks about these things.

Mass murdering disabled people in a non Islamic country that's majority is Christian would be considered illegal in the Quran.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on December 03, 2015, 02:03:12 pm
Don't worry they have the other 300 odd shooting incidents to back them up.

Mass murdering disabled people in a non Islamic country that's majority is Christian would be considered illegal in the Quran.

Off topic as such, but I find religion a bit of a joke personally. Regardless of which form it takes, people who "follow it" seem to cherry pick what they can and can't do.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on December 03, 2015, 07:24:21 pm
the latest news for TRUMP

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1150185

at this point nothing he does surprises me. guy is crazy
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pirovash88 on December 04, 2015, 12:01:27 am
I swear if this guy becomes President he's gonna get us all killed..

In regards to religion. I was brought up Cathoic, but don't practice anything. I don't believe in God, but I also don't consider myself an athiest.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on December 04, 2015, 07:48:03 am
NeoGafferes are now offended by anti-semitism?
  (http://i63.tinypic.com/1432xc2.gif)

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 04, 2015, 11:26:06 pm
I don't believe in God, but I also don't consider myself an athiest.
Is that even possible? I respect your beliefs, but...
A=No,
Theos=Gods, and
Atheist=no gods.

Anyway, I think Trump actually wants Clinton to win. He's just making it bad for the Republicans by saying things that everyone would be offended by. Since he's number one in the GOP, this is good news for Clinton. I wonder why no one has tried to protest one of his speeches.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on December 05, 2015, 09:38:58 pm
Looks like Ted Cruz has taken a page from the TRUMP book. I guess he's trying to steal Trump voters

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1151654
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 05, 2015, 10:30:21 pm
Much rather have him than Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on December 06, 2015, 06:10:50 pm
Reminder that the president is addressing the nation tonight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGxh_NU1KUs
(http://i.imgur.com/Zz9OPn7.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on December 07, 2015, 07:42:57 am
Liberals on Neogaf always seem more outraged about a non-Democratic politician saying something that they don't like, but terrorists attacks not so much on the other hand, not so much. Tribalism trumps facts about terrorism in general.


People are outraged that Trump said that the US should go after families of the suicide bombers? Before anybody gets angry at least take the time to do some research:




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salaries-for-suicide-bombers/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salaries-for-suicide-bombers/)


http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/21/paycheck-terrorism-5300-suicide-attack/ (http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/21/paycheck-terrorism-5300-suicide-attack/)


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914)


http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/04/04/saddam-rewards-suicide-bombers-families.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/2002/04/04/saddam-rewards-suicide-bombers-families.html)


It's sad when the supossed inteligent progressives are more detached from reality than Trump is. God dammit, I hate being the Devil's Advocate in this situation.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 11, 2015, 05:30:52 pm
If Trump does what he says he will do, then Cruz will be the Republican nominee. Rather have him than Trump or Clinton. Rather have anyone else really.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on December 15, 2015, 03:54:06 pm
Indeed, Ted Cruz right now, is the strongest candidate for the GOP. I was about to give up on him for a while but I'm happy that both him and Rubio are rising up to the challenge.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on December 15, 2015, 07:00:18 pm
Does it matter who wins the GOP? Republicans are already bought and sold. This country doesn't need more nonsense from Cruz or Trump. Personally I hope they lose along with Hilary who seems to really love 9/11 and banks.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on December 17, 2015, 10:41:57 pm
Gun sales are probably skyrocketing as we speak. They've practically skyrocketed throughout his presidency, alongside the explosion in private militias.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 20, 2015, 10:31:24 am
Haha. Clinton was late from break during the debate. Go Sanders!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on December 20, 2015, 03:34:34 pm
You know she's going to win.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 20, 2015, 08:47:14 pm
I don't understand why the Republican party is going to vote for Trump over Carson or Rubio. Those two are the only ones that have a chance against the Democratic party. Sanders could win the election, if he doesn't drop out. Only time will tell. Btw, here is the link I was talking about:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/20/clinton-went-missing-from-democratic-debate-briefly.html
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on December 20, 2015, 09:31:17 pm
Why would he drop out? He is winning NH. Though he won't win. The DNC has already stacked it in favor of Hilary.

http://usuncut.com/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hillary-clinton/

+ Debbie Wasserman being Hilary's 2008 campaign organizers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz#2008

+ Her breaking DNC rules to block Lessig from the debates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4IsqmMqCEo

DNC is pretty corrupt.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on December 21, 2015, 02:17:46 am
I wish Obama stopped surrounding himself with spineless Yes-Men and enablers for once.




Anyway, things are looking good for Cruz (http://www.kcrg.com/content/news/CBSYouGov-Poll-Cruz-Reaches-40-Up-Nine-Percent-in-Iowa-363082291.html).


Quote
In what appears to be shifting into a two-candidate race, Senator Ted Cruz has reached a critical threshold in the latest major poll of Iowa Republicans.
[/size]The first-term senator from Texas captured 40 percent in a CBS News/You Gov poll, released on Sunday. Cruz also holds a nine-point lead over Donald Trump, who campaigned in Cedar Rapids just the day before.[/color]
[/size][/color]
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on December 21, 2015, 04:08:52 pm
I wouldn't mind Ted Cruz if he wasn't aligning himself with such big corporations:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033085

Second industry that supports him the most is Oil & Gas, denies climate change which will ruin us in the next few decades and 90%> of scientist agree including the NSA. Goes on stage and denies facts due to money. That is dangerous. That's just my two cents.

In the end of the day, follow the money. Hilary is just as bad, but at least we know she won't deny facts like moving to be energy dependent. But then again shes bought by wallstreet and banks, so you can be sure that the next big bailout for them is just around the corner (Cruz also gets Goldman Sachs money...)

Sigh...

What we really need is to get rid of money in politics and make it paid by tax payers. If you can't out perform someone with x amount of cash, you shouldn't be president. Maybe thats why we have a government that loves spending.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 21, 2015, 05:11:11 pm
You're talking about environmental issues? Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who even cares about that. Most of the other candidates are more concerned about the Black Lives Matter Movement *BLMM*
and ISIS blowing the U.S. off the map.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on December 22, 2015, 04:08:12 am
@George

In theory taxpayer-funded campaigns seem like a good idea, but in pratical terms... NO F***ING WAY! The biggest donors to the Democrat Party are mostly public-sector unions, even if you cut out corporate donations.

Also Lindsay Graham dropped out of the race and my question is: Lindsay Graham was in the Presidential race!?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on December 23, 2015, 11:32:25 am
We have them here in the UK. They also allow donations too. Either way, it's no surprise the conservatives in the UK have won again. They're apart of the Murdoch empire and as he owns the majority of the media...
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 23, 2015, 05:50:00 pm
Tad, did you have the chance to review the candidates? I wanted to know which one a British citizen would vote for if they lived here.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on December 23, 2015, 09:54:13 pm
Nah, not really. I just haven't had time I'm afraid. Sorry.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on December 25, 2015, 06:40:33 pm
@George

In theory taxpayer-funded campaigns seem like a good idea, but in pratical terms... NO F***ING WAY! The biggest donors to the Democrat Party are mostly public-sector unions, even if you cut out corporate donations.

Also Lindsay Graham dropped out of the race and my question is: Lindsay Graham was in the Presidential race!?
Not for Hilary, but yeah like Sanders does get Union funding. Though I think Taxpayer funded + individual donations (not exceeding a certain amount) is the best way. Honestly, if people aren't going to give you cash then maybe your not worth running? I mean if all your money comes from pandering to unions (which in the end aren't funding campaigns as much as private sector) and companies, than maybe you aren't fit for presidency in America that should be 'for the people' not for 'the billionaires'.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on December 26, 2015, 09:37:59 pm
George, are you saying you support Clinton over Sanders? Imo, she seems a lot less liberal than Sanders. I think she would be conservative on many levels. She once said that abortion was wrong. Now she says she supports it just to have more votes. She also claims that Bill will most likely be her vice president. Not sure how that's possible.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on December 27, 2015, 05:08:01 pm
I do no support Clinton at all. She wants boots on the ground and is already bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 03, 2016, 09:53:49 pm
I cant believe the president is now ordering more control on guns. He said this out of nowhere. There was no major mass murder that happened anytime in about two or three months. Why is he doing this now? Just to prove he has another year left? I can't wait for Hillary to be the president so Americans can see that we do need a Republican in office again. Hopefully, it doesn't even take that long. If we can just vote for someone at least nearly tolerable in November, we will be a lot safer. Especially since ISIS wants to bomb us next. On top of that, we have African American protests too often. Black Lives matter, but race allegations are a lot worse since Obama has been the president.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 04, 2016, 09:10:41 am
That type of thinking is exactly why we have gun control issues in the first place.

The idea that we need to wait for even MORE mass shootings/murders to justify regulations to ensure better gun ownership responsibility is insane to me as someone who supports the 2nd amendment. There are tons of common sense gun regulations that probably should've been implemented by now had not the NRA lobbying powerhouse fear-mongered the hell out of everything.

Everyone was quick to chant for blood and revenge for 9/11 at a country that had more or less nothing to do with it.
Everyone was quick to throw away and to continue throwning away civil liberties to be safe from "Terrorists".
27 kids dead here, college shootups there, movie massacres though? Nope can't do that because reasons.

It reeks of an onion article. "No way to prevent this, says only nation in which it regularly happens"
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 04, 2016, 05:20:17 pm
Both sides are way to leaning and refuse to meet each other half way. How about before taking constitutional rights away, why don't they tighten gun control. My brother bought a AR-15 and he didn't even know how it works. This is California.

For sure they need to close loop holes where you can get them in events without a background check. That's bullshit. They need to increase focus on background checks and do them right. How about we also have single payer healthcard with real mental facilities for these people that are crazy. In the end, thats the thing isn't it? Their all a bit out there, be them white or black or whatever.

Increase jobs for the middle class, legalize weed and a few smaller things and this violence we do have will decrease quite a bit. Violence and gun crime is dropping, believe it or not.

The thing is guns and immigrants are really  just covers for them not to talk about the real issue. The disappearing middle class of America. Notice how that one illegal that killed that girl got like 80% more air time on TV than like... 80% of the white people that went on massacres.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on January 04, 2016, 05:33:40 pm
Ever notice how the states that have so many gun control laws - like Oregon, Colorado, and Illinois - are the exact states that these mass shootings happen in? I think the media makes violence look like a good thing. That's the main problem. We shouldn't have a government that has both the right to bear arms along with freedom of the press/media. The government can't do anything about either, unless an ammendment is repealed. If the president decides to repeal an ammendment that old, I'm sure he will be out of office faster than next January.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on January 04, 2016, 05:35:45 pm
surprised it hasn't been posted yet

Trump's first ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1p2K-7Eww&feature=youtu.be

it's extreme as you'd expect
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 05, 2016, 04:22:31 pm
At least they are just doing more strict background checks. I know Trump is working for Hillary. That is a fact, but I do agree with him in saying that more gun restrictions are coming. This includes, but is not limited to making it illegal to buy ammunition.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 05, 2016, 04:48:48 pm
Ever notice how the states that have so many gun control laws - like Oregon, Colorado, and Illinois - are the exact states that these mass shootings happen in? I think the media makes violence look like a good thing. That's the main problem. We shouldn't have a government that has both the right to bear arms along with freedom of the press/media. The government can't do anything about either, unless an ammendment is repealed. If the president decides to repeal an ammendment that old, I'm sure he will be out of office faster than next January.
Not really, sounds made up:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/55ddfa3bbd86ef21008b613b-1200-970/kaiser-foundation-gun-deaths-state-map.png this is a map for 2015.

Maybe the media just reports more on states with stricter gun laws. I feel they do the same with minorities. One illegal killed a girl in San Francisco and it was on the yar for like 2 weeks everyday. Yet at the same time cops killed minorities and other legal Americans did the same. Its weird.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 05, 2016, 05:42:08 pm
I think probably almost half of the firearm deaths and injuries are sometimes caused by accidents. That map does convince me to stay away from Alaska. I knew Montana would be high. They have a lot of hunting and massive amounts of gun shows. Some people don't eat food from the grocery store. They teach their children survival skills by showing them how to hunt for their food. I imagine they will be disappointed if Bernie Sanders becomes their next president.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 05, 2016, 06:13:14 pm
Why would they be disappointing? Vermont has a lot of hunting and he has been reelected like 3 times and has a 80%+ approval rating. I don't think its bad what he wants to do with guns, it feels like a mid way point. I don't see why background checks scares people. Personally think they need to pass tests like a drivers license to own a gun, but that just me because I feel like Americans aren't smart enough to even drive safety much less own a gun without knowing the basics.

Tho I do agree Bernie's weird thing with assault weapons is odd. While I think having a AR-15 for hunting is stupid as hell, I don't think there have been enough mass shootings with assault weapons to even ban them. I mean, they usually do it with hand guns cuz their easier to hide.

But I don't think Bernie is bad for gun toting owners at all. Outside of people that have assault weapons, I guess.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 05, 2016, 10:15:34 pm
Allowing the sales of firearms without the ability to purchase ammunition is pointless. It's an even more dystopian non reality that stopping the sales of firearms in the US. Even the hardest of hard gun control measures in other first world nations allow for leeway for indigenous or hunters living on the land to purchase and maintain firearms and ammunition for hunting and pest control
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 05, 2016, 10:19:38 pm
Why would they be disappointing? Vermont has a lot of hunting and he has been reelected like 3 times and has a 80%+ approval rating. I don't think its bad what he wants to do with guns, it feels like a mid way point. I don't see why background checks scares people. Personally think they need to pass tests like a drivers license to own a gun, but that just me because I feel like Americans aren't smart enough to even drive safety much less own a gun without knowing the basics.

Tho I do agree Bernie's weird thing with assault weapons is odd. While I think having a AR-15 for hunting is stupid as hell, I don't think there have been enough mass shootings with assault weapons to even ban them. I mean, they usually do it with hand guns cuz their easier to hide.

But I don't think Bernie is bad for gun toting owners at all. Outside of people that have assault weapons, I guess.

It's really hard to tell. He's not the president right now. Most presidents so far have seemed really good before the elections, then turned out to be horrible during their second term. The Democrats kind of bore me during this election. The only person that I would consider voting for is Cruz. The other Republicans have insane policies this time. If I had to choose a Democrat, then I would say Sanders. I did manage to find this, in case you were wondering the differences between Sanders and Clinton on gun control:

http://www.msn.com/en-ae/video/downtime/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-face-off-over-gun-control/vp-AAfpRu9
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 06, 2016, 06:25:59 pm
I would agree with you if he hasn't been saying the same thing, consistently for 50 years. Hilary Clinton has literally changed her opinion she held in 2014. Sanders was boo'd in the DNC debate basically for not saying he would take everyone's guns away from them. I don't agree with his ban on assault weapons, but it doesn't effect me to not vote for him either. I mean, its either we continue this destruction of the middle class or let wallstreet and the banks make off like fat cats.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 08, 2016, 03:06:04 pm
Don't get me wrong, I would very much like to see a Bernie Sanders versus Ted Cruz election. Imagine the debates. It would be like JFK versus Ronald Reagan. Yeah. I will agree Sanders is the best Democrat. He's just not likely going to win in the primaries.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on January 08, 2016, 04:18:27 pm
Bernie was never playable on a SEGA console. Hillary was. Trump only ever had a tenuous connection to Home Alone 2 on the Genesis because he made a cameo in the movie.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 08, 2016, 05:59:57 pm
Ted Cruz was never a video game character either. He has been made into a controversial political cartoon with his two daughters. The white house made that. Cruz did not approve. Trump was in the Home Alone 2 game? I know he had a cameo in the movie, but he shouldn't have been in the game. There was a PC game where you can help him build and expand his companies. Was Hillary Clinton in Spanky's Quest or Wild Woody?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on January 09, 2016, 10:07:21 am
Ted Cruz was never a video game character either. He has been made into a controversial political cartoon with his two daughters. The white house made that. Cruz did not approve. Trump was in the Home Alone 2 game? I know he had a cameo in the movie, but he shouldn't have been in the game. There was a PC game where you can help him build and expand his companies. Was Hillary Clinton in Spanky's Quest or Wild Woody?

Um.... the White House does not publish The Washington Post. It's a newspaper in D.C. owned by Nash Holdings, and the cartoon you speak of was created by Ann Telnaes, a cartoonist for the newspaper.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on January 09, 2016, 11:57:30 am
Yeah. It was created by the Washington Post. I'm sure the Obama's loved it though. Cruz is the only chance against Clinton or Sanders. Unfortunately for you, he just can't seem to inch his way past Donald Trump. His Canadian birth upsets John McCain too much.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 11, 2016, 04:42:52 pm
I think republicans need to relax on their narrative that young people just want 'free stuff' and start to question why their candidates are getting huge donations from the private sector and not small contribution from people. Bernie Sanders gets the 'ya, people want free stuff cuz their poor and lazy' yet he has raised 75 million dollars from small contributions. Maybe people are just sick of working multiple jobs and getting no vacations and other benefits that the rest of the civilized world have been granted for decades.

Never mind, they just want to be lazy.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 12, 2016, 04:34:01 pm
I think republicans need to relax on their narrative that young people just want 'free stuff' and start to question why their candidates are getting huge donations from the private sector and not small contribution from people. Bernie Sanders gets the 'ya, people want free stuff cuz their poor and lazy' yet he has raised 75 million dollars from small contributions. Maybe people are just sick of working multiple jobs and getting no vacations and other benefits that the rest of the civilized world have been granted for decades.

Never mind, they just want to be lazy.

The two party system is really screwed up. Barack Obama did ok during his first term. Just bad during his second. I realise you support Sanders. He is alright with me too as far as the environmental issues go. Wouldn't you rather have Ted Cruz over Hillary Clinton though?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 12, 2016, 07:57:07 pm
The two party system is really screwed up. Barack Obama did ok during his first term. Just bad during his second. I realise you support Sanders. He is alright with me too as far as the environmental issues go. Wouldn't you rather have Ted Cruz over Hillary Clinton though?
I don't trust Ted Cruz at all. I rather just vote outside the two party system. Thankfully for me, Sanders is doing fine in the polls.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 13, 2016, 09:04:14 pm
Yeah. He's still behind Clinton. Just barely though. Maybe he can inch his way to the number one spot this Sunday (debate).
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 13, 2016, 09:28:30 pm
If he wasn't as much of a liar as Hilary then he would have a greater chance. You can't tell people you paid your senate run yourself and not disclosed that you borrowed money. That was a big talking point for him and now its blowing up in his face:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html

His team just gave Trump a buttload of ammo with this and him being from Canada. It is going to be nasty.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on January 15, 2016, 05:03:10 am
Man, it's time for a lot of the Republicans candidates to simply drop out. Kasich is going nowhere, Jeb Bush sucks, Rand and a lot of other candidates just cannot get more than 2-3% tops.


At this point, it's pretty clear that the GOP candidates are Trump, Carson, Rubio and Cruz. Everybody else has to go, that also includes Fiorina too as much as it pains me to say it.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 15, 2016, 03:12:20 pm
After how everyone sucker punched Ted Cruz and he blantely lied, I don't know how anyone can support him. After he attacked New Yorkers and Trump gave him a uppercut to the face with his rebuttal, I dunno how the Republican voters can still support him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4vLDAApN9w

This ad sums it up. First he calls out Obama for not being strong at killing terrorist when all he has done is nonstop bombings. He says Americans are more unsafe then ever (untrue, look at polls on how crime rate has been dropping) and that he wants to 'rebuild our military', when most of our budget already goes to it. We have the largest one already.

None of this makes any sense.

Also wtf is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX4hOgGtTWk

Who paints their face to go duck hunting? This is so Hollywood fake, it hurts.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 15, 2016, 06:28:40 pm
Our military Budget is actually the second largest. Medicare tops it by about 200 billion last time I checked, but agree nonetheless. The military has been asking Congress to downsize bases and civilian contractors for years so that they could put that money to better use. Something which Congress ignores.

As for Rebuilding our Military. Does Cruz know why The navy has no new destroyers or cruisers? Does he know why the army desn't have a new self propelled howitzer? It's not the president. It's Congress screaming for the best equipment while refusing to pay the bill to have the best. Congress controls the Military Budget.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 15, 2016, 07:57:46 pm
I do think we should normally stay out of any wars, but with protests going on inside the country, ISIS threatening to attack NYC, China's cyber attacks, and North Korea's... well... existing, we should be able to scare away those countries instead of being pansies about it.
How can I support Ted Cruz? Because he's my favorite candidate and the GOP's only chance.
He hasn't lied nearly as much as Clinton or Trump. He is one of the few who actually has political experience.
The best thing opponents can come up with is "He's too religious."
So what? Don't we still have the freedom of religion?
Ronald Reagan was very religious, and everyone seemed to like him!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 15, 2016, 11:33:31 pm
You're assuming that if we manage to scare our enemies that they will cease to be a threat. One of the enemies of which we are currently fighting literally uses fear as a recruitment tool.

People joined ISIS not only because they are angry at the US, but because our last 15 years in the Middle east have been nothing short of chaos for the people who live there and they are tired of it. Using Trump's anti islamic rhetoric as a recruiting tool. Electing someone who will put boots on the ground or anything of that nature will do nothing but embolden them, as that is exactly what they want.

We have no reason to get involved physically as the Iraqi Army and the Kurds near Syria seem to be doing a great enough job on their own in pushing ISIS back while keeping our troops out of harms way.

China could be dealt with if the FBI/NSA stopped trying to backdoor everything and nothing with happen to the DPRK because China doesn't want the refugees and South Korea doesn't want to see its economy destroyed under influx of unskilled labor no matter how much Cruz or anyone else wants it unless they want WW3.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 16, 2016, 07:57:08 am
As far as space warfare and cyber attacks, China has prepared to step up its space-warfare forces, including anti-satellite, laser technology, and low-Earth orbit bombers. The phrase strategic missile has also been mentioned as part of this package, but it is not known if these are to be conventional or nuclear capable. If anything other than war, I think peace talks would solve the problem in China.


Ukraine will continue to be an area to watch as Russia and Ukraine continue to battle over Crimea, which Russia will never give up. This would normally not be a problem for the U.S. The president has made it a problem. NATO does not think of interfering in it, but the presiddent fears Russian expansionism, and Turkey has already shown that it is willing to stand up to Russia with firepower. NATO has sent an Air Defense package to Turkey as tensions between Turkey and Russia continue to remain high.


Iran and Iraq have continued to breach U.N. Security Counsel resolutions by trying out another medium-range ballistic missile. The United States originally planned to impose additional sanctions for the breech, then we backed away from doing so. Syria is very concerned and asking for aid from any country against the ongoing ISIS war. They have not asked the U.S. for help yet because it has already shown how weak it is. Not to mention, Burkina Faso was attacked just this morning with at least twenty three dead. Need I remind you of the attacks in Paris a couple of months ago? I'm sure we can do better.
We're already bombing ISIS, why can't we "put boots on the ground?"


By the way, Ted Cruz appologized.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/15/politics/ted-cruz-new-yorkers-apology/index.html?sr=fbCNN011616ted-cruz-new-yorkers-apology0146AMVODtopVideo&linkId=20411065

Donald Trump NEVER appologized.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 16, 2016, 11:32:59 am
Anti Satellite is something the US has been testing on and off since the 50's. Even our Naval Based ABM RIM's are capable of destroying a satellite. China can't even progress forward on lasers because they're still trying to figure out how to generate the power for them, something the US isn't because we already know how to and have been testing laser weapons. As for low earth bombers. 4 out of the 5 successful spaceplanes developed and used were American made, again since the 50's. To think that the US isn't taking an interest in the weaponization of space, especially with programs such as SUSTAIN or Hot eagle is to be silly.

The NATO air defense package was also not designed to deter Russia. The diplomats explicitly mentioned that they wanted to avoid another shoot down which is why AWAC's are included in the package. Germany and the US both withdrew fighters and Batteries, only Spain picked up the Battery Slack.

The reason Syria doesn't ask for US aid is not because we're being pansies. It's because we're being idiots. All of our allies are willing to put aside fighting Assad because of ISIS, but the US continuously wants to reject intel sharing with Assad, and constantly funds rebel groups inside Syria to fight against the government there.

We're bombing ISIS because that is all we need to do. The Kurds and the Iraqi's are pushing them back. There is no need for American boots on the ground. The only reason we have any boots at all in Afghanistan right now is because of the ANA's inability to hold off the Taliban and we didn't want a repeat of Iraq post withdrawal. Sending in boots would be nothing but wasting lives, money and will only further give ISIS and muslims looking to join them reasons to do so. "Look the Imperial Americans are coming! Remember Mosul and Fallujah! Remember the rapes and massacres they've carried out on the muslim people!" ect.... 
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on January 16, 2016, 05:31:38 pm
As far as space warfare and cyber attacks, China has prepared to step up its space-warfare forces, including anti-satellite, laser technology, and low-Earth orbit bombers. The phrase strategic missile has also been mentioned as part of this package, but it is not known if these are to be conventional or nuclear capable. If anything other than war, I think peace talks would solve the problem in China.


Ukraine will continue to be an area to watch as Russia and Ukraine continue to battle over Crimea, which Russia will never give up. This would normally not be a problem for the U.S. The president has made it a problem. NATO does not think of interfering in it, but the presiddent fears Russian expansionism, and Turkey has already shown that it is willing to stand up to Russia with firepower. NATO has sent an Air Defense package to Turkey as tensions between Turkey and Russia continue to remain high.

Iran and Iraq have continued to breach U.N. Security Counsel resolutions by trying out another medium-range ballistic missile. The United States originally planned to impose additional sanctions for the breech, then we backed away from doing so. Syria is very concerned and asking for aid from any country against the ongoing ISIS war. They have not asked the U.S. for help yet because it has already shown how weak it is. Not to mention, Burkina Faso was attacked just this morning with at least twenty three dead. Need I remind you of the attacks in Paris a couple of months ago? I'm sure we can do better.
We're already bombing ISIS, why can't we "put boots on the ground?"


By the way, Ted Cruz appologized.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/15/politics/ted-cruz-new-yorkers-apology/index.html?sr=fbCNN011616ted-cruz-new-yorkers-apology0146AMVODtopVideo&linkId=20411065 (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/15/politics/ted-cruz-new-yorkers-apology/index.html?sr=fbCNN011616ted-cruz-new-yorkers-apology0146AMVODtopVideo&linkId=20411065)

Donald Trump NEVER appologized.

Cruz is apologizing because he got destroyed by Trump from what I'm reading on Gaf. Trump has apparently gone on an all out Cruz attack on social media after what Cruz said about New York. Not a fan of Trump, but it seems like he knows what he is doing in regards to getting what he wants.


The republican party has gotten so crazy that it makes the Bush family look sane. Almost feel bad for poor Jeb, almost. Trump didn't even give him a chance, just straight up destroyed him.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 17, 2016, 09:10:53 am
Would all of your rather have everything under government control? Would you rather be working for next to nothing, while the government takes most of the hard earned money? What about healthcare? It would be bad if I needed to have surgery after suffering from a terminal disease and the doctors told me that I would have to wait a month before I could come back in. That's why so many Canadians come to the U.S. hospitals. Because their healthcare is seriously awful. Democrats support crime, drugs, and sometimes even terrorism. Taxes are about to go up really high, if another Democrat goes in. You just watch. My last question is this:

What is the difference between communism and the Democratic party?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on January 17, 2016, 11:16:02 am
I'm not a fan of any of the candidates running but at least i don't have to worry about democrats wasting their term away reversing common sense changes that Obama made to make life more fair for everyone. How dare there be equality in the US!


This video is a good example of what the modern day GOP is


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz1TC701Kq0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz1TC701Kq0)




Obama is so cool, it's really a shame we won't have another president like him in a long time


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-8zQC-9Iok


he even likes videogames, amiibo were spotted in one of his recent videos in the white house. and hes commented in the past that he likes to play PlayStation.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Nameless 24 on January 17, 2016, 12:41:46 pm
Watching the Repulican Party fight amongst themselves has been the best political moment this past year for me.


You have Labour's Leader firing/sacking anyone who goes against him, and you have our Prime Minister having literally zero opposition (unless Nige Farage does something about the EU referendum), so I like watching what's happening on the other side of the pond.


Is it me or is it normal to insult your fellow Congressman to become the potential next President? Over here the parties tend to insult one another like school children.


From an outsider point of view, I like Trump's passion despite probably not being the best candidate for President. I have a friend from NY so I am glad he's stood up for them. No need to insult part of your country Cruz!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 17, 2016, 12:45:20 pm
Would all of your rather have everything under government control?

Considering Christie is pushing NSA powers, almost all frontrunners are pushing for increasingly draconian anti terror laws and have a fetish with what 2 men or woman do in their private time...trying to paint one party as big government happy is silly.

Would you rather be working for next to nothing, while the government takes most of the hard earned money?

Most Americans already are. Income inequality is as high as ever as people are working harder and harder but getting paid less and less. As for larger taxation, if I could trust that the government would use such funds to better the failing infrastructure and troubled education system, I might be slightly less reserved

What about healthcare? It would be bad if I needed to have surgery after suffering from a terminal disease and the doctors told me that I would have to wait a month before I could come back in. That's why so many Canadians come to the U.S. hospitals

We already have Healthcare rationing in the US. If you can afford a treatment, you get one. If not, you don't or you get thrown on a wait list. Even if this didn't exist, if you needed a treatment, and there were only so many doctors around in a private system for that treatment in your area, you're still likely to be put on a wait list. Long waiting times aren't exclusive to single payer systems. The reason you hear about waiting times in other systems is because the government mandates such reports to create efficiency. When waiting times first popped up in Canada in the 90's Parliment spend ungodly amounts of time in session debating on how to improve it, and working out allocations to do so. France for example spends a lot more money than Canada, but less than the United states on healthcare, but its waiting times are incredibly small on average as a result.

As for so many Canadians, if you consider say....around 300-sh by now or so out of 30+ Million "Many" then we have an entirely different definition of what counts as many. The Frasier institute's earlier 42,000 number has long since been discredited by subsequent research given the numerous fallacious methodologies it employed in acquiring that number

This also ignores that the United States also has functioning single payer health systems already. The majority of those hip replacements Todd Akin was talking about last election? You know who gets those? Old people mostly. Do you know what Old people use to get them? Medicare. Do you know what Medicare is? A single payer health system. It's not the only either, the VHA for veterans and SCHIP for uninsured children? Single payer systems.

Democrats support crime

Considering crime rates have been dropping since the 70's. I'd say political parties in general have been doing a decent job of reducing them

Drugs

While Democrats have not done wonders for drug policy, the war on drugs starting with Nixon has done far more damage and created more crime than other policies. Democrats should have ended the war on drugs already if they wanted to do anything about it.

and sometimes even terrorism

This one is actually true, but again, of both parties.

What is the difference between communism and the Democratic party?

The Democratic party isn't interested in Nationalizing ALL private assets and controlling the means of production through societal needs based on the ability of the proletariat to work with the eventual goal of a classless society. Wanting to ensure the American people are cared for and are being paid the proper wages they need to survive without having to worry about having to choose between, school, health or children is vastly different.

They certainly aren't perfect, and I have my own fair share of issues with them. The use of Diplomacy as opposed to wanting to brute our way out of everything however isn't one of them.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 18, 2016, 07:30:16 am
After the recent success of a petition here in the UK, our politicians are about to discuss if they should allow Trump into the UK if he does become president. It's a funny old world...
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 18, 2016, 05:48:09 pm
Bernie Sanders released his tax plan for his single payer healthcare and opposite to what the propaganda the right and a big portion of the democrate base tells you, its not that bad, I guess unless you make over 10 million dollars a year;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/01/17/bernie-sanders-releases-tax-plan-nations-rich-recoil-in-horror/#2715e4857a0b18936a4e7340

I think its time to invest our time and money in our own country instead of using that money to bomb poor  people in other countries. Seriously, Obama's drone strikes have a terrible ratio of actually killing terrorist. They kill 80% civilians. How can anyone approve of this and both Hilary and Republicans want to expand on that. https://www.rt.com/news/pakistan-civilian-victims-drones-695/

This isn't a 'Republican' and 'Democratic' issue on this side, its a moral issue.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on January 19, 2016, 11:25:23 am
I saw one of the previous posts made by George. It said that Bernie Sanders would ban assult weapons. Would that include shotguns?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 19, 2016, 01:44:02 pm
Doubt it. Assault Weapons usually have to contain some sort of detachable magazine and in the case for shotguns, 2 of the following:   
 Telescoping stock
 Pistol grip
 A capacity to hold more than five rounds
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 19, 2016, 03:31:31 pm
Well I don't think he should, because I don't think assault weapons have done enough crimes to warrant their ban it is also true they aren't hunting rifles. Are they needed? Nah. Would I ban them? Nah. Is that enough for me to change my vote from Sanders? Nah. We have a corruption on both sides that needs to be cleansed. He isn't for banning guns outside of assault weapons which doesn't mean much to me in my every day life.

IF you missed Hilary lying about all the banks/wall street ties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_8jaYYdWuc
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 22, 2016, 06:03:12 pm
Since no one on this website is a fan of Hillary Clinton, I thought I would leave this here:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/22/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-blizzard/index.html

I can't believe they are serious about this. I'm tired of hearing about her emails anyway. Now they are delaying the email announcements for... WHAT?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on January 22, 2016, 09:29:50 pm
I don't mind Hillary, I just don't like discussing politics here. :P
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 22, 2016, 09:37:16 pm
Have no idea. Imo shes lost the Democratic nomination. Sanders' up swing is too much in such short time. He was losing by 18 points nationally in December and now its almost tied. The more people hear Sanders speak the less people like Hilary.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on January 23, 2016, 08:29:33 am
Almost everyone is tired of hearing about Clinton's emails. I support Dr. Ben Carson for president, even though I know he can't win. He is one of the smartest men alive.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on January 23, 2016, 02:47:13 pm
Dr. Carson is smart, his bid for the presidency has netted him alot of book sales. Wouldn't vote for him only cuz his policies differ from mine and don't hate anyone that supports him. I know he gets a bad wrap in the media for some outrages things he has said.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 23, 2016, 06:35:26 pm
Can't argue that Carson is very intelligent. I'm just voting for the Republican who is right behind Trump. I wish Carson, Cruz, or Rubio was in first. It would be very amazing and far more interesting.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on January 23, 2016, 08:47:27 pm
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters

Trump be crazy as ever
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: CrazyT on January 25, 2016, 03:34:06 pm
Not too much into US politics. But I do hope Bernie Sanders wins. He seems way too much against the establishment pulling the strings that I dont think he's gonna win. Usually guys like Bernie dont win that easily because that same establishment has control over the media. Media being a strong tool to influence manipulate the simple minded mainstream.

Would be a huge surprise if he won. After that i'd hope a rational guy like him would change things that no other president has the guts to change. I know it is a sensitive subject, and I really dont wanna get too deep into it, but ive always found it strange how israel has always been "the strongest allly" despite them pulling atrocities even right now. Yeah the establishment media doesnt like covering this kind of news, but a couple of lived in houses built by EU have recently been demolished to make place for new settlements. Also lived in houses getting broken into by israeli settlers to chase the people away who already live there.

A lot of atrocious stuff goes around in the world, but israel is the only one that keeps being called "strongest ally" despite that. I wonder what would happen to a president if he got into office and critisized this sort of thing. Would he get killed like John f Kennedy?

I think I may have opened a can of worms with this. Maybe what im saying isnt accurate, and if so I wouldnt mind being corrected. But its suspicious to say the least.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 27, 2016, 08:33:53 am
I guess the reason Donald Trump doesn't want to be in the debate is because he is scared of Ted Cruz knocking him down to second place.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 27, 2016, 09:52:03 am
I doubt anyone, let alone Trump is scared of Cruz tbh, he's just been getting pounded by everyone. Trump is not showing up likely because Fox News has been trying to sabotage him and he's getting tired of dealing with them.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on January 27, 2016, 10:20:31 am
Outside of his fear mongering and pandering to racists, Trump doesn't have any grasp on the issues which is why he is dodging debates. He can't have a honest discussion, so he makes excuses.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 27, 2016, 10:23:25 am
Outside of his fear mongering and pandering to racists, Trump doesn't have any grasp on the issues which is why he is dodging debates. He can't have a honest discussion, so he makes excuses.

Just seen a show here in the UK about Trump...if he wins, I request us sane people are allowed to move to the moon.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 27, 2016, 02:28:18 pm
More communism:

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-wussiest-bans-in-america/

Because college campuses should be government controlled too.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 27, 2016, 02:51:50 pm
Most colleges are public and thus receive a large portion of their funding from the government. That being said, 5 or 6 campuses doing stupid things is hardly something that I;d attribute government controlled to. Especially when the government isn't demanding any of these things...the students/faculty are.

Not to mention that one of the examples given was a private school...which receives little to no government funds and is free to pursue goals however it wishes. Unless of course you want to advocate for increased government control of private schools....but somehow I doubt that.

Next Sensationalist article please.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on January 27, 2016, 05:52:19 pm
Trump should be very careful when going on the defensive. The last time he did that, Carson jumped ahead of him. I understand that shunning FNC could play well to the Fox News Haters who are in his camp, but the people who like him for his Don't Give a Hoot / Bite Me persona might look for someone else.


While it's true that Gov. hardly has anything to do with virtually all the insane demands (to the point in which even Barack Obama is sick of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APbRtBU4O7U)), it's still a problem. And for the most part, I think Democrats in their current state have fostered and have facilitated this victim / persecution delusion.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on January 27, 2016, 09:00:17 pm
ofc.

"Shielding" people from certain POV's is a terrible precedent in any historical context. If you want people to be firmly invested in your POV it should be defended honestly and as best you can, because shielding others will only fuel curiosity and potentially backfire on your intentions. A secondary side effect would be that you'd be creating an entire people who literally think like children, being unable to see past their own POV...which is frightening from either side.

SJW's and the like spend so much time trying to shield and coddle people that when real issues, like Bullying come up, nobody wants to deal with it, because So and so statue is an example of xx offensive against AA are evidently more important.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 02, 2016, 02:32:51 am
Trump should've fired the staffer who told him not to attend the debate just before to the Iowa Caucus. Not only Ted Cruz got the top spot, there's still a chance that Rubio can knock him down to 3rd place!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on February 02, 2016, 09:06:16 am
You would have rather had Trump?
At this point, I don't think the Democrats are celebrating anymore. Democrats were laughing and celebrating when Trump was making all of those crazy comments. Now, they are panicked because Ted Cruz might actually make it to the first spot.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on February 02, 2016, 09:32:34 pm
Trump must hate losing in Iowa, cause as everyone knows, he hates losers.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 03, 2016, 11:02:28 am
Serves him right. 'Bout time his ego blew up in his face.


In other news, Rand Paul dropped out. Oh, well... I'm waiting for Jeb Bush to drop out.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Nameless 24 on February 03, 2016, 01:20:59 pm
Not too much into US politics. But I do hope Bernie Sanders wins. He seems way too much against the establishment pulling the strings that I dont think he's gonna win. Usually guys like Bernie dont win that easily because that same establishment has control over the media. Media being a strong tool to influence manipulate the simple minded mainstream.

Sounds awfully like the Sun and getting David Cameron into power. -_-

What exactly are the policies of each party? Is it about the Army's budget? America's Global Efforts?


I know that over here we usually vote due to where we are in the Social Class System, but I am hoping that is changing.


When I started voting, I would I was a Lib Dem but....some policies I just can't agree with, and I hate Totalitarian Parties, so I consider myself a Green Voter now.


Trump says some silly things but I do think he wants to try and right America's Economy, but don't you have some Congressmen to do those affairs? Can't he be a backbencher to help out his party?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: CrazyT on February 04, 2016, 09:56:59 pm
Sounds awfully like the Sun and getting David Cameron into power. -_-
im pretty sure its not just US and UK. Dont wanna go all conspiracy theory here, but often it does feel like control is in the hands of a group behind the scenes.

When I read articles like this it gets me dumbfounded. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/lloyd-blankfein-bernie-sanders-218689
Because the bad guys arent really portrayed as the bad guys but as the victims. It just shows who is really in control.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 04, 2016, 10:58:12 pm
Companies own the government, we like to pretend that money doesn't influence people but it does. Remember when corporations where trying to hire people like  Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler and take over the US government during FDR's reign? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Are you honestly going to believe that the rich aren't fighting to get richer? I mean, just look at the money flow up, Reganomics and all this other bullshit from both parties has only been helping out the already rich. This isn't about 'Republicans vs Democrates' this is about us weeding out the corruption.

Trump got richer due to corruption, he might platform on cleaning it up but his tax plan continues to give tax breaks to the rich.

This 'Republican' vs 'Democrate' stuff is just here to divide us and the only one that has been conquering has been the rich while everyone else gets shafted.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Nameless 24 on February 05, 2016, 09:52:32 am
im pretty sure its not just US and UK. Dont wanna go all conspiracy theory here, but often it does feel like control is in the hands of a group behind the scenes.

When I read articles like this it gets me dumbfounded. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/lloyd-blankfein-bernie-sanders-218689
Because the bad guys arent really portrayed as the bad guys but as the victims. It just shows who is really in control.

Pretty much, although all of them are corrupt in either Money or Power....

Unfortunately, we will never have a corrupt free Government, even if most have good intentions.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on February 05, 2016, 11:33:04 am
A question for my friends across the pond.

Does a president actually have any power as such, or is it like our prime minister where they have to run it passed everyone else too?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 05, 2016, 06:35:19 pm
The President has roughly the same amount of power as Congress, Senate and the Supreme Court.


US -> Constitutional Republic (Goverment is broken into four seperate parts in order to prevent overeach or abuse of power, in theory)


PT -> Democracy (Basically whoever has a majority of seats in Parliament has absolute sway over anything)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on February 06, 2016, 01:47:34 am
Ah, got it. Cheers. Too bad our system (UK) would work if most of them weren't friends and went to the same posh school together.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on February 06, 2016, 08:26:21 pm
Carwyn Jones went to a terrible school. That is unless you meant England only, and not the entire U.K.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 06, 2016, 09:17:55 pm
One thing I can't stand about Hilary in debates is how much complete nonsense she spews out, she literally thinks that her getting over 250 million dollars from a company will not influence her then turns around and says that Republicans are bought at sold. But Hilary, you got more money from corporations than all the Republican candidates combined... how does that NOT influence you?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on February 07, 2016, 03:06:36 am
Professor K for president!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 07, 2016, 03:44:58 am
Poor Rubio, he really is an idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQUThGwRFMM
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 07, 2016, 01:09:57 pm
Here are a few notes on the ABC News Republican Debate:

- Look, I don't dislike Rubio, he seems well prepared, but his speech sounds rehearsed;
- By contrast, Cruz sounds more natural and spontaneous when he delivers his answers;
- I wish they gave Carson more time to talk 'cause a lot of stuff he said was pretty good;
- On the subject of Carson, he's shown a lot of improvement lately, he's been a much more passionate talker, it's just that the whole "Cruz's people did a number on me" shouldn't be his principal driving force;
- Trump, when he isn't being a complete jerk, can actually make some good points, but I don't think his alpha male persona is getting as much attention as he did, since he dropped out of the previous debate;
- And oddly enough, I'm not mad at Trump, as many horrible flaws as he does, those pale in comparison to the black hole that is Kasich and Jeb Bush;
-Jeb Bush, in particular, is maddening. He thinks he can run for office like his dad or his big brother, but he's everything George Bush was not. He doesn't have the "down to earth appeal" that his brother had, he doesn't have the energy of Trump, frankly Marco Rubio is a much better Jeb Bush than the man himself;
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 09, 2016, 02:54:40 am
This is fucking gross, water boarding doesn't even work. Torture doesn't work. Makes no sense.  His comedy bit at the end was like a straight up comedy show.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 09, 2016, 09:22:30 am
Greg Gutfeld made a really good point against Chris Christie.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCgB1aNIuI


Picking on Marco is easy since he's the new guy. But not a word on Trump or even Christie's own rehearsed speech.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on February 09, 2016, 11:33:36 am
Trumps been nicking his speeches from U2, REM and Adele apparently. They've all told him where to go haha.

So has voting started?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Nameless 24 on February 09, 2016, 12:19:00 pm
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/08/conservatives-face-possible-inquiry-after-claims-of-byelection-overspend

Hoping those responded get jailed.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 10, 2016, 04:04:10 am
Well, Trump won New Hampshire by a wide margin. Sanders kicked Hillary's butt. And Chris Christie has all but admitted defeat. Next time, pick a fight with someone like Trump instead of wasting your time with Rubio.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 10, 2016, 03:30:49 pm
Billionaire vs Anti-Billionaire 2016
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 10, 2016, 06:50:35 pm
More like 1930's Protectionism vs Venezulan Style Economics. I'm so happy, I wish I was on pain medication.


Also, Chris Christie dropped out. Ha... Friggin' HA! If you are gonna be a bully, Chris, pick on the person who's at the top of the polls, not the new kid.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on February 11, 2016, 12:49:57 pm
I'd call Bernie's policies more European/Nordic than Venezuelan. For the most part, like the Europeans, outside of tax hikes and stronger regulatory oversight/safety nets, there doesn't seem to be much difference.

Venezuela went in pretty heavy on the nationalization by comparison(Oil Industry juggernaut), not to mention already having a terribly social situation to work with by most other comparisons.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on February 13, 2016, 02:31:04 pm
Omg. I can't believe Trump is suing Cruz just because he's Canadian. Lol.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on February 13, 2016, 03:19:20 pm
Think that's the scary thing though. He's already rich and powerful. Add the power of the country to the mix...

It's too much. Far too much I feel.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 13, 2016, 04:45:40 pm
I agree, why I want him to lose.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on February 13, 2016, 08:28:45 pm
Trump has no political experience. He's a joke, and people supporting him are brain dead idiots who watch too much reality tv.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on February 14, 2016, 01:02:08 am
Not sure why most Republicans would vote for him anyway. He's the only Republican running that doesn't have any chance of winning against the two Democratic candidates.
I think if Hillary Clinton dropped out, Sanders would automatically become the president. NOT vice versa.

The same with Trump and Cruz.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 14, 2016, 04:39:08 pm
IMO both the DNC and RNC are idiots. Sanders and Trump are thriving because both are running their 'established' politicians like its the 90s, they really think that the American public can't google search their nonsense. People don't trust the government and continuing the same way it was before isn't going to help them.

Come 2020, we shall, hopefully, see some candidates that really do care about the American people and not corporate interest. I really can see Elizabeth Warren taken it in 2020, considering she already has a base of progressives.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on February 14, 2016, 08:26:23 pm
Come 2020, we shall, hopefully, see some candidates that really do care about the American people and not corporate interest. I really can see Elizabeth Warren taken it in 2020, considering she already has a base of progressives.

Lol. She'll be 71. Remember when people were complaining that John McCain would die of old age, in office, if he was elected in 2008? He was 71 at that time. No one is saying anything about Bernie Sanders, who is 74.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 14, 2016, 09:15:23 pm
No one is saying anything about Bernie because he released his medical records and was 100% healthy. So what if Elizabeth Warren will be 71? Clinton is only 3 years younger right now.

Are we really going to split hairs about 3 years?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on February 14, 2016, 09:21:51 pm
I don't think anyone has to worry about Bernie dying from age, he runs really well for being 7 decades old

https://vine.co/v/iOVWKF03Y29

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on February 15, 2016, 05:55:16 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCi4zMJbMQQ
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 16, 2016, 05:21:32 am
I doubt it, Obama once he leaves the oval office, he's gonna concentrate on his golf and acting career.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on February 16, 2016, 09:18:20 am
Obama is likely to move back to Chicago to focus on community outreach and the presidential library. Acting and golf, nice insults.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 16, 2016, 11:35:20 am
This is the only reason I like to see Trump, because Republican candidates are so stupid that they LITERALLY refuse to hear the truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ils-F9u6-M
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on February 16, 2016, 08:22:01 pm
Scalia had a pillow over his face and the Feds denied investigating or doing any form of autopsy. Now Obama's trying to put the most liberal person he can find in Scalia's place. The founding fathers had more Libertarian and Republican ideologies. The democratic party - especially Sanders - is trying to make the U.S. into a Communist state. Everyone will be making about 200 dollars a week. When I say everyone, that includes doctors, lawyers, firemen, construction workers... Everyone other than the government. Is this really what the U.S. citizens want? Why is the youth suddenly turning liberal? Is it from the media just brainwashing them to kingdom come? That pisses me off if that's what it is. I'm so glad I don't have children. I wouldn't want them to have to go through this political crap. I miss the old America like crazy. Stupid liberal pansies are about to destroy it.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on February 16, 2016, 08:34:07 pm
Uh... are you okay?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on February 16, 2016, 10:01:52 pm
Something else must have had her angry right before she posted this. Either that or she's bored and feels like trolling. Maybe she's just agitated because she still can't play the new Tomb Raider on her PS4.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 17, 2016, 02:31:31 am
This is the only reason I like to see Trump, because Republican candidates are so stupid that they LITERALLY refuse to hear the truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ils-F9u6-M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ils-F9u6-M)

It's such a painful "truth" that he's already backtracked his statement (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-am-not-blaming-george-bush-for-9-11/).
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: CrazyT on February 17, 2016, 05:10:52 am
Republicans are so entertaining.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on February 17, 2016, 06:03:09 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/17/cruz-tops-trump-in-new-national-gop-poll.html
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 17, 2016, 07:21:46 pm
It's such a painful "truth" that he's already backtracked his statement (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-am-not-blaming-george-bush-for-9-11/).
False. He never said Bush is to blame for 9/11, he said he didn't prevent it, didn't keep us safe and that they fell under his watch. Those are facts, unless you actually have prove otherwise.

Jeb! Bush's campign summed up in under two minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR1FRqvn-4A
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on February 18, 2016, 11:49:35 am
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/17/cruz-tops-trump-in-new-national-gop-poll.html

Just one poll shows that, but at least he would be slightly better than Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on February 18, 2016, 11:57:29 am
Trump vs Pope. aww yss
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 18, 2016, 04:32:35 pm
National polls for a general election at this point in the race mean nothing, anything can change and does pretty fast. We are barely starting the primaries, come on.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 18, 2016, 05:05:12 pm
False. He never said Bush is to blame for 9/11, he said he didn't prevent it, didn't keep us safe and that they fell under his watch. Those are facts, unless you actually have prove otherwise.
True, the WTC attacks happened under his watch. But Trump should really take a gander at the 9/11 Commission Report (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm) to get a better understanding of what actually went wrong, because his claims that Bush knew of the impending attack, that he ignored Intelligence Briefings and the CIA are erroneous to say the least.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 18, 2016, 07:48:10 pm
True, the WTC attacks happened under his watch. But Trump should really take a gander at the 9/11 Commission Report (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch8.htm) to get a better understanding of what actually went wrong, because his claims that Bush knew of the impending attack, that he ignored Intelligence Briefings and the CIA are erroneous to say the least.
I think the issue here is that he is attacking the way they frame George Bush, 9/11 did happen in his watch but the way that the establishment makes it seem is that he 'kept us safe' which isn't accurate. He made some really bad decisions and the Iraq War is and will always be considered a failure.

Plus most of the RNC establishment make falsehoods up about Obama and its getting embarrassing, first was that he wasn't even American and he was. Yet a Canadian Ted Cruz is running on their side. Great double standards. I also don't like how they keep on repeating that the economy is worse off with Obama then George W. Bush, which isn't true at all.

I really think Republican voters are tired of establishment lies, fear mongering and doubling down on their mistakes that having Trump 'tell it how it is' is resonating with the Republican voters.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on February 19, 2016, 12:17:15 am
Trump is apparently really upset at Apple for taking a stance against the government, and now other tech companies are joining in on Apple's side to help fight our rights to privacy. Is pretty cool. Apple has a lot of money to get lawyers needed to make stuff happen.

No doubt this will be a big topic in debates now. Unless for some reason the debates intentionally ignore it.

Apple's official letter regarding Privacy
https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Blackberry's shown what side they support, too...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbhaS9xW8AYbVT3.png)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 19, 2016, 01:45:37 am
I republicans defend the second amendment, why no love for the fourth?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on February 19, 2016, 03:37:45 am
I really like to know that no authority will ever be able to invade my phone's privacy. Things can go awry fast, and I don't want anyone having that kind of power.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on February 19, 2016, 10:13:13 am
I republicans defend the second amendment, why no love for the fourth?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are you sure this is the amendment you were thinking of?

I really like to know that no authority will ever be able to invade my phone's privacy. Things can go awry fast, and I don't want anyone having that kind of power.

I don't get it either. I put tape over the cameras on my phone.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 19, 2016, 11:45:25 am
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are you sure this is the amendment you were thinking of?

I don't get it either. I put tape over the cameras on my phone.
Yes, did you read it?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on February 19, 2016, 02:04:39 pm
I did. I just don't know what instance you're speaking of.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 19, 2016, 03:22:04 pm
The fact that the government shouldn't be searching our belongs, which include digital data. Unlike most Republicans, I happen to believe in the constitution of the country and not just when it benefits my view. That is why I support the second amendment as well.

Just sad that we already have our rights taken away and these idiots with guns don't know what they are on about. Their so busy hating Obama because he is black they haven't realized how they have been getting fucked.

Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmeURRrhvsI

Hillary needs to learn how to take hard questions instead of nagging at people like a mom. Keep your voice down.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on February 19, 2016, 08:15:51 pm
I thought the NSA were the ones spying on phones. Not the Republicans. I think the NSA is controlled inside the Pentagon.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 19, 2016, 10:46:38 pm
I said, that its sad that gun touting Americans are so busy protecting their second amendment rights but forget about all the other ones. Though Republicans all support it, so much so that they are demanding for Apple to give the feds a back door into encryption with their fear mongering.

Most of the issues I have with Republicans, I also have with Democrates, their just two parties supporting paid interest.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on February 20, 2016, 01:16:48 pm
I personally think there should be more than two parties. The Libertarians, the Greens, and the Constitutionality need to win more often too. Most countries have more than two parties.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 20, 2016, 02:52:07 pm
This is actually something that Bernie Sanders talked about in the last Town Hall, he supports this. He thinks the more ideas we have the better and since he is a life long Independent Hillary has been using it as a attacking point.

I think the days of establishment coming to a close. Even if a established candidate wins this election, they won't the next. The bigger the internet gets, the less the paid interest control the narrative.

But for sure, I think Libertarians, Greens and other parties should have big events and be treated with the same respect that Dems and Repubs get.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on February 20, 2016, 08:32:04 pm
Another one bites the dust. Jeb's campaign is done today. 2016 heating up ever more.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 20, 2016, 08:49:53 pm
Very sad how he left, one guy went 'aww' when he said he was dropping out. Jeb!, the end of the Bush dynasty.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on February 20, 2016, 10:39:10 pm
Jeb is a mess.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on February 21, 2016, 11:01:48 am
Anyone here heard of a show called Question Time here in the UK?

They were talking about the presidential election and the question of Trump came up. Some of the people talking opened quite a lot people's eyes to the way the system works in American and just how easy it is for someone like Trump to win.

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on February 21, 2016, 11:52:08 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tE6T-ecmg

this is pretty amusing, i've never seen game of thrones before but this video is great
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 21, 2016, 02:52:21 pm
https://cdn.streamable.com/video/mp4/39po.mp4

^ China knows how to run Election coverage.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on February 22, 2016, 02:04:51 am
Jeb dropped out!?


(http://i65.tinypic.com/2qi7jo0.gif)






Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 23, 2016, 11:45:48 am
Jesus, Trump can turn anything around.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on February 25, 2016, 12:45:39 pm
Jesus, Trump can turn anything around.

Think alarm bells in politicians elsewhere have just realised this. They're not too happy with the thought of him holding the keys to the US.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on February 25, 2016, 02:27:27 pm
Clinton doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/25/clinton-confuses-constitution-with-declaration-independence-in-gun-pitch.html

She seriously has no idea why this country was founded.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on February 25, 2016, 06:05:05 pm
Guys, shes only been doing this for 25+ years, give her a break.

I know its a broken record but man... she needs to take her own advice. You'd think she'd understand that with the internet people can look up shit you said and stuff you have done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JlWQGvSBTI

Plus the whole "All Republicans should release their transcripts" thing really pissed me off. She's suppose to be a leader? Come the fuck on.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on March 02, 2016, 03:42:56 pm
(http://i66.tinypic.com/219781t.gif)


Ben Carson dropped out of the race. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3473541/Ben-Carson-quits-Republican-race-White-House-dismal-Super-Tuesday-results.html)


I'm really, really sad about this. By far the most honest and likeable candidate in the entire race, regardless of party affiliations. He started at the bottom tier and had a massive surge for a while. I was estatic in October and November of 2015, a period in which Carson was towering over Trump.


Oh, well... He lasted way longer than a lotta people were expecting considering that he was not an establishment candidate and not a carrer politician. Outlasted Carly Fiorina, Jindal, Christie and Rand Paul, which is saying something.




Here's hoping Kasich drops out too. So we can have a Rubio / Cruz / Trump knife fight to the death!


Also, Christie's Expression goes Viral! (http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a54593/chris-christie-super-tuesday-memes/)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on March 02, 2016, 07:13:34 pm
^...or just Cruz and Rubio. Or just Cruz. Yeah. Just Cruz. Rubio should also drop out. Carson hasn't officially dropped out. He just wants to avoid the debate tomorrow.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on March 03, 2016, 01:43:09 pm
It would actually be safe to say that Ted Cruz won in Minnesota. Sure Marco Rubio really won. It was just the only state that he did win, and Ted Cruz still came in second there. I have said quite often that Minnesota is so liberal that they could almost be considered for withdrawing their statehood. I mean, some of their citizens already speak a little French. That means they could start their own personal country or join Canada, doesn't it?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 03, 2016, 11:40:51 pm
Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are typical nonsense retarded politicians. First of all saying that America has no socialism embedded is retarded considering their all for more funding in the Military which is a social program. They are for helping vets, which will be done with social programs.

Can you imagine a world where private companies would run:
- K-12 schooling
- Roads
- National Parks (would be raped for profit by now)
- Fire Fighters
- Police
- Military (Private Military contracts are the worse as history shows and more expensive)
- No social security

Honestly, socialist programs are fine to protect basic rights we should have. That is the point of taxes, to go back to programs me and you can enjoy. I find it ironic that all these Republicans hate social programs yet want to add MORE money into Military... WTF?

(https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png)

Let's be rational here, what has spending 600 billion a year gotten us as citizens? More terrorist, more broken lives and more people that hate us.

The spending on the military makes even less sense when you compare it to other countries:
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif)

^ Also consider most of those countries are our allies. Maybe we should scale back a bit, huh?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on March 04, 2016, 05:14:39 pm
Your favorite candidate has a much worse plan. Make the U.S. economy that of countries in northern Europe. The U.S. is definitely in debt. Sure. Guess who the richest country still is though.

Are you suggesting the U.S. print massive amounts of money until everything is just made up of the stuff? How can people go to college for free if every Democratic president in the past has promised the same thing?

Ted Cruz isn't perfect, but he's a lot better than a thief version of Orville Redenbacher.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 04, 2016, 05:21:53 pm
^ lol this is what I'm talking about. Koch brothers are smiling that their propaganda is working just fine. Go and vote for your sold out politician that will continue to waste tax dollars on the rich and welfare queens like Walmart. God forbid that tax dollars paid go back to the American people.

You still didn't talk about if you think we should cut all socialist programs. Do you?

Instead of using outdated data and getting images from Conservative facebook pages, why not educate yourself and come up with your own opinion on his plan?

https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

(My last job I worked for a healthcare insurance company and trust me, if you think the system we have in America is great, lol)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on March 04, 2016, 08:07:21 pm
The citizens of Canada are coming to the U.S. for doctor visits. This is because there is a universal health care system in Canada. It doesn't work. Let's say you have a terminal illness and you will die in 3 days. The hospital would add you to a waiting list, which would take about 5 days. In that case you would be doomed. Both Democratic candidates have supported universal health care. As far as your tax question, I think  Sanders has the worst by far. He plans to raise taxes by 34%. So we would be paying for almost half of what we make in a year. His idea is that the minimum wage for the entire country should be $12 an hour and he wants to make it illegal to not hire people. How can that work? Wouldn't that just close down all businesses? No company can afford that. It's impossible.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 04, 2016, 08:15:35 pm
Really? That's a lie

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html

Come on.

Facts are we spend more, get less and the only people profiting from our system are drug companies and insurance companies. But hey, Fox News said Canada's healthcare system is terrible.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on March 04, 2016, 08:21:57 pm
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/4429892

^Liberal news website.^

The link you have is from the Canadian AARP. That's like going to Walmart and asking if they are better than Publix.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on March 04, 2016, 08:36:01 pm
The link you have is from the Canadian AARP. That's like going to Walmart and asking if they are better than Publix.

Quote
Aaron E. Carroll, M.D., the director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research in Indianapolis, identified the top myths about the two health care systems.

Perhaps you should take a look at that map again.

That being said 2 things.

The Scandinavian countries are not "socialist". The prime minister of Denmark (http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/denmark-tells-bernie-sanders-to-stop-calling-it-socialist/) has repeatedly lauded this. In fact, in more ways than one, they are even more capitalistic than the United States. They have expansive welfare systems that much is true, but that does not qualify them for socialist alone.

Secondly, Universal Healthcare does not suffer from wait times because Universal Healthcare. My Father pays for his own insurance and has his own doctor, but still is a month long waiting list to see her. In addition, the Canadians made a conscious decision to only spend so much on healthcare. If you compare it to say, France, you'll see that the French health system by comparison is much better prepared to deal with greater influx of patients.

The simple fact is that if you have more patients than doctors/specialists, there will be waiting lists regardless of whether you have Universal healthcare or not. It's simple supply and demand. The difference is that in a Universal system, you'll eventually get treated, whether you can afford it or not. Each system "rations" healthcare if you want to put it bluntly.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on March 04, 2016, 09:01:47 pm
Ok, but do you two really think that Bernie Sanders will be your party's nominee?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on March 04, 2016, 09:47:18 pm
What I think in this matter is mostly irrelevant. I was just answering what I perceived to be a malformed response.

If you want my answer though, then it would be no in all likelyhood.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on March 04, 2016, 10:44:02 pm
You think I'm misinformed about healthcare? Come on. You can't seriously tell me that Obama care is a good thing.

http://humanevents.com/2009/07/28/6-reasons-obamacare-is-bad-medicine/

Obama care is the reason people are having a difficult time finding jobs in the medical field. People in other fields of work are being laid off of work, including myself. I know Obama care is not universal, but it has the tendency to evolve into that. It's exactly what he wants. The president could have done so much better than this and you are blind if you don't see that.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on March 04, 2016, 11:05:34 pm
I'm not defending Obamacare
I'm defending Universal Healthcare. IMO, Obamacare didn't go far enough to fix the system. We can't have half solutions. It needs to be in or out.

That article you posted just keeps sending out the same talking points the last one threw out. Healthcare isn't anymore "rationed" in a Universal system than it is in a market driven system, ala supply and demand. Even countries with actual Single payer systems still have private hospitals and such one can attend, it is still billed the same either way by the Government, regardless of rate.

The 5th point is fearmongering, as UHC/SP systems favor the more immediate cases over the time treatable one. Military isn't that different in such an aspect. If they are given a choice to save a life vs you moaning, they'll deal with you moaning about waiting if they can save the critically injured life.

This isn't even counting that insurance companies and hospitals have actually seen profits rise after the passing of the ACA, but again, the ACA is only a starting point.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 04, 2016, 11:13:57 pm
I think this country will be better with Bernie than Hillary. I personally think that Hillary Clinton is too war hawkish, the last thing we need is to create more terror. I also believe the biggest thing facing the American political system is money in politics which Clintons have benefited the most from.

Do I think he will win? Probably  not, the whole establishment is against him and Clinton has a bigger brand name.

Regardless if you are a liberal or conservative, we can all benefit as citizens by banning corporate money from politics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQIjAv-LM7s

As for Obamacare, the insurance company seems to be doing very well with it (surprised?): http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/10/biggest-winners-in-obamacare-the-health-insurance-companies-very-progressive/

Surely you don't think healthcare should be a business?

Unlike you pcm92, I don't based my thoughts around what Republicans or Democrats tell me.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on March 06, 2016, 08:01:58 am
I watched the entire Republican debate with Kasich, Trump, Rubio and Cruz and here are a few thoughts:

- The less candidates there are, the weaker Trump becomes, because he no longer has Jeb Bush to knock around;
- Trump's explanation about Trump University was lame as f***;
- Marco Rubio came out surprisingly strong against Trump;
- Cruz came out as the strongest in the overall debate;
- Why the heck is Kasich up there?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 06, 2016, 11:46:22 am
People do know Trump has literally lost money in everything he's started, right? The money he has comes from his dad.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 06, 2016, 02:27:21 pm
People do know Trump has literally lost money in everything he's started, right? The money he has comes from his dad.
His net worth in 2015 was $4 billion. He didn't inherit $4 billion from his dad.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 07, 2016, 12:53:07 am
His net worth in 2015 was $4 billion. He didn't inherit $4 billion from his dad.

No. He kept doing what his dad did to get the money. Anything he's created though has flopped: https://youtu.be/TGc2nN9OguQ
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 07, 2016, 02:29:50 am
Trump got a lot of his money from screwing people over, its business. How it works. If you don't think for a second he would abuse his power to make more money for business Trump, you are in denial. That is why his clothes aren't made in America, he doesn't care. He hasn't brought them over because he doesn't care. You really think he will say no to cheap labor?

When I grew up, people said don't believe what people say but what they do. Trump has done the opposite of what he says.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 07, 2016, 03:54:04 am
Quote
That is why his clothes aren't made in America, he doesn't care.
Is this relevant at all tho?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 07, 2016, 04:30:34 am
Is this relevant at all tho?
If he cared about America and workers, why is he outsourcing his products? Why would he pass laws to make less profit? Its not that hard to grasp.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 07, 2016, 04:54:02 am
Real americans wear american clothing? How insecure can you be lol
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on March 07, 2016, 10:37:30 am
Some of my clothes say Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. I think George meant that Trump was criticizing foreign countries even though his own clothes were made there. Russia is the only country that seems to like Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 07, 2016, 04:01:27 pm
I never said that at all, Donald is the one saying he won't allow companies to make products in other countries when HE HIMSELF does it. Thus, its all bullshit. That was my point.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 07, 2016, 04:34:02 pm
Ah!
I misunderstood. Still, I don't think that's one of the worst issues with him
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 07, 2016, 04:39:22 pm
I never said that at all, Donald is the one saying he won't allow companies to make products in other countries when HE HIMSELF does it. Thus, its all bullshit. That was my point.

He made the point that the way things are now, it's impossible not to outsource clothing and such if you want to be competitive. That's what he wants to change. You can hate the guy all you want but at least be informed about your decision, rather than listening to every liberal yuppie on Facebook/Twitter.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on March 12, 2016, 08:03:07 pm
Anyone else hear about the protests in and out of two of Trump's rallies? Should it not be time for him to consider dropping out of the race?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 12, 2016, 08:53:55 pm
Why? He will get MORE voters due to the protest. I do find it funny that Trump fans want Sanders to personally apologize for the protesters in Chicago because 4 people where wearing Bernie Sanders shirts and they chanted his name (lol). I swear, Trump supporters are turning into everything I hate about Republicans, they play the tough card of 'THEY AREN'T AMERICAN YOU PUNCH THEM IN THE FACE LIKE THE OLD DAYS' and continue with this talk. Protesters are assaulted in his rally's and Trump continues supporting it, then you come to Chicago and low and behold... there is violence.

Now Trump supporters are the victims and Bernie Sanders (who has never advacated for violence) is at fault.

Please. Watch this video of the events unfolding:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/escalating-aggression-marks-trump-s-rhetoric-642743363967

 The issue with Trump is that he isn't smart enough to watch what he says. Its sad that 99% of his rally speeches is the same shit without an actual plan behind it. "Make good deals" "Be tough" "Rebuild the military" "Bomb ISIS" "ISIS cuts heads off so we should torture" stupid as fuck talking points that only complete idiots would support.

Haven't we been bombing ISIS for a years now? Doesn't the Army get over 50% of taxes each year? WTF is going on here.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on March 12, 2016, 10:09:47 pm
That's why I cant believe people think he could ever survive a debate with Bernie or Hillary. One on one debates cover the issues, something Trump finds impossible to do. He spits out the same ten talking points that are about as deep as a drunk racist rambling about Muslims.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 13, 2016, 12:46:27 pm
He won't. He says stuff all the time and does nothing.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on March 13, 2016, 12:55:16 pm
He won't. He says stuff all the time and does nothing.

Yeah, i doubt he would pay a single cent. Still doesn't change the fact that he is empowering hate against certain groups of people. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 13, 2016, 01:26:58 pm
Sad, but true. I can't believe they won't take him out of the race though for the good of the country and the world. You'd think this would show just how self centered they are.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 13, 2016, 06:03:23 pm
The countries are ran by individuals who represent the people's wish. If Trump is really as bad as everyone paints it, he will most definitely lose.
If not, you should consider moving out of the USA, because it means you are surrounded by people who do not share your views.

In the end, people will choose the one they agree with. Regardless of how PC everyone is, voting is anonymous.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 13, 2016, 06:08:15 pm
I'm OK with debating policies with Republicans but does Donald Trump have any realistic policies and ways to get them done? Here are some of the things he wants to do and still hasn't answered how'd he would do it.

1. Build a Wall on the Mexican Border: News flash you need to get congress to approve, which they won't. Then you have to get Mexico to pay for it, which they won't. Then you have to hope that people aren't smart enough to get around a wall in 2017 (earliest). Then when you factor in that 40% of illegals are here due to expired visas, that makes the wall only 60% effective right away. Waste of cash.

2. No one will not have healthcare: You  mean single payer? Nope, he wants insurance to compete against each other in the same crony capitalistic way they have for so long. Obama isn't perfect, but its better than what we had before.

3. Help the vets: Yeah, funny, this is a big issue I agree with but he doesn't have the background to get anything done. Bernie Sanders at least has one of the biggest pieces of legislation passed by the house in forever. Trump just says things.

4. Expand laws on torture: Cuz it helped so much with Bush. Torture is shown to NOT work to get information: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/)

5. Bomb the shit out of Isis: But Obama has already done this for years and isn't working: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/obama-us-military-launched-9000-airstrikes-against-isis-so-far (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/obama-us-military-launched-9000-airstrikes-against-isis-so-far) You can't just 'bomb people better', such retard logic.

6. Tax plan that cuts taxes on rich and poor: His tax plan just doesn't add up but, whatever http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/28/444187540/donald-trumps-tax-plan-could-be-huge-ly-expensive (http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/28/444187540/donald-trumps-tax-plan-could-be-huge-ly-expensive)

So how is he winning? Someone explain it to me? I think the issue is that education in America has been shitty for years and Trump surging is part of low informational voters.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 14, 2016, 01:56:17 am
https://vine.co/v/iwZKYqDP0hg
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 14, 2016, 02:01:40 am
Jebus, this bloke is insane. Who on earth is actually voting for him!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 14, 2016, 03:37:42 am
His 'Town hall' events are literally him just ranting about what his stories on the news have been and stories about his wife or how rich or who he knows. Its like... the most pathetic political event I have ever seen. Zero freaking policy talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra_ed9WMDNE

I really cringed when he suggested that Obama 'made up' executive orders because "I never heard of them before Obama" when Obama has had less than W. Bush (way less than FDR) http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 14, 2016, 04:45:06 am
Quote
hes appealing to the uneducated middle class
Which is, sadly for you people living there, most of americans. The people want Trump, that's the whole problem.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on March 14, 2016, 01:17:14 pm
Trump is all laughs for you people in other countries. Until you realize if he's president he will be in command of the strongest military force in the world by far and he's already talking about how he wants to make the military even stronger! With how hot headed he is better hope your country doesn't piss him off ;P
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 14, 2016, 01:36:33 pm
Trump is all laughs for you people in other countries. Until you realize if he's president he will be in command of the strongest military force in the world by far and he's already talking about how he wants to make the military even stronger! With how hot headed he is better hope your country doesn't piss him off ;P
Eh. Portugal went through 2 great wars working for both sides.. We have little strategic value as well. We b gud bruv :3


Either way, I don't see how the world's largest power at the hands of Hilary would be any better..
Why is your country retarded and doesn't allow for your only good politician in at least 2 decades to remain in power?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on March 14, 2016, 03:01:38 pm
Eh. Portugal went through 2 great wars working for both sides.. We have little strategic value as well. We b gud bruv :3


Either way, I don't see how the world's largest power at the hands of Hilary would be any better..
Why is your country retarded and doesn't allow for your only good politician in at least 2 decades to remain in power?

George W. Bush?

jk, jk.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 14, 2016, 03:55:27 pm
In a way, being president doesn't mean muc as anything they try to do has to go through the system. Seems to me the system is the bigger issue.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 14, 2016, 08:04:03 pm
Well he is commander-in-chief which means he can have stuff like executive orders

"Presidents can issue executive orders related to their role as commanders in chief. EOs give them the power to act quickly on a range of issues without Congress’s consent. A president might draft an EO authorizing a change in military policy, for example. Or the president might want to authorize the military’s use of certain resources during wartime and use an EO to make it official."

EO to expand torture, I can't wait.

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on March 14, 2016, 08:13:29 pm
There are also many state issues too. It's good that Mitch Daniels is no longer the governor of Indiana. He was against having expungements.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 14, 2016, 09:01:45 pm
Counterpoint: I don't want the same old politicians in office. I'm sick of their bullshit. The media is smearing Trump because he's a threat to the norm and their owners. I can't argue he hasn't put a ton of substance forward and can be a bit ignorant at times, but the guy isn't Hitler. He is so rich, he doesn't need to be president, he actually wants to help people. Or maybe he just wants to boost his ego. Even if that's the case, he's not going to settle for being a joke president.

And regarding the protests...why would you go try and piss off people and fight the police at Trump's rallies? Why is he not allowed to run for president? Trump supporters don't go start riots at Bernie rallies, why are they the violent ones? 

I'm not saying you have to like the guy but stop fucking crucifying him for the sake of it. There isn't a single candidate running who would ruin America. They have advisors and there's still congress and such. Everyone needs to chill the fuck out. I actually jumped ship from Bernie to Trump because I'm embarrassed of how ignorant and whiney all the ultra-liberal kids who like Bernie are. I don't want to be associated with that anymore.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 14, 2016, 11:56:00 pm
Counterpoint: I don't want the same old politicians in office. I'm sick of their bullshit. The media is smearing Trump because he's a threat to the norm and their owners. I can't argue he hasn't put a ton of substance forward and can be a bit ignorant at times, but the guy isn't Hitler. He is so rich, he doesn't need to be president, he actually wants to help people. Or maybe he just wants to boost his ego. Even if that's the case, he's not going to settle for being a joke president.

And regarding the protests...why would you go try and piss off people and fight the police at Trump's rallies? Why is he not allowed to run for president? Trump supporters don't go start riots at Bernie rallies, why are they the violent ones? 

I'm not saying you have to like the guy but stop fucking crucifying him for the sake of it. There isn't a single candidate running who would ruin America. They have advisors and there's still congress and such. Everyone needs to chill the fuck out. I actually jumped ship from Bernie to Trump because I'm embarrassed of how ignorant and whiney all the ultra-liberal kids who like Bernie are. I don't want to be associated with that anymore.
Non of the points I made where made because I watch TV. Don't blame the media, they are the reason he is where he is. The issue is he is a complete liar. Show me one of his policies that actually has details that you agree with.

Mangel7 a bit disappointed that you are voting for the future of the country not based on their political ideas but 'who has cooler supporters' and because a few people you met are whiny. That... just is not the reality.

Here is a Sanders community:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sandersforpresident

Here is the Trump version:
https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald
Now who is outright lying and spreading a false narrative?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 15, 2016, 01:57:53 am
I just wanted to say, I'm not against people supporting Trump, I just want to know why. I haven't heard of any solutions and that's a issue with me. One of the issues I can't support Hillary either (she does have more solution but I can't stand deflection of questions, she does that too much. I rather people be blunt on their stances). I might have come off strongly in my last message and thats not how I want to come off. I love that people are interested in the political process.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7abkti7UphSopcl2/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 02:21:06 am
Trump is all laughs for you people in other countries. Until you realize if he's president he will be in command of the strongest military force in the world by far and he's already talking about how he wants to make the military even stronger! With how hot headed he is better hope your country doesn't piss him off ;P

I doubt he thinks much of the UK that's for sure. We've stopped him doing things here quite a few times now and there was even a debate not so long ago demanded by the public to ban Trump from coming to the UK if he does become the president. Personally, I find that notion utterly ridiculous. I don't like the bloke either, but banning him because "he's said some mean things!" Is just...yeah. It didn't go ahead thankfully.


@Barry re:leaders

I wonder if part of the problem is a lack of true leaders. It's something we've lacked here in the UK too for quite some time. Hindsights a beautiful thing of course, but I think things started to go south in 80s here with Thatcher in power. Since then we've had Labour's Blair who had his own hidden agenda and many here want him thrown in prison for war crimes and the current PM in Mr.Flag in the wind, Cameron.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 15, 2016, 04:53:18 am
From what is said about Putin in the media he doesn't seem to be a great guy.
The USA problem condensed in a small sentence.

If you go by the media, then you will only hear what they want you to.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 05:35:27 am
Sadly, the whole world does listen to the media and has shaped the world to what it is today.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 15, 2016, 06:18:37 am
Non of the points I made where made because I watch TV. Don't blame the media, they are the reason he is where he is. The issue is he is a complete liar. Show me one of his policies that actually has details that you agree with.

Mangel7 a bit disappointed that you are voting for the future of the country not based on their political ideas but 'who has cooler supporters' and because a few people you met are whiny. That... just is not the reality.

Here is a Sanders community:
https://www.reddit.com/r/sandersforpresident

Here is the Trump version:
https://www.reddit.com/r/the_donald
Now who is outright lying and spreading a false narrative?

Oh stop I'm not just for Trump because of other people. Go ahead and show me all of Trump's lies.

PS: I love The_Donald. The entire rest of Reddit is busy jerking off to Sanders, not just SandersForPresident
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 15, 2016, 06:26:09 am
This is why I don't vote.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 06:37:26 am
Oh stop I'm not just for Trump because of other people. Go ahead and show me all of Trump's lies.

PS: I love The_Donald. The entire rest of Reddit is busy jerking off to Sanders, not just SandersForPresident

Here you go: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 15, 2016, 07:07:47 am
Here you go: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/)
never ever
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 07:12:40 am
He's not though. He's claiming things happened when they clearly didn't.

You expect white lies from politicians etc, but nothing to this extent. It's also not leadership.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 15, 2016, 07:39:38 am
It's also not leadership.
I never said it was.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 15, 2016, 07:54:35 am
Here you go: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/

Alright let me take a step back here. I'm aware he spews a little more bullshit than the others. But they all lie. Whatever. #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 08:10:16 am
@crackdude Sorry. I must have read your post wrong.

@Mengels7 Indeed, politicians do lie. But what Trump does and says is far, far worse then that. He says whatever he wants meaning you really DON'T know what he wants. It all depends on his mood. Do you really want someone like that in charge? He's also said some horrible things that will damage people not just in America, but across the world. Again, do you really want that sort of self centered and cold approach with people?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 15, 2016, 08:28:19 am
@crackdude Sorry. I must have read your post wrong.

@Mengels7 Indeed, politicians do lie. But what Trump does and says is far, far worse then that. He says whatever he wants meaning you really DON'T know what he wants. It all depends on his mood. Do you really want someone like that in charge? He's also said some horrible things that will damage people not just in America, but across the world. Again, do you really want that sort of self centered and cold approach with people?

Yep. It's a big change. He doesn't take any shit. Sign me up.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 08:33:55 am
If that's how you want to interpret it, then it's on you.

It's a funny word change. People assume it's for the better without actually thinking if it actually is nowadays.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on March 15, 2016, 08:47:20 am
The countries are ran by individuals who represent the people's wish. If Trump is really as bad as everyone paints it, he will most definitely lose.
If not, you should consider moving out of the USA, because it means you are surrounded by people who do not share your views.

In the end, people will choose the one they agree with. Regardless of how PC everyone is, voting is anonymous.

Sometimes people's wishes aren't the best course of action. But yes I am considering leaving the UK because of the state this country is in right now.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 08:52:48 am
Sometimes people's wishes aren't the best course of action. But yes I am considering leaving the UK because of the state this country is in right now.

Can't say I blame you. I personally wouldn't, but can see why people would. Despite its flaws, there's pockets of the UK still good and have avoided the rest of the UK's issue as the communities live in their own little bubble.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 15, 2016, 09:16:25 am
@crackdude Sorry. I must have read your post wrong.
no bro.. you've been.....[spoiler]Trump'd[/spoiler]
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 15, 2016, 09:18:25 am
I am considering leaving the UK because of the state this country is in right now.
Is Portugal an option? I'll fully hook you up. No biggie.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 09:23:34 am
http://s259.photobucket.com/user/ozbrat95/media/csi-miami-opening_o_GIFSoupcom.gif.html

Yyyyyeeeeeaaaaahhhhh!!!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on March 15, 2016, 10:39:45 am
I don't typically watch the show, but I loved John Oliver's Trump episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

I urge Trump supporters to just sit through it and then come back and say that this is the kid of person you would want as President. If somebody can still back Trump after that, I don't know what to say.

Well, actually I do. Backing Trump is backing ignorance. Ignorance in the political process. Ignorance in how a President should conduct his or herself. Ignorance in the diversity of America. If that's for you, then go for it, but you are not a better person for it and you are certainly not making America great again.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 11:38:43 am
John Oliver's segments are pretty well done. I look them up online as the show isn't available over here. It's strange how he found success over there mind, as when he started out over here in the UK, he went relatively unnoticed and was quite scrawny really. He was overshadowed by other talent like Frankie Boyle, Lee Mack etc. He just sort disappeared after a while and then appeared in America looking very different.

Speaking of, did any of you in America have Frankie Boyle appear on shows etc? To say he doesn't see the line would be an understatement.lol.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 15, 2016, 11:40:30 am
(http://newswire.kulmun.be/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bigstockphoto_American_Eagle_239566.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 15, 2016, 12:06:24 pm
I don't typically watch the show, but I loved John Oliver's Trump episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

I urge Trump supporters to just sit through it and then come back and say that this is the kid of person you would want as President. If somebody can still back Trump after that, I don't know what to say.

Well, actually I do. Backing Trump is backing ignorance. Ignorance in the political process. Ignorance in how a President should conduct his or herself. Ignorance in the diversity of America. If that's for you, then go for it, but you are not a better person for it and you are certainly not making America great again.


Why should I willingly watch some liberal smear piece on Trump? He wants you to hate Trump. He isn't singing any praises for Trump. I'm done with all the liberal comedy shows and news stations (but certainly not starting with Fox News either).
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 12:58:55 pm
It's not really a smear piece if what he's stating are facts. He does them in a comic way granted, but his argument are indeed based of facts. Not random thoughts that Trump decides to create and claim are real.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 15, 2016, 02:41:08 pm
What are your favorite Trump policies?

Frankly you don't believe this:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 15, 2016, 04:41:31 pm
What are your favorite Trump policies?


Frankly you don't believe this:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385

Again, I lean towards liberal policies and Trump says a bit of bullshit. Obviously that's a crock of shit. He's also an anti-vaxxer now which is absurd. I'm not going to be part of electing Hillary Clinton into office though. I like Trump. He isn't Hitler. People need to relax. Nobody is forcing you to vote for him, stop trying to stop everyone else.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 15, 2016, 05:22:23 pm
Not yet at least: https://twitter.com/TechnicallyRon/status/709844250523996160?s=09
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 15, 2016, 08:49:32 pm
Again, I lean towards liberal policies and Trump says a bit of bullshit. Obviously that's a crock of shit. He's also an anti-vaxxer now which is absurd. I'm not going to be part of electing Hillary Clinton into office though. I like Trump. He isn't Hitler. People need to relax. Nobody is forcing you to vote for him, stop trying to stop everyone else.
What liberal policies. I haven't seen anything posted here.

When did I force anyone, this this a discussion.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on March 15, 2016, 10:44:08 pm
What liberal policies. I haven't seen anything posted here.

When did I force anyone, this this a discussion.

Maybe I didn't. Idk. I think I only posted because I saw attacks on Trump. I was a Bernie supporter. I support almost all of his ideas. I think they'd work. Hell if he's still running when the NY primaries hit I'll vote for him because I'm still a registered Democrat and can't vote for Trump. I just wish people would do their own research and decide on a candidate and keep it to themselves. Politics and religion...don't bring them up with family friends and coworkers. Trump isn't the devil everyone is making him out to be and Sanders isn't the savior everyone wants him to be.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on March 15, 2016, 11:19:34 pm
Trump is all laughs for you people in other countries. Until you realize if he's president he will be in command of the strongest military force in the world by far and he's already talking about how he wants to make the military even stronger! With how hot headed he is better hope your country doesn't piss him off ;P

Because Hillary Clinton's bombs are so much better than a Republican president's bomb.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 16, 2016, 02:51:02 am
Because Hillary Clinton's bombs are so much better than a Republican president's bomb.

As I said earlier, I think in this election America have the same problem the UK has had for a while. None of the candidates are actually that good.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 16, 2016, 03:02:50 am
pcm92, I don't support Hillary so those bombs aren't on me. I know shes a warhawk and trust me when shes in office she will try to take out Assad. Bet on it. But at least shes not telling her audience that she will kill the families of ISIS. Think about that, he never said 'guilty', there will be no trial. We need to be smarter about how we interact with the world, we already fucked up enough.

I'm against Obama's drone strikes that kill towns of civilians too, but this guy is making it a campaign point.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 16, 2016, 05:11:06 am
It's America's fault that their military bases are civilian areas?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on March 16, 2016, 05:16:50 am
Well, Marco Rubio just dropped out of the race. Marco lost Florida to Trump, so there's really no reason to stay in the race. Which leaves up with Trump, Cruz and Kasich.


There's no real reason for Kasich to stay in the race, he's an ant compared to Cruz and Trump.




Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 16, 2016, 10:07:11 am
It's America's fault that their military bases are civilian areas?
Seems that there is still mistakes made with Drone strikes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 17, 2016, 09:40:49 pm
Ohio Trump supporters say why they support him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiFMts60ZIQ
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 18, 2016, 04:45:53 am
Ohio Trump supporters say why they support him.
what is cherry picking.

In Portugal, the more right-winged the party is, the dumber people they will interview. But if the media is at a communist conference, they'll look for the most intellectual individuals they can find
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 18, 2016, 11:50:55 am
Cherry picking is when you only take the parts of something you like.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 19, 2016, 01:32:50 pm
Actually it isn't very cherry picked at all, those two guys where the only ones that let the guy interview them. He talked about it in another video when he compared Kasich supporters to Trump. He said Kasich supporters where open and welcoming but Trump supporters called him.... well bad names. Surprised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjOAQDcGiFk

1 minute in.

Bernie Sanders wins the under 30 vote in the dems side 71% of them prefer him to corporate democrat Clinton. While she DOMINATES 30> to death. I can't wait for this country to become more liberal.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on March 22, 2016, 03:07:12 am
Why are you still in the running Kasich? You are not the adult in the room and all you seem to be doing is hurting Cruz's chances to beat Trump. You eyeing for a VP position or somethin'?


Also Obama is seriously making me sick everytime they highlight his "historical" Cuba visit.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on March 22, 2016, 07:09:56 am
Well, it is historic. Why are you such a hater?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 22, 2016, 07:59:26 am
Barry for president.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 22, 2016, 08:06:36 am
Bring Trump to Europe, we actually need some walls here
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 22, 2016, 07:23:32 pm
My thought is why anyone would hate Cuba....

Well... about walls:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI

If Trump ran for president 300 years ago tho, his policies would be great.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on March 23, 2016, 10:25:02 pm
Three hundred years ago would have been during the golden age of piracy. It was also sixty years before the U.S. was founded as a country. I can't imagine Donald Trump as a pirate.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 27, 2016, 11:23:43 pm
Well, glad some journalist actually asked Trump to elaborate on some of his policies, eh... this is getting really sad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXUhcVWOyuI
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 28, 2016, 02:40:05 am
Trump's been talking about Europe...*sigh* why are all the rich people so stupid.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 28, 2016, 04:11:01 am
Trump's been talking about Europe...*sigh* why are all the rich people so stupid.
Because all the poor are intelligent?

What is Trump saying about Europe?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 28, 2016, 04:28:10 am
He's said it's not safe for Americans to go to Europe anymore. He does realise they're attacking everyone right?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 28, 2016, 04:43:00 am
He's said it's not safe for Americans to go to Europe anymore. He does realise they're attacking everyone right?
That's not true. ISIS is attacking specifically Europe.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 28, 2016, 04:45:43 am
That's not true. ISIS is attacking specifically Europe.

It's easier for them to get around Europe, granted, but the purpose of ISIS is the same as others in their mold.  Besides, it's still wrong what he's saying.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 28, 2016, 04:53:34 am
It's easier for them to get around Europe, granted, but the purpose of ISIS is the same as others in their mold.  Besides, it's still wrong what he's saying.
And what will they do? Swim to America?
Their main interest is Europe, even more so when all their population is establishing itself here. They want to control the refugees.

I don't see how it's wrong. Americans are afraid of terrorists, there are terrorists in Europe right now..
Hell, even I'm wary of most european cities right now.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on March 28, 2016, 05:15:18 am
The chances of something going on when visiting are very slim.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 28, 2016, 05:50:16 am
The chances of something going on when visiting are very slim.
So are the chances of getting bit by a shark, but some people rather not swim anyways..
He's doing it to promote himself? Yes. But I'd rather spend money on a Caribbean trip than visiting Europe in turmoil.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on March 28, 2016, 06:53:02 am
I just noticed I never clarified why I was planning to move out of the UK, I live in London so I don't really see the effects on the road but I can already see our NHS breaking and people being forced to go private. I worry for the fate of our education system too and some of the new tax laws are going to specifically target my line of work. Now if we still had a top tier public services I'd have no problem with the tax system, but since we don't I'm just left wondering what's the point.

And sorry Crack, Portugal is a definite no go to me! If I'm moving out its going to be a country where my money can ensure the best quality of life so it'd probably be somewhere like Malaysia or Qatar.

So are the chances of getting bit by a shark, but some people rather not swim anyways..
He's doing it to promote himself? Yes. But I'd rather spend money on a Caribbean trip than visiting Europe in turmoil.

Europe is not in turmoil.

We're the closest target but ISIS is pretty much crumbling at this point as they keep losing footing. These attacks are of desperation not of defiance.

Besides mass shootings in America and the high level of gun violence are a bigger worry for Europeans (And racist police officers) than terrorists are for Americans in Europe.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on March 28, 2016, 08:38:51 am
And sorry Crack, Portugal is a definite no go to me! If I'm moving out its going to be a country where my money can ensure the best quality of life so it'd probably be somewhere like Malaysia or Qatar.
I dunno bro.. You can live like a king here without much cash. I just got out of Uni and live in a 3 bedroom apt with a view, 20mins from the beach. 400/month, ez pz.
Granted you can get mad money in Malaysia. Live it up bro.

Europe is not in turmoil.
Yet. Look at Belgium.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on March 28, 2016, 10:47:57 pm
I don't like Donald Trump OR Hillary Clinton. If I had to choose between the two, I think I would vote for Trump. His healthcare plan and education views are far superior to Hillary Clinton's. It also sounds like she would go to war with every country other than ISIS. Donald Trump wants to close trade for all countries and just have everything made in the U.S. This fixes the "Made in China" deal that George H.W. Bush thought was so nice. The one that ruined the country's economy to start with.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 28, 2016, 10:55:17 pm
Trump has no education and healthcare plan. The one I have seen is just typical Republican garbage.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on March 29, 2016, 12:02:42 am
George, I thought you said you were moderate. Saying that Republicans are garbage doesn't seem very moderte to me. I was unaware you were a strict Democrat. Here are two videos of both issues that I mentioned:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/donald-trump-health-care-plan/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/donald-trump-education--campaign-2016/2016/02/01/a4f6388e-c924-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19_video.html

You stated before that you were a very big Sanders supporter. Sanders has promised free college education for every American, but didn't your man Barack Obama promise the same thing in 2008?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on March 31, 2016, 04:28:29 am
Hum, I wouldn't consider myself a moderate, I'm more of a center left (European politics). America has gone way to the right since the 80s and people are shocked that we are in a shit hole. Neocon Republicans are the worse and Trump isn't in it to help us, the other day he LITERALLY said he would make more private prisons.

Yeah, people being jailed shouldn't be a business. Sorry.

Sanders didn't promise free college to everyone, he said free college for people that do good in K-12, not everyone. This is actually why fees have gone up. He is still for private colleges, but says tax payer funded public colleges should be free.

Barack Obama isn't 'my man', he isn't the worse president but the issue we have in America is that we are fighting stupid fucking wars for corporate interest now and not for actual defense. Its a shame really.

You think putting a billionaire in charge of our country will help it? Don't be shocked when he starts passing more business friendly laws that will help him in the end. 
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on March 31, 2016, 08:26:38 pm
I have said before that I don't like Trump, but if he runs against Clinton I have no other choice. If it's Trump vs. Sanders, then I would not vote. I am in fact moderate, George. There is a major problem with this election. None of the candidates would actually help America. I know you like Sanders, but I have a question for you.
Are you married or in a relationship with a female? If so, then you can say goodbye to your wife/girlfriend's approval of you. Many of the feminists support Bernie Sanders, even though it seems like they should be supporting Hillary Clinton. Feminism is already a big problem in this country. Most other countries don't have it nearly as bad.

Do you like your job? You can probably say goodbye to  that too. In almost every campaign speech, Bernie Sanders has promised to raise the federal minimum wage up to $15 an hour. This would double the prevailing minimum in about half of the 50 states. He also wants to make it illegal for companies to not hire people. The company you work for now will eventually have to close because they can't afford to pay all of their employees.

The last quarter-century has seen the most dramatic economic improvement in human history, with more and more people being lifted out of extreme poverty. Most of the credit, must go to capitalism and free trade. They enable economies to grow and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

Not only does Sanders take away all of those easily observable gains from trade, he also adds nationalism to the mix: "We need to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad."
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on April 02, 2016, 08:41:20 pm
I don't think feminism is a big problem. Can't really tell though because I'm not on the other side of the argument. I agree with you on the whole "free college" thing. If he's only giving it to people can't afford it, then wouldn't that be everyone?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on April 03, 2016, 01:58:05 am
Are you republicans for real? Paying middle class and poor people a living wage for working 40+ hours a week is bad for the economy? Do you guys even know how an economy works? You guys keep on voting for more corporate tax breaks, they continue to take their jobs out of this country and you attack when workers will get a pay raise? WTF Bizzaro world do you live in? Most companies have a TON of profit from people, yet whenever someone is like 'We should raise the minimum wage', everyone goes "NO NO WE WONT HAVE JOBS NO MORE". California already signed the law and Seattle has had great success. California will raise it slowly (which is the smart move) by .50 cents increments until 2023. Will it have be a success? Depending on how corporations act, yes. Th worse thing to come out of it is automation with robots, but that will happen REGARDLESS. Once middle class and poor people get more money in their pockets, I guarantee you it will be spent and boost the economy. 

WTF?

Now Feminism is a issue? God forbid we don't treat women like second class citizens, thats an issue!

He isn't giving 'free college' he is making PUBLIC COLLEGES free.

Again, research before you post and stop watching Fox News for a few days.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on April 03, 2016, 11:25:30 pm
Are you republicans for real
Yes. Speaking about politics is not a game.
Paying middle class and poor people a living wage for working 40+ hours a week is bad for the economy? Do you guys even know how an economy works?
Like I said before, most companies will be out of business because they can't afford to pay their employees. You also want to put U.S. jobs overseas. I think that's terrible for the economy. Not to mention the money the U.S. owes China.
You guys keep on voting for more corporate tax breaks, they continue to take their jobs out of this country and you attack when workers will get a pay raise? WTF Bizzaro world do you live in? Most companies have a TON of profit from people, yet whenever someone is like 'We should raise the minimum wage', everyone goes "NO NO WE WONT HAVE JOBS NO MORE". California already signed the law and Seattle has had great success. California will raise it slowly (which is the smart move) by .50 cents increments until 2023. Will it have be a success? Depending on how corporations act, yes. Th worse thing to come out of it is automation with robots, but that will happen REGARDLESS. Once middle class and poor people get more money in their pockets, I guarantee you it will be spent and boost the economy. 
Democrats don't give the GOP a chance and instead they have blamed the Republicans for tax-cutting proposals. They have already started to brand the plans from presidential candidates as handouts to the rich. They have also called it fiscally irresponsible. Democrats have a history of name calling. How can the economy be better if Sanders has proposed a 45% tariff on goods imported from China? Do you really want inflation to go up by that much? Do you want to pay 45% more for everything you buy? How about we make stuff in the U.S. instead? Sanders also wants the U.S. economy to be more like Scandinavian countries. I like the way the country is now. If I didn't, I would be living in a Scandinavian country. Republicans have not always went around saying you have to raise taxes on someone else to cut taxes for another set of people. During this election, Ted Cruz is the only one who wants the Republicans to go back to their roots and have a tax plan similar to Ronald Reagan's. He was the best president we ever had.
Now Feminism is a issue? God forbid we don't treat women like second class citizens, thats an issue!

He isn't giving 'free college' he is making PUBLIC COLLEGES free.

Again, research before you post and stop watching Fox News for a few days.
1. I didn't say feminism was an issue. Spock, who claims to be moderate said that.
2. Colleges are not ever meant to be free. If they were, there would be no purpose for student loans.
3. I don't have to do research, if I already know how the government is meant to work. You do because you clearly don't know a thing about how the U.S. should handle it's economic policies.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on April 23, 2016, 09:25:06 pm
I once thought Ted Cruz would win in the  primaries. I now realize there is about a 90% chance Donald Trump will. He can't beat Hillary Clinton unless Suzanna Martinez is chosen as his vice president. I suppose that means conservative candidates will have to wait until 2020 to win. Hillary Clinton will be like the old white version of Barack Obama. Tom Cotton would beat her in 2020.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on April 24, 2016, 11:01:23 am
Bit off topic, but Obama keeps appearing on the news over here in the UK and telling us not to leave the EU.

No, Mr Obama, you do not get a say in this. Especially when we all know full well America would never dream of giving up sovereignty or opening your boarders freely.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on April 24, 2016, 12:46:06 pm
What do you mean never giving up sovereignty? The US absolutely gave up a lot of Sovereignty alongside Canada and Mexico when it signed NAFTA.

It gave up some Sovereignty when it organized NATO. It doesn't matter what the Citizens think, the fact of the matter is if a NATO member were to be caught up in a hot conflict, Americans everywhere could decry fighting over in Europe, but the US would still deploy.

Same thing in East Asia with Mutual Defense Treaties with AUS, SK and JP. Signing those required the US to give up some sovereignty in the utility of its armed forces.

There's also institutions that the US, UK and others lent their hands to creating such as the UN, IMF, World Bank so on and so forth that added a lot of baggage into what even their creators could do bureaucratically. They actually just had a session discussing this a bit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgLWQ3WkOjE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgLWQ3WkOjE)

Starts at about 59 minutes in an goes on till around 1:09

Finally it should be noted that he isn't really telling the UK to stay in. He offered an Opinion on why they should stay and gave his reasons, the same way other world leaders try to offer their "advice" to US voters on not pushing for Trump :P

Ultimately though, throughout that entire session he probably emphasises it 3 or 4 times that the Choice belongs to the British people alone since it is their country and he is offering his opinion because the workings of the UK are important to the US, and British influence as a whole is better for the EU.

You already have Visa free travel for example, but aren't forced to open borders because you have Shengen exemption.
You are part of the single market, yet do not have to tie yourself heavily to the euro necessarily in favor of Pounds.
The UK overall is a very special state in the whole of the EU with a ton of exemptions to it already, but whatever choice its people make should be respected.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on April 24, 2016, 12:59:14 pm
That's not what I mean. Since the 70s, the UK and Europe has been getting closer which is fine. However, in the 80s, a new set of rules were put forward that would make everyone in the EU merge their policies into one which directly stops locally elected politicians and democracy in each respected country. The result? It was universally thrown out. So what did the EU do? They lied to people.

They pretended to throw those rules out and start a new set which were actually mostly the same only dressed up. They called it, the lisbon treaty and people bought it.

Since then, 70% of laws by each nation have been made by the EU regardless of the countries own views and it's only gotten worse as times gone on. Unelected representives, law makers etc. Especially with the addition of (no disrespect intended) weaker countries into the system. It's created a very unbalanced system that works against all the countries in different ways.

I'm not opposed to the idea of the EU, just the way this one is doing it. Yes, we should and will work together, but one rule for all is an absurd idea as we're all different countries with different needs.

As for the vote. The media and the "in" campaign has already decided to use project fear to win. I'm 99% certain the people have bought into this and the "in" campaigners have successfully shut down the debate before it began.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on April 24, 2016, 05:22:23 pm
We vote for our European parliament. They aren't unelected.

Also Europe has done a lot more for our country than some of our elected governments including this one, which deems it required to advise a maximum of 10 years in prison for pirates. Astonishing work Dave and co.

Certainly there are issues with it but then there are issues with every single system including universal credit, public health care, state funded education etc.

And Obama has every right to tell us where we stand outside the EU, as much as everyone loved telling the Scots were they stood without England.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on April 24, 2016, 08:40:16 pm
Yeah, I wasn't really understanding why some of my British friends were so pissed off about Obama having an opinion on the EU thing. He's the president of the United States. The EU thing has huge implications with foreign trade and how we all interact globally. If you disagree with whatever he says, that's fine, but to say he has no right to weigh in is just ignorant.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on April 24, 2016, 09:33:22 pm
@Aki-at There not the ones I'm talking about. There's many others above even them who weren't elected. Many say they're not law makers and are only there to suggest, but just as I have shown in my last post, they get their way eventually. Look at Ireland for example. They said no on a vote to join the EU. So what did the EU do? Force them to vote again...yeah.

@Barry. Don't think it's him there annoyed about, just the way Cameron's done it. Not saying he's not right or shouldn't have an opinion, but the way they've done it was deliberate and very much Cameron's style. He's scared stiff of being the PM with a bad legacy of the UK breaking up. We saw this in the Scottish referendum too. Sadly, our "main" party leaders are all pretty poor, so.

I should point out, I'm unsure on leaving (not made my mind up yet), but as stated above, the discussion seems to have been shut down before it even began.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on April 24, 2016, 11:49:41 pm
Do you like David Cameron? Also, - since the Queen is so old - what is your opinion of Charles surpassing Queen Elizabeth when she dies?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on April 25, 2016, 01:35:21 am
Not particularly. I doubt he's a bad person as such, but as a prime minister he's shown himself up far too many times. The problem is, Labour's party is full of just as many poor politicians. They rely on shock PC tactics and offer little in terms of substance, and that's without mentioning their leader who beliefs in some silly things. He's also started to flip flop of certain things too like the EU.

I've never been too concerned with the royal family. They're slowly becoming irrelevant, which in a way is a shame mind. They're a big part of British culture. Also, I think Charles won't take the job. I think it'll go to William.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on April 25, 2016, 06:11:27 pm
I've been out of the political shabang for a while so let me say holy moly at Dave saying Khan supports IS, what the bloody hell.

@Aki-at There not the ones I'm talking about. There's many others above even them who weren't elected. Many say they're not law makers and are only there to suggest, but just as I have shown in my last post, they get their way eventually. Look at Ireland for example. They said no on a vote to join the EU. So what did the EU do? Force them to vote again...yeah.

I'm not sure I'm following here Tad, the Republic of Ireland has only ever had one vote in joining the EU or not and that had an overwhelming majority in favour of joining the European communities.

Yeah, I wasn't really understanding why some of my British friends were so pissed off about Obama having an opinion on the EU thing. He's the president of the United States. The EU thing has huge implications with foreign trade and how we all interact globally. If you disagree with whatever he says, that's fine, but to say he has no right to weigh in is just ignorant.

The out campaign have been saying we could get a better deal with America if we were outside of the European Union so I would think we would want to hear what the man in charge of America has to say on the matter.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on April 26, 2016, 03:05:41 am
No. Ireland were told to vote again after only 16 months from the first vote. The EU got the vote they wanted that time and swiftly moved on to pressure Poland etc to vote on the Libson treaty too.

I'm not opposed to America etc putting their view out there on this subject. What I am opposed to is Cameron using them to back his "in" campaign.

Note: It was the Libson treaty that really made the EU what it is today.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on April 26, 2016, 06:19:42 am
No. Ireland were told to vote again after only 16 months from the first vote. The EU got the vote they wanted that time and swiftly moved on to pressure Poland etc to vote on the Libson treaty too.

I'm not opposed to America etc putting their view out there on this subject. What I am opposed to is Cameron using them to back his "in" campaign.

Note: It was the Libson treaty that really made the EU what it is today.

Eh but the Lisbon Treaty wasn't a in or out vote, what the Irish people voted for wasn't leaving the EU, they've been a member for decades.

Being "forced" to vote on the treaty again is a bit of a misunderstanding on what the treaty was or how the EU functions. They needed all member states to vote in favour of it or else it wouldn't go to pass, it's not unreasonable to suggest one country to rethink their position on the matter after the EU gave them certain concession.

What do you feel the Lisbon Treaty has done that undermines the EU?

And the leave campaign was the first to suggest our dealings will be easier with America outside of the EU, I don't like Cameron but he was absolutely in the right to bring Obama in.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on April 26, 2016, 09:30:43 am
No. Ireland were told to vote again after only 16 months from the first vote. The EU got the vote they wanted that time and swiftly moved on to pressure Poland etc to vote on the Lisbon treaty too.

I'm not opposed to America etc putting their view out there on this subject. What I am opposed to is Cameron using them to back his "in" campaign.

Note: It was the Libson treaty that really made the EU what it is today.

Well said.  The EU is a joke and the sooner we're out the better .  The EU isn't democratic at all. Btw it wasn't just the Irish but the French and the Dutch that voted to against the Lisbon. The EU does want it always does and just push on regardless.The EU didn't accept the elected governments of Greece either  and forced them back to the polls , till they got what they wanted :( .

So rich to see that Lame duck President tell us how to vote . No way inthe world . You the USA give sovereignty up to the EU, much less allow the Court of justice have  president over their Supreme court
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on April 26, 2016, 02:48:55 pm
Obama can't give his opinion on the EU situation? What is up with some of you guys?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on April 27, 2016, 12:43:41 am
That's not what I'm saying, Barry. I'm saying he shouldn't be picking sides like he has and joined Cameron on TV in trying to stay in. He also said it would effect our relationship if we did leave. Why would it? Is our relationship only based on America using the UK to get the benefits of the EU without the sovereignty and immigration concerns? Really? We've been friends for years and this is the thing Obama is going to create bumps in that friendship? Seems rather weak.

Edit: I haven't had chance to check the stats yet, but going from what I've heard, Obama's visit has had the opposite effect.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on April 27, 2016, 07:34:54 am
Obama can't give his opinion on the EU situation? What is up with some of you guys?

He shouldn't be telling voters which way they should vote . It also shows how little Obama knows about the EU and the way it works. The EU hates the USA with a passion
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on April 27, 2016, 08:12:51 am
The EU hates the USA with a passion
No. No one in the EU actually really cares about the USA. Very different.

You don't even have decent football, how can you have our respect
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on April 27, 2016, 09:29:29 am
Going to be interesting when we finally leave the EU what the Scots do next. SNP definitely going to push for another refurendum.

That's not what I'm saying, Barry. I'm saying he shouldn't be picking sides like he has and joined Cameron on TV in trying to stay in. He also said it would effect our relationship if we did leave. Why would it? Is our relationship only based on America using the UK to get the benefits of the EU without the sovereignty and immigration concerns? Really? We've been friends for years and this is the thing Obama is going to create bumps in that friendship? Seems rather weak.

Edit: I haven't had chance to check the stats yet, but going from what I've heard, Obama's visit has had the opposite effect.

He was specifically talking about trade agreements which it most likely will effect. Better to deal with the majority as one group than a lone country.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on April 27, 2016, 11:00:21 am
No. No one in the EU actually really cares about the USA. Very different.

And yet every time SEGA of America localizes a game, my feed is filled with EU people moaning about how they don't have the games (I kid, I kid)

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on April 27, 2016, 11:49:25 am
You don't even have decent football, how can you have our respect

One we have 'footbal'l we play the game  with the ball only being allowed to touch the foot, you know Football. And we also do call winners of our domestic leagues 'World Champions'; Remind me again how many teams from around the world are able to play in the NFL ;) :P .


Quote
No. No one in the EU actually really cares about the USA.

I think you find the EU does. The EU wants to be its own Superstate and where the USA isn't needed . Wasn't so long ago the Americans hated Europe for its stance on the Iraq war or the EU support for the Palestinians. Seem to remember the USA telling both the EU and the UN where to go . Speaking of the UN when was the last time USA actually paid what it owes to the UN ? 
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on April 27, 2016, 11:51:18 am
And yet every time SEGA of America localizes a game, my feed is filled with EU people moaning about how they don't have the games (I kid, I kid)

I don'y think it was that along ago that SEGA America was seen as the sick and weak part of SEGA (I kid, I kid)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on April 27, 2016, 11:59:25 am
No. No one in the EU actually really cares about the USA. Very different.

This is also quite vague. Eastern Europe(baltic states at least) for example, is very pro American, because we take the defense of Europe more seriously than most EU states do. We also have decent reps with some of the nordic nations. Really off the top of my head the only country that really has a beef with us is France and that is more of a love hate relationship more than anything.

Everyone else either kinda likes us or feels very bleh about it.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on April 27, 2016, 04:24:54 pm
Well, the general sentiment in southern europe about the US seems mixed. There's a strong anti-US sentiment coming from the particularly nasty far left parties. I can only speak in behalf of Portugal, which I have to say, considers the USA an ally or a rival, frankly, depending on which way the wind is blowing.


If the US Adminstration is Republican, no matter who they are, according to the portuguese media outlets, the US military base in the Azores is leeching off valuable resources out of our stagnant economy.
If the US Administration is Democrat, the same portuguese media outlets will worship the US military base in the Azores and hail it as boon to stagnant economy.


And other things as well. During the Bush years, it was Iraq war crimes 24/7, Guantanamo Bay, basically Anything-Gate 24/7, 9/11 conspiracies theories and Hurricane Katrina.


Obama, well, idol-worshipping 24/7 and not much else. Next to nothing on anything that might even cause his administration some mild embarrassment. Clinton, however, has not received the same lenient treatment.


Anyway, Trump won 5 states (which were very Trump-friendly to begin with) and so the gap between him and Cruz has widdened. Can Fiorina running as Cruz's VP bolster his chances to beat Trump? And who will Trump pick as VP? Let's find out soon...
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on April 27, 2016, 04:37:29 pm
Is it actually looking like Trump could win?

Sorry if that's a silly question, but I'm a bit unsure on how the system works over there.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on April 27, 2016, 07:13:47 pm
Basically, candidates for each party compete for delegates of all 50 states (not sure if Puerto Rico or the Samoan Islands count) in this early stage. The one who gets the most delegates in these pre-elections gets to be the candidate. After that, it's proper general election.

Those delegates become part of the Electoral College. So during a general election, when a candidate receives the majority in any given state, the delegates picked up by that candidate vote for him, thus awarding him the points necessary to win the Presidency. Get enough points from most the states and you win. Quite a system.

It's very different from european-style democracy. Basically whoever gets the majority seats in parliament, gets to do whatever they want for four years. In the United States, political power is divided into four separate entities (Congress, Senate, Administration and the Supreme Court). This is by design to prevent abuse of power.

And, yes, in all likelyhood, Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. There a chance that Cruz can get the nomination since the upcoming primaries take place in mostly Cruz-friendly states but it's going to be ubber hard, since California is a Trump-friendly state. And Trump winning California is basically a sign to Cruz and Kasich to bow out. Specially Kasich. People have tended to call Trump, a GOP saboteur but the more I think about it, the more I beleive Kasich is the real saboteur.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on April 27, 2016, 08:05:54 pm
Puerto Ricans and American Samoans living in their respective countries outside the mainland cannot vote for president.

If they live on the mainland and are registered to an incorporated state they can, but otherwise no they don't count.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on April 27, 2016, 10:57:51 pm
Why doesn't Puerto Rico just say "Alright U.S., we're tired of your B.S. We are not a part of you anymore!" Also, what are your opinions of Fiorina being Cruz's VP?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on April 28, 2016, 12:00:48 am
Basically, candidates for each party compete for delegates of all 50 states (not sure if Puerto Rico or the Samoan Islands count) in this early stage. The one who gets the most delegates in these pre-elections gets to be the candidate. After that, it's proper general election.

Those delegates become part of the Electoral College. So during a general election, when a candidate receives the majority in any given state, the delegates picked up by that candidate vote for him, thus awarding him the points necessary to win the Presidency. Get enough points from most the states and you win. Quite a system.

It's very different from european-style democracy. Basically whoever gets the majority seats in parliament, gets to do whatever they want for four years. In the United States, political power is divided into four separate entities (Congress, Senate, Administration and the Supreme Court). This is by design to prevent abuse of power.

And, yes, in all likelyhood, Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. There a chance that Cruz can get the nomination since the upcoming primaries take place in mostly Cruz-friendly states but it's going to be ubber hard, since California is a Trump-friendly state. And Trump winning California is basically a sign to Cruz and Kasich to bow out. Specially Kasich. People have tended to call Trump, a GOP saboteur but the more I think about it, the more I beleive Kasich is the real saboteur.

Ah, cheers. Seems worrying that Trump could be getting somewhere.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on April 28, 2016, 05:38:02 am
It's gonna be hard for Cruz, but not impossible (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christophernmalagisi/2016/04/27/ted-cruz-can-still-deny-trump-gop-nomination-n2154534). And to be perfectly honest, as much as I dislike Trump, him becoming President would certainly be certainly a paradigm shitfing event in american politics. I can see the headlines: "Business Man Becomes Leader of the Free World".
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on April 28, 2016, 11:20:28 am
Why doesn't Puerto Rico just say "Alright U.S., we're tired of your B.S. We are not a part of you anymore!"

Because most aren't. The majority prefer to remain a commonwealth, though a slightly increasing number are vying for statehood over time.

As it is either way Puerto Rico couldn't survive on its own. Leaving would give it the ability to conduct independent trade with the world again rather than be restricted by the US on that matter, but it would still have to pay back over 70 billion in debt and find a way to cut down on its 30% government employed population. Not even counting corruption and other general crap.

Puerto Rico used to at least be a get away spot for some folk because Cuba was off limits, but now that Cuba is free game it'll probably make things a lot worse.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on April 28, 2016, 06:35:25 pm
If RNC delegates on the rules committee wanted to ensure the Party nominated a Republican, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to require candidates to prove they have voted Republican in the recent past. The RNC rules committee can and does place limits on who can be nominated. Right now, the controversial Rule 40(b) requires candidates to have won eight states to be nominated at the convention; that eliminates Gov. John Kasich.
To ensure only a Republican could be nominated, a simple rule would look like this:
“All nominees for President must have voted in a Republican nomination process in at least one of the last eight years prior to 2016.”
This rule would require the Republican nominee to have voted in a Republican primary or convention at least once in the last eight years. Can you guess who wouldn’t qualify?
Donald J. Trump.
While Donald Trump calls himself a Republican, he has no records proving it. His New York voting records go back to 1989, and not once — not once — has he voted in a GOP or (Conservative Party) primary. If he were to win, he will have been the first Republican nominee in recent memory who has never been a Republican before becoming the nominee.
Hopefully, this rule change won’t be necessary. Ted Cruz has been dominating the delegate conventions, and Trump would need a sweep in New York and California to even get close to the required 1237 delegates. Still, this rule should be adopted for this RNC convention and all others going forward. The Party cannot afford to have Democrat donors hijacking their nomination processes.

As far as Puerto Rico goes, is there some type of group or political party that wants to declare independence?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on April 28, 2016, 07:10:05 pm
As far as Puerto Rico goes, is there some type of group or political party that wants to declare independence?

The Puerto Rican Independence Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Independence_Party).

Their support base however is so low that they've lost official recognition as a political party for the 3rd time in their history. Parties need at least 3% of the vote to be recognized and PIP only received 2.5%
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on May 04, 2016, 08:54:42 am
Well, that's that. Cruz dropped out. Trump is now the De-Facto Republican Nominee.


OK. Well, Trump has done everything he can to preach to the converted. Now let's see how he does in the general election against Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on May 04, 2016, 01:08:13 pm
Kasich's gone now too.

GG Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on May 04, 2016, 01:42:17 pm
RIP Republican Party
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on May 04, 2016, 02:46:30 pm
Clinton is just a criminal that has a history of being indecisive. Voting for her just because she's a woman would be like drinking soap because it looks like a drink. Voting for that hag would be voting for another eight years of Barack Obama.

Sanders is ok, but still not good. He wants to make the U.S. into a Scandinavian Communist paradise complete with being 74 years old. Voting for him would be like voting for a white Fidel Castro .

Trump is not good, but he is now the best candidate simply because he is not a part of the extremist system. His immigration plan is bad, but at least he is not going to take ALL the Hispanic population out of the country. Just the illegal ones. His tax plan and healthcare plans are great for America and he says what he wants. He really speaks his mind. At least he doesn't lie like Clinton or Sanders. Clinton lied about everything. Sanders lied about being poor. Just look at what Sanders drives. He's never been poor. Trump is the only honest candidate. Just wait for the debates. He is going to put Hillary Clinton to shame.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 04, 2016, 02:58:30 pm
The UK seems to suffer from the same sad problems you guys have. You're forced to pick the best of the worst available. Now more then ever I'm tempted to spoil my vote. If enough people do it, they're forced to change the system here.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on May 04, 2016, 04:40:47 pm
Tad, doesn't England also only have two major political parties? If so, which party in England do you support? Conservative or Labour?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 04, 2016, 05:24:00 pm
They're the two main parties and most likely to win, but I can't honestly say I support either of them currently.

The Conservatives (or Tories) are currently in power and they're proving to be quite dirty and sneaky. The sad thing is, it's there for all to see, but they don't seem to care.

Labour are suppose to be for the "workers" party, but they're showing themselves up to be unelectable. The current leader of the Labour party has some really bad ideas and seems to be dividing the party in all sorts of issues. They did need to change after the Tony Blair style of Labour, but what they've changed into a bit of a weird mix.

I'd probably consider myself more center than either of those two, but, again, there's no party out there right now I can really get behind.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on May 04, 2016, 06:02:29 pm
Could be worse...


Portugal has five(or six) major political parties.


PSD - Social Democrat Party - Center / Right-ish: Pro-fiscal responsibility, limited goverment, but have had their fair share of f***-ups with poor leadership until Passos stepped in.
PS - Socialist Party - Left-wing - Somewhat pro-fiscal responsibility, thinks government should assist, though not meddle with personal lives of it's citizens, after 2005 and especially in 2015, they are almost as radical as the Left Bloc.
CDS - Social Democrat Center - Right-wing (the closest to the Republican Party in politics): Oddly enough they can something be more leftwing than the socialist party. But generally speaking they stick to their guns. Free market, lower taxation


PCP - Portuguese Communist Party - Far Left: Largely anti-anything remotely capitalist, they run virtually every union in Portugal
BE - Left Bloc - Far left: Extremely delusional, openly hostile to catholics, surprisingly xenophonic, have a ton of people working for them on several news networks and journals, anti-capitalism, openly hostile to any private business, spend a lot in the European parliament clogging the floor with useless bills.
PAN - Animal Nature People Party - Far left: Don't ask. A slighty less crazy version of the Left Bloc.


Catarina Martins and her cohort Marina Mortagua make left-leanings american SJWs sound like reasonable and mature human beings.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on May 05, 2016, 02:08:43 am
Trump vs Hillary.

FML.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on May 05, 2016, 02:41:38 am
Grab the popcorn, cause Trump is going to make america great again

this election is so bad. but hey, it's also good in a way, Trump completely destroyed the GOP. Maybe they will be forced to become more reasonable and stop trying to push Christianity into every law to discriminate against people

And maybe Democrats under Hillary will drop their SJW mentality, stop bullying christian owned-businesses and christians in general, stop using the IRS to target non-Democrats, stop being anti-biology (the pro-science party), stop delaying immigration reform, stop voter fraud and stop identity politics . And still blame conservatives for their f***-ups, despite owning virtually every cultural outlet and institution in the country. I'm also having fun watching the Democrat Party crumbling under it's own weight.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on May 05, 2016, 04:21:04 am
I didn't know hating gays was in the bible. Imagine if all sinners got treated equally, no one would be able to shop at a Christian establishment.

Get off your guys fucking high horse.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 05, 2016, 04:34:51 am
Ah, religion. The original pyramid scheme. I find it amazing people still belief in these things lol.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 05, 2016, 04:41:41 am
The Bible is pretty chill.

Treat everyone with respect, do good.. Let God deal with who he deems wrongdoers.
Nowhere it says that you should hate gays.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 05, 2016, 04:49:43 am
People tend to use these holy books as a template and twist the rest unfortunately. I doubt I have to give real world examples unfortunately.

It is worth saying though, that I strongly belief if religion is sticking around it does need to adapt to more modern life and old methods that are no longer acceptable need to be changed. Forced marriage for example.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 05, 2016, 05:52:52 am
The problem isn't religion (as a concept). Rather, the people that rule it.
A godly religion wouldn't want it's members to go around spreading hate and making people feel uncomfortable.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on May 05, 2016, 07:00:28 am
Your not kidding. A disables woman was denied service by a toe truck company, the guy said god told him to deny her service after he saw her Bernie Sanders sticker on her car.

http://wlos.com/news/local/tow-truck-driver-refuses-to-tow-motorist-over-bernie-bumper-sticker/?????????????


These people that 'talk to God' sure get awfully close minded messages.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 05, 2016, 08:30:18 am
there are many gods
(http://smokeweedgrowseeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/marijuana-blunt-ganja.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on May 05, 2016, 09:34:52 am
Is that a pube on the weed?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 05, 2016, 10:10:01 am
@Crackdown

The only god I believe in is the Hockey Gods. And it's about time they started letting my home team get good again!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 05, 2016, 10:10:21 am
>doesn't enjoy pubes on his weed

what is this, 2015?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on May 05, 2016, 04:10:30 pm
weed pube killed this thread (good!)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on May 05, 2016, 06:02:38 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu1lsw3_Kfo

I thought gay marriage was in another thread created last year. Do we really have to spend billions on third bathrooms?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on May 05, 2016, 07:50:34 pm
Can someone explain why Trump is interested in Rob Portman? I mean, who would vote for him to be vice president?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on May 05, 2016, 08:30:20 pm
I didn't know that shitting was such a big fucking deal.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 06, 2016, 04:16:33 am
Instead of basis bathrooms on "genders" or whatever, why not just base it around the dick-owning status of the individual.
Dick bathrooms and no-dick bathrooms.

And if anyone says this is sexist, tell em that women can have dicks too, and call them cis scum.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on May 06, 2016, 05:44:35 am
Do they actually have transgender bathrooms in any other countries?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 06, 2016, 08:36:41 am
Actually, I never quite understood the need for separate bathrooms.
Are girl-toilets gold-plated or something?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 06, 2016, 03:56:33 pm
I imagine this is what it's like: https://youtu.be/1t1OVRfmMik

Update: Seems London's new mayor is Labour. Yep, one idiot to the next. Well done to the people of London. You get what you deserve.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on May 07, 2016, 03:51:33 am
Honestly, does anyone care who shits where? Like, if a woman wants to come in and shit in our shitty mens restroom, ok. Do it.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 07, 2016, 06:03:49 am
Update: Seems London's new mayor is Labour. Yep, one idiot to the next. Well done to the people of London. You get what you deserve.

Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan are two completely different type of Labour politicians. He's already an improvement over Boris because he's not going to think moving Heathrow over to the other side of London is a good idea.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 07, 2016, 04:39:56 pm
I get the logic there, but it's sadly not the case. At least with Boris he was a harmless idiot. With Khan though, he's been proven to be quite a dangerous one.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 07, 2016, 05:13:14 pm
I get the logic there, but it's sadly not the case. At least with Boris he was a harmless idiot. With Khan though, he's been proven to be quite a dangerous one.

Khan has never proven to be dangerous.

His political learning are more Blairite than the radical left the current head of Labour is, so I don't see anything wrong with him.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 07, 2016, 11:52:33 pm
He was the one who has torn the Labour party up with his self confessed mistake of nominating Corbyn, he is indeed a Blairite, but that's not a good thing as Blairs antics are now considered to have been quite damaging to the country by many. I personally think Siân Berry would probably have been better.

Thankfully, it doesn't matter too much as London's beyond a joke of capital anyway now.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 08, 2016, 06:59:07 am
He was the one who has torn the Labour party up with his self confessed mistake of nominating Corbyn, he is indeed a Blairite, but that's not a good thing as Blairs antics are now considered to have been quite damaging to the country by many. I personally think Siân Berry would probably have been better.

Thankfully, it doesn't matter too much as London's beyond a joke of capital anyway now.


There was nothing wrong with nominating Corbyn, it helped give choice in what was otherwise a scale leadership battle. Furthermore Blair is indeed an awful person but that doesn't mean everything that he did was terrible either, the state of the country he and Labour inherited and the state of the country under his leadership is night and day. We've never had such a golden period before and I'm not sure when we'll get another one, definitely not anytime soon.

Living in London and sorry I have to disagree, the capital is a great place to live and grow up in. The only problem is housing value which I think is a massive issue but there are still plenty of areas that have realistic home values. What I think k it reflects however is that wage growth has happened at a fast enough rate but this effects more than just London.

Finishing off with Sian Berry, she have a few good ideas but also attached to it is the Green's environment first policies and closing down City Airport, 20 mph driving zones, congestion charge for ALL of London (Because punishing drivers really is the way to go) which come on, is absolutely bonkers.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 09, 2016, 12:24:55 am
You're lucky if you do over 20mph in London anyway so I don't see that as a problem, but it is a simple but effective method to try and tackle the growing poor air quality in London. They'll never close down airports just because she was mayor and the congestion is a filthy tax anyway.

As for London...it's great if you like it, but personally, I have no love for it nor do I see myself ever going back there. What it offers can easily be found elsewhere and in a much better environment. If you want proof of that, recent studies have shown that quite a few cities around the UK have come out on top of London in many different ways. In terms of best capital in the UK, Cardiff (Wales) comes out on top in almost every department.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 09, 2016, 03:41:38 am
Here there's about a 5% chance you get charged once you go over 100mph. I still find it pretty stupid.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 09, 2016, 06:06:11 am
You're lucky if you do over 20mph in London anyway so I don't see that as a problem, but it is a simple but effective method to try and tackle the growing poor air quality in London. They'll never close down airports just because she was mayor and the congestion is a filthy tax anyway.

As for London...it's great if you like it, but personally, I have no love for it nor do I see myself ever going back there. What it offers can easily be found elsewhere and in a much better environment. If you want proof of that, recent studies have shown that quite a few cities around the UK have come out on top of London in many different ways. In terms of best capital in the UK, Cardiff (Wales) comes out on top in almost every department.

Better yet tackle the technology not the consumer base.  I think it shows how much experience you have in London if you think doing 30 mph is rare, I'm regularly doing that and the only time it falls to that level is if I head into Central London... which is what public transport is for.

It was in her manifesto, don't matter if they would or not it just shows a detachment from reality. Not going to deny the congestion charging isn't terrible but it further proves how bad her ideas are if she thought it was a good idea to push for it all over London not just the centralised areas.

It comes down to personal preferences which city you like more but on average I have to disagree, what you find in London cannot be found easily elsewhere and by that I mean pure multiculturalism. You can't find areas like Southall or China Town easily elsewhere in the UK and in terms of parks, universities, sports entertainment... London just has a monopoly on most of these factors because of its sheer size and population.

That's not to say the other cities such as Edinburgh are bad (which to be honest is a closer rival to London than Cardiff in terms of historical design and heritage) but they have a completely different feel to the city. To describe it as a joke is excessive and people just wouldn't flock to the city if it didn't have anything going for it.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 09, 2016, 06:58:16 am
It's business and financial pull is its greatest strength from what stats show. Beyond that though, it's been well documented London isn't as great as you may think. The multiculturalism you're talking about hasn't really worked like people think - hence one part being called "china town". Being segregated like that is not a sign of a working cultural mix. It means quite the opposite and the idea of full multiculturalism pushed by Labour back in the Blair days was beyond dumb as it defies the very term culture. Some that share common elements are usually easily to mixable, others not so much. Also, last year, other UK universities started going ahead of some of the best in Europe such as London.

Cardiff is far younger than Edinburgh and London, so it's to be expected, but that doesn't mean it's a bad city without history or merit.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 09, 2016, 11:46:05 am
3 of the top 10 universities are in the UK are found in London, the best continues to be Oxford and Cambridge but to underestimate London's academic ability is wrong when various league table show that education in the capital is still fantastic. Here look at the top 20 universities in the world, two of them are in London and 5 are in the top 100.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34390466

What you perceive as a failure in multiculturalism I do not hold the same opinion as I feel the Chinese are well integrated in London society. Furthermore, I'm not even saying London is the be all end all of the country or the world, however I am pointing out you're severely overlooking most of London's strength.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 09, 2016, 12:04:00 pm
We'll have to disagree there then. I don't mind, the less people know about the rest of the UK the better :)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 09, 2016, 12:29:26 pm
I never said the rest of the country doesn't have it's benefits and I'm not one who acts like the world ends outside of London. I'm saying it's a great place to live, just like say Southampton or Edinburgh but again it depends what you're looking for in a city.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 09, 2016, 01:11:52 pm
Cameron suggesting that we're heading to war is got to be one of the funniest thing his ever said.

It's only been a few months since he said he'd be ready to leave the EU unless Britain got the reforms it wanted so his at odds with what he said in the past. Not that I disagree with the sentiment that a united Europe is better for stability, but a lot of things have to go wrong successively for us to be on the verge of war.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 10, 2016, 04:24:20 am
I'm starting to wonder if the "remain" campaign are actually doing the "out" campaigners a huge favour now with the amount of nonsense they're coming out with. It's honestly like Cameron is saying this:  "if we leave, we'll be poor. No, wait! If we leave, every company in the world will go, no, wait! If we leave, we'll live in mudhuts, no, wait! If we leave, we'll be unable to stop criminals. No, wait! If we leave, it'll start a war!!"

He's like that kid who can't stop exaggerating. I think it's a very dangerous thing the "in" campaigners are doing. They've thrown that much at the press as of late, by the time the vote actually happens, it'll become white noise. It's sad too. He's making out the "out" voters hate Europe which isn't the case at all. It's the political union agreement people take issue with, not Europe.

Seen Trump has made u turn on meeting the London mayor. Didn't take long.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on May 10, 2016, 08:01:15 am
About the bathroom thing, I think we can all agree on this point: It is f***ing stupid to mix politics with how one does his or her business in their own bathroom. Having said that, I am personally embarrassed to even discuss this issue with another sane person. I don't care much for the concept of transgenderism, I care about basic fact-based scientifically-sound biology.


Look, it happens, a woman might wander into a men's bathroom because either A: the ladies room is out of order or B: wandered in by mistake. It's called an accident but that's an entirely different ballpark. But if I were to wander into the ladies room, I would expect to be deemed a pervert and someone would call the cops on me. I would expect nothing less. The argument that someone indentifying themselves as a different gender as a justification to remove any restrictions on which bathroom one can use on a regular basis is weak (that's me being nice).


But the DOJ is currently run by douchebags who have way too much free time on their hands. And are too lazy to even read said bills that they claim are discriminatory.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 11, 2016, 04:38:13 am
I'm starting to wonder if the "remain" campaign are actually doing the "out" campaigners a huge favour now with the amount of nonsense they're coming out with. It's honestly like Cameron is saying this:  "if we leave, we'll be poor. No, wait! If we leave, every company in the world will go, no, wait! If we leave, we'll live in mudhuts, no, wait! If we leave, we'll be unable to stop criminals. No, wait! If we leave, it'll start a war!!"

He's like that kid who can't stop exaggerating. I think it's a very dangerous thing the "in" campaigners are doing. They've thrown that much at the press as of late, by the time the vote actually happens, it'll become white noise. It's sad too. He's making out the "out" voters hate Europe which isn't the case at all. It's the political union agreement people take issue with, not Europe.



Nice post . 'Call me Dave' is a lying scumbag and just like Blair will say anything . Speaking of the multicultural it hasn't worked at all in the UK the most part , it's one area the USA does it so much better imo
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 11, 2016, 05:57:55 am
I wish people would stop pretending Europe is multicultural. We have been in a non-war state for about 50 years after dozens of centuries of war history. We are the least multicultural people in the world.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 09:01:24 am
I wish people would stop pretending Europe is multicultural. We have been in a non-war state for about 50 years after dozens of centuries of war history. We are the least multicultural people in the world.

I think a lot of people are confused with what being multicultural actually is. Enjoying another culture and lifestyle is great and I'd like to at least think regardless of where we are in Europe, we can at least be polite and respectful. However, asking one culture to merge with another is completely different. Yes, some can work rather well due to similarities, but it's very foolish of governments to not think their will be consequences, tensions etc when forcing this.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 09:09:36 am
Nice post . 'Call me Dave' is a lying scumbag and just like Blair will say anything . Speaking of the multicultural it hasn't worked at all in the UK the most part , it's one area the USA does it so much better imo

I think it works well in America because they're a much bigger country and have more room to create different cultures within itself. Whereas, Europe varies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_area
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 11, 2016, 11:23:05 am
I think it works well in America because they're a much bigger country and have more room to create different cultures within itself. Whereas, Europe varies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_area

I don't its anything do with size . Most I see are ready (and able) to sing the USA National anthem)  say they are American and swear loyalty to the flag, I just don't see in the UK and where most of cultures in the UK tend not to mix at all and all want to live within the same groups of streets and not so willing (or indeed able) to sing the National anthem or indeed call them's British and proud of it .
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 11, 2016, 11:23:21 am
Yes, enjoying other cultures and whatnot is nice. And respect is a must, regardless of someone's background.
But as you said: europe is an awful place to merge cultures. We have a two thousand year old history of cultural conflict, and have reached a point where each of us have their own space and live peacefully (except for Russia, which is understandable). Cultures in european countries are very well defined.

Multiculturalism in the United States is easy, the country is less than 300 years old, brought up from a mixture of south american, european and native cultures. It's multicultural since it's conception.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 11:47:18 am
Fair comment from both of you about USA. I've never really thought of it that way either.

Another considering thing about the EU is their attempts to bring the middle east into the mix. I...don't even know where to begin with that being wrong.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 11, 2016, 11:51:04 am
Another considering thing about the EU is their attempts to bring the middle east into the mix. I...don't even know where to begin with that being wrong.
Again, after centuries of fighting them off, people now think inclusion is the way to go? It's ridiculous.

I'm all for helping people, regardless of background. But bringing millions of people of a radically different culture into Europe is not ok.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on May 11, 2016, 11:54:34 am
I have seen so many of my UK facebook "friends" hating on minorities and especially Muslims. It's disgusting and has lead to me unfriending a few people.

People are people, no matter their race or religious background. I wish people would be smarter and realize that the actions of one person or organization does not mean that the entire race/religion agrees with such a notion.

---

The US has its problems, just as every country does, but I am proud to be an American and am a firm believer in America being the world's melting pot. The more diverse the better.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 11, 2016, 12:16:00 pm
Ok Barry.
Although I don't recall anyone yelling out Allah Akbar and exploding in Europe before. Sure is fun to be inclusive.

I'd rather not get exploded on than letting these people come in.

btw, I have a couple of muslim friends, and they absolutely despise these terrorist acts (of course). As such, they also don't want these people coming in.
It's not about religion or race. It's about people that don't respect human life.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on May 11, 2016, 12:18:20 pm
Ok Barry.
Although I don't recall anyone yelling out Allah Akbar and exploding in Europe before. Sure is fun to be inclusive.

I don't quite understand your line of thought. Are you saying Muslim's should be banned from Europe because of the 2005 bombings?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 12:26:26 pm
That's not what he's saying Barry. We're talking about different cultures (not just religion) trying to mix.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on May 11, 2016, 12:42:25 pm
Well obviously I am not saying "Hey, let known terrorists live in your country!", but I was getting the vibe that if, say, al-Qaeda does something, all of a sudden all Muslims and people of those countries should not be allowed to live in the US or UK.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 12:46:08 pm
Oh, no, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the EU and it's idea of mashing everything into one across Europe.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 11, 2016, 12:48:57 pm
Ok Barry.
Although I don't recall anyone yelling out Allah Akbar and exploding in Europe before. Sure is fun to be inclusive.

I'd rather not get exploded on than letting these people come in.

btw, I have a couple of muslim friends, and they absolutely despise these terrorist acts (of course). As such, they also don't want these people coming in.
It's not about religion or race. It's about people that don't respect human life.

Actually the IRA is still the most violent terrorist organisation the UK has had to deal with.

Anyway we're not just letting these people in just because, these are refugees from an extremely troubled region. What would you think is the best option to help these people?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 12:58:30 pm
Short term, camps (yeah, I know), long term, sort the violence out at it's source. Not saying war etc, but it needs to stop.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 11, 2016, 01:10:54 pm
Short term, camps (yeah, I know), long term, sort the violence out at it's source. Not saying war etc, but it needs to stop.

Alright so we should place them in camps. Since the Syrian civil war has ran for over 5 years, should we expect some of these people to still be residing in camps? Can we really claim 5 years is short term?

Second how would we resolve the fighting, first of all the West wanted to dispose of Assad in the first place and put in a regime that has closer link with us than Russia. So now we no longer want to dispose of him and have Russian influence grow stronger in the Middle East. Would you then recommend we side with Putins administration and dispell any forces gunning for Assad's head?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 01:26:03 pm
To be honest, I'm not completely clued up on the subject, but I do know that a lot of these refugees actually fled from camps in safe zones as the BBC showed and that things are starting to look better. The attitude from the German PM (and EU) has been truly appalling in this and has led to escalating the matter. It's nice to say and think we can take them all in, but the simple fact is we can't. We already have a housing crisis in the UK and we're struggling as it is. Adding more wood to the fire isn't a smart move for them or ourselves. Then there's the security issues etc.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 11, 2016, 01:46:05 pm
The camps in the safe zone are only camps, it's not a good standard of living. They've fled because it's still harsh enviroment to live in, imagine if you're a woman on your period there?

Whilst we can argue if we will break our backs carrying the weight of the refugee crisis, we must then also agree that we are looking to allow the suffering of millions of people in a problem that is largely thanks to Western intervention in the first place.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 11, 2016, 01:50:27 pm
Barry, maybe you're not fully aware of Europe's current events. It's understandable. It is estimated that by year-end millions of middle east people will have entered Europe.
Many are refugees, but there are a significant number of bad people coming in as well.

The number of terrorist attacks has increased at an alarming rate in the past year. They are all ISIS related. It has nothing to do with 2005.

Aki, to be honest, I am in the same position as Tad. I don't have a solution.

But I know two things: one, letting everyone in is not a solution, and two, this situation wasn't Europe's problem until we let everyone in.

This is not our problem to deal with. We have problems of our own, this is just yet another burden on countries like Portugal and Greece, whose economy has the stability of water crackers
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 02:11:46 pm
I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "western intervention was the start". Things were never great in these places long before westerners got involved. Sure, we certainly added petrol to the fire, but please don't pretend things were great before then.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Aki-at on May 11, 2016, 02:23:28 pm
Can we really claim this isn't our problem? The Iraq war had decade long negative effects on the region and much of the growth of ISIS is thanks to our military interventions through out the years. The toppling of Saddam has had the exact opposite effect the major Western players wanted.

It's fine if we don't want to house the refugees, but then what is the course of action unless we are willing to admit that it's a dog eat dog world out there and for our own sake it's better to let Syrians live in suffering or in other cases be left for dead.

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "western intervention was the start". Things were never great in these places long before westerners got involved. Sure, we certainly added petrol to the fire, but please don't pretend things were great before then.

It's widely accepted, even by the likes of Tony Blair, that removing one of the powers of the region in the form of Saddam Hussain sent countries like Iraq spiraling into chaos.

Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. He was a dictator and monster but he at least allowed a level of stability in the country and that is undeniable, without the destruction of the Baathist government, ISIS would not exist.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 11, 2016, 11:59:16 pm
Let's not forget that one of these groups Saddam had apparently "stabilised" the country from had attacked a western city and seem to be growing as a direct result of it. Perhaps this lead to Western governments into thinking Saddam was losing control?

The problem with removing Saddam from what I can see, is it was never really the plan to begin with. We were rightfully after that particular group that had attacked America, but during the middle of it all, they went after Saddam too and as you said, this caused a power struggle in the entire area which we are still seeing now. It's a horrible tragic mess, but thinking about it now, I'm not sure it would have gone any other way sooner or later. Saddam and his government would have eventually been pushed out if numbers in these groups grew and we'd probably be looking at a entirely different sort of mess.

The problem we now have is Russia seems to be wanting another power government who will control the remnants of these sick groups while others want to just get rid of them altogether and install a real government. For what it's worth, I do think we're closer to the end now then ever before. The remaining groups seem to be a lot weaker than the one we went after at the start of the war.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 12, 2016, 04:36:42 am
I'm getting a bit tired of hearing "western intervention was the start". Things were never great in these places long before westerners got involved. Sure, we certainly added petrol to the fire, but please don't pretend things were great before then.

Horrible has it is to say, he world was far 'safer' with those dictators in place . This whole arab spring as just seen the world become such a more dangerous place.  The Iraq war and 'Call me Dave' intervention in Lybia were horrible mistakes and we are paying the price for it
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 12, 2016, 04:45:40 am

Many are refugees, but there are a significant number of bad people coming in as well.


Here's the thing many of them are't refugees but are in fact economic migrants looking for work and for a better future and who can blame them? . Trouble is Europe just can't not take in or cope with the sheers numbers . Europe has a ton of issues and problems of its own to sort out . With a unemployment rate if 20% for the EU and a unemployment rate of near 50% for youths in the like of Spain and Greece there's aren't enough jobs to go around .

The EU handling of it all its has been a complete mess from start to finish, the sooner were are out of the EU the better 
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on May 12, 2016, 05:52:32 am
Here's the thing many of them are't refugees but are in fact economic migrants looking for work and for a better future and who can blame them? . Trouble is Europe just can't not take in or cope with the sheers numbers . Europe has a ton of issues and problems of its own to sort out . With a unemployment rate if 20% for the EU and a unemployment rate of near 50% for youths in the like of Spain and Greece there's aren't enough jobs to go around .

The EU handling of it all its has been a complete mess from start to finish, the sooner were are out of the EU the better 
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Europe doesn't have the structure needed to receive these people, no matter how unfortunate their situation is.

If we had, it would be much easier to merge cultures and live in peace.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 12, 2016, 06:42:06 am
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Europe doesn't have the structure needed to receive these people, no matter how unfortunate their situation is.

If we had, it would be much easier to merge cultures and live in peace.

It's not just Europe not place on earth could with such numbers . But if you look back in History . The likes of the UK  had a terrible issues with poverty living conditions and so on in the Victorian  age and the like . Only when the birth rate came down to a average of 2 per family (instead of like 6 children) did the UK living standards and prosperity increase for the many and not just the few .

Africa (where most of the economic migrants come from)  needs to get a grip of its birth rate , that's a major issue. And instead of giving out pointless Aid to Africa the EU needs to open up its CAP to African farmers and so does the USA . That be a far better way to help Africa imo too  . I hope the USA and many others opens up their trade to the likes of Cube  has well


I sorry to generalise   a serious topic . I don't mean or wish too btw
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on May 12, 2016, 10:50:44 am
Let's not forget that one of these groups Saddam had apparently "stabilised" the country from had attacked a western city and seem to be growing as a direct result of it. Perhaps this lead to Western governments into thinking Saddam was losing control?

Because it's silly.

The attacks were planned in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government.
They were finalized in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government.
Al-Qaeda operated in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government.
Osama Bin Laden escaped Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban government.

Combined with the fact that Al Qaeda literally could not operate in Iraq until 5 months AFTER coalition forces deposed of the Baathists. Why is it Iraq's problem what Afghanistan is doing? How does blaming Iraq for this make sense?

There's a reason proponents of the war were so quick to move from "OMG WMD's" to "Think of the children!". Nobody cared to stop Iraq as it massacred 1 million kurds a decade earlier, even when the kurds asked for help. The only reason the world intervened then was because of the Annexation of Kuwait(Which Admittedly I thought was justified because agreements are agreements).

Why not Iran? Who was not only hostile to the US but actually BORDERS Afghanistan and has a history of funding terror groups? Or Lebanon? Or Syria? Or Lybia? There was never any direct evidence to support the theory that Iraq was under danger of collapse or was actively supporting terror groups. None of the government officials ever gave a direct answer on that, always skirting around with vague call outs and links.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 12, 2016, 02:50:40 pm
Quote
Why not Iran? Who was not only hostile to the US but actually BORDERS Afghanistan and has a history of funding terror groups? Or Lebanon? Or Syria? Or Lybia?


Most of the hatred comes from Saudi Arabia and sorry the USA has one of the  best record of funding terror groups . Be it the endless funding for the IRA or funding what went on to become Al Qaeda .


None of this will ever be sorted out until the USA puts a stop to what Israel is allowed to get away with. Which is such a shame as the USA does so much good, but never gets the credit for it
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on May 12, 2016, 09:43:26 pm

Most of the hatred comes from Saudi Arabia and sorry the USA has one of the  best record of funding terror groups . Be it the endless funding for the IRA or funding what went on to become Al Qaeda .

Admittedly my memory of the IRA isn't top notch, though If one is referring to programs such as NORAID, those were started by Irish Americans and largely funded through such shadow charities, not too dissimilar to the islamic shadow charities used to fund terrorists. However in both cases, a charity isn't a government and NORAID was largely funded by civilians and actively pursued the US federal government. It's one thing to say the IRA derived some funds from the US, it's an entirely different argument to say the US government funded the IRA.

The Al-Qaeda part is one of those myths that get oft repeated so much that people actually start to simply believe it. Usually in this case I'll get a link to Project Cyclone and some doctored videos, someone will mentioned Muhajideen and call it a day. All of which however ignores the context of time and details privy to actual events.

In this case, there wasn't a single rebellion going on in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. There were 2. On one side, we had a coalition of warlords and other ethnic groups who were native to the country fighting against the communist government. Many of the ethnic groups shared the same desires and goals as the US did in this situation. They actively supported women's rights, the right to self determination through democratic principles, the free market ect...The CIA had gotten a bit of a black eye for its work in Guatemala earlier and didn't want to be caught in the cross hairs again. Pakistan, fearing the soviet presence was a pre empt for an invasion of Pakistan, hooked up with the US and together they worked out a plan.

The US would provide additional funds to the Pakistani's, though the US was not allowed to dictate how the funds and equipment was dispersed. As a large part of Afghanistan is Pashtun like Pakistan was, they had a vested interest in supporting the local warlords, though did disperse plenty of funding to the other ethnicity on behalf of the US. During this time, Pakistan explicitly forbade US intelligence work in Afghanistan so the CIA only had about 7-10 contacts on the ground at any time keeping track of movements.

This is of course where things get muddy. Saudi Arabia had approached the US about funding it's own force of fighters, the Afghan Arabs, which were flooding Afghanistan from neighboring islamic countries. The US took one look at them and told Saudi Arabia that is was dumb and they would get no money because of the prevalent radical nature among their ranks. Saudi Arabia said fine and decided to use its own intelligence services to funnel money over. Meanwhile OBL was using his piggy bank of an inheritance from his family's business to fund himself and numerous islamic men set up charities in other nations to divert money over to the Arab Afghans.

The Arab Afghans were NOT the same as the native Afghan Rebels. Point aside, this little funding game went on until the Russians called it quits and the communist government fell. The CIA had kept tight watch over the money transferred to ensure it was going to the right places. While members of various tribes DID go on to join what would eventually become the Taliban later, the US itself never funded the Afghan Arabs which would eventually link up to form Al Qaeda.

One thing leads to another. The US leaves and stops bringing money into the country. The UN gets called in and the various peoples meet together to form a new government which is in a few short years overthrown by a Taliban force funded and trained by the Pakistani military. We still maintain a very good relationship with the peoples of the Norther Alliance. Shit happens here and there a bunch of crazy islamists now rule the majority of Afghanistan and their Pashtun heritage ensures that they get help from Pakistan who also helps build training camps for Al Qaeda. Eventually 9/11 happens, we tell Afghanistan to hand him over, they say no, we invade, Pakistan promised to stop helping Al Qaeda but continued to anyway, we find OBL and kill him eventually and piss off Pakistan but fuck them and now we are in 2016.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 13, 2016, 03:07:46 am
Its no myth the USA both armed and funded the Taliban  and it no myth that most of IRA money came from America . If there was one good thing that came out of 9/11 was that America finally woke up to what its like to live in fear of a Bomb in your homeland; That's the real reason the IRA stopped their campaign was because after 9/11 the funds started to dry up

Every country has plenty of skeletons in their cardboard. The way us British treated the Irish was and is a disgrace, us British invented what would go on to become concentration camp's and Call me Dave has helped to turn Libya into a failed state ; and no doubt we be subject of terror for decades to come thanks to it

The USA seriously needs to sort out Israel and how its allowed to get away with breaking almost every rule there is and the world needs to sort out the funding of hate that comes from  Saudi Arabia.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 13, 2016, 04:21:19 am
IMF have come out on the side Cameron with the EU. This is the same IMF who have been completely wrong since they've started up.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 13, 2016, 04:55:37 am
IMF have come out on the side Cameron with the EU. This is the same IMF who have been completely wrong since they've started up.

Yep pretty much .  They're part of the political elite set up
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on May 13, 2016, 11:31:19 am
Its no myth the USA both armed and funded the Taliban   

Which isn't what you said. I'll post what you said again.
Quote
or funding what went on to become Al Qaeda

Taliban =/= Al Qaeda. This isn't rocket science.

Quote
and it no myth that most of IRA money came from America

Again, I feel this is being outright semantically dishonest. "Money came from America" =/= "The American Government funded the IRA". I'd love to be proven wrong if such was the case, but as far as I've been able to research it has not been the case. Irish Americans =/= The White house.

Quote
The USA seriously needs to sort out Israel and how its allowed to get away with breaking almost every rule there is and the world needs to sort out the funding of hate that comes from  Saudi Arabia.

This is something I agree with fully.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on May 13, 2016, 09:23:02 pm
The USA seriously needs to sort out Israel and how its allowed to get away with breaking almost every rule there is
Haven't the Jewish people suffered enough?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on May 13, 2016, 10:52:36 pm
The Suffering of the Jewish people in the past is not an excuse for them to violate standing agreements and etiquette of the present. Just because they suffered in the past does not give them immunity from being called out on demolishing homes funded by the UN meant for the poor and displaced among other things.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 14, 2016, 06:34:03 am

Haven't the Jewish people suffered enough?


That doesn't excuse the actions of the 'Israeli' government with Gaza or its continued use of Illegal  settlements in occupied land.

Quote
Taliban =/= Al Qaeda. This isn't rocket science


Sorry meant to put the head of Al Qaeda .

Quote
The American Government funded the IRA"


Didn't quite say that, Not once did the USA government stop Sinn Fein countless fund raising  in the USA , even with the UK Government banning the likes Gerry Adams. The USA could have done a lot more a lot sooner to stop way IRA got its funds


 
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on May 14, 2016, 11:02:22 am

Sorry meant to put the head of Al Qaeda .


Apologies or not, it doesn't make you any less wrong for reasons explained in that little TLDR of the soviet war in Afghanistan. Nevermind the myriad of stories and books, written by both journalists and interviewers of Bin Laden.

I'm not denying that the US fucked up in Afghanistan, but it's pretty easy to deny something that isn't even true in the first place ala US/Al-Qaeda links.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 15, 2016, 03:16:23 am
I'm not denying that the US fucked up in Afghanistan, but it's pretty easy to deny something that isn't even true in the first place ala US/Al-Qaeda links.

Afghanistan has always been a mess, even in the days of the British empire . Now mountain fighters fighters of Afghanistan do not  all of a sudden get anti tank and helicopter weapons as soon as the Russians came . Indirectly the USA armed and funded the fight against the Russian forces in Afghanistan.

That's in the past , I thought the 2001 war in Afghanistan was quite just and the USA had every right to strike. The War in Iraq was totally pointless and illegal though we all knew and know that , expect for that baboon Bush
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on May 15, 2016, 07:21:55 pm
Afghanistan has always been a mess, even in the days of the British empire . Now mountain fighters fighters of Afghanistan do not  all of a sudden get anti tank and helicopter weapons as soon as the Russians came . Indirectly the USA armed and funded the fight against the Russian forces in Afghanistan

And again, for is probably the 3rd or 4th time, i'm no disagreeing with you. The CIA itself has admitted to operating in Afghanistan, we have had news coverage from the time covering the conflict, and even had some Afghan fighters visit Reagan in the white house. This is Fact and I do not deny this. What I'm trying to explain to you is that there is simply more to the equation/intention other than *All afghan fighters were Taliban or Al Qaeda*. That's it lol.

Quote
That's in the past , I thought the 2001 war in Afghanistan was quite just and the USA had every right to strike. The War in Iraq was totally pointless and illegal though we all knew and know that , expect for that baboon Bush

Indeed, I agree with you 100% here. Iraq was an entire waste of time for everyone involved and was only ever destined to make things worse.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 17, 2016, 02:41:34 am
Quote
All afghan fighters were Taliban or Al Qaeda*. That's it lol.


Fair point, but the same token quite a lot of the mountain fighters are not part of the Taliban . Many of them were just wanting to fight for their homeland against any outside invader.


Also baboons like Bush never gave these fighters any respect - what ever you think of them they were some of the bravest and most resistant fighters around  . The British Empire, The full might of the old Soviet union and indeed NATO have all tried and failed in   AAfghanistan [/quote]
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 17, 2016, 11:40:44 am
Meanwhile, Trump says he can't see himself and David Cameron getting along if he does become president.

Please America, don't vote for him. Not just for our sake, but for your own.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 18, 2016, 06:11:25 am
Meanwhile, Trump says he can't see himself and David Cameron getting along if he does become president.

And people say Trump doesn't speak sense lol. 'Call Me Dave' is a lying scumbag , I would find it hard to work for a man who lies, spins and stands for nothing
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 18, 2016, 12:50:31 pm
Out of interest, who would you want as PM?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on May 18, 2016, 01:35:23 pm
Tad, I know you're question was not directed towards me, but I hope you don't mind if I give you my opinion. I don't know much about U.K. politics because I live on the Starship Enterprise. Not in the U.K. I know he would have a very small chance of winning, but I would vote for Mike Nesbitt if I lived in the United Kingdom.

Now on to your comment about Donald Trump, he is a bad candidate. I admit that, but I would much rather have anyone than Hillary Clinton. A lot of people have said that if Trump lost, it would destroy the Republican party. The U.S. national animal is an eagle. It has two wings. A left wing and a right wing. It cannot fly without both. If the U.S. does not have a right wing Republican party, America will be in a war or a depression.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 18, 2016, 02:44:20 pm
I guess your stuck between a rock and a hard place with your candidates. :(

As for the UK...Nesbitt is only a representative in northern Ireland. They have they're own political system that's...well. It's joint with ours, but still separate. Same as Scotland, England and Wales really.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 18, 2016, 03:34:21 pm
Out of interest, who would you want as PM?

Someone who believes in and stands by what he says . I would love to see either David Davies or Dr Liam Fox .
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 18, 2016, 04:37:13 pm
That's a fair comment. Even if I, you or anyone else doesn't particularly agree with said person, at least you can respect them for sticking to their beliefs. Sure, some backtracking and realising they were wrong is fine, but the current government...yuck. They've had bad ideas from the word go.

Think what you like about the Lib Dems, but it's pretty clear to me without them the tories have proven to be utterly shambolic and disgusting in their attitude and ideas. The only reason they're still in power I suspect is due to the lack of stronger opposition. The tories are just tearing themselves apart at the moment on everything they try to do.

People had a lot of fun laughing at the demise of the Lib dems on election night, but fast forward to now and it's painfully obvious they were the better of the two in the coalition.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on May 18, 2016, 05:23:34 pm
Like I said, I don't know much about U.K. politics. I thought Nesbitt was running for P.M. in 2020 because of this Wikipedia article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election

I haven't really had much time to do research on any of those candidates, but I can tell for certain that I would not be supporting Jeremy Corbyn, if I lived in the U.K.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 19, 2016, 12:12:05 am
Corbyn is just a left wing version of Cameron from what I've seen. He's changed his mind more times then not on multiple issues and has only managed to split Labour on multiple issues. There's a lot of problems in Labour at the moment that are very troubling and run deep. They really need a good shake up and not one of those weak ones they keep having.

It's okay. That link means he's running a Northern Ireland party, but not for PM. The "UK" or "Great Britain" is effectively just a group of countries that are combined to share the same laws etc, but certain laws etc can be changed depending on those in power in that separate country. At this very moment for example, the UK as a whole is ran by the Tory (conservative) party. But broken up into separate countries and it's this:

England - Tory
Scotland - SNP
Wales - Labour
N.Ireland - DUP/SF

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on May 19, 2016, 12:12:34 pm

Fair point, but the same token quite a lot of the mountain fighters are not part of the Taliban . Many of them were just wanting to fight for their homeland against any outside invader.
Quote
What I'm trying to explain to you is that there is simply more to the equation/intention other than *All afghan fighters were Taliban or Al Qaeda*. That's it lol.

Huge difference in context of the the quote given vs my actual quote :P

Quote
Also baboons like Bush never gave these fighters any respect - what ever you think of them they were some of the bravest and most resistant fighters around  . The British Empire, The full might of the old Soviet union and indeed NATO have all tried and failed in   AAfghanistan

In this context I suppose it depends on how you define failure. The Soviet Union for example, almost never had control of more than 20% of the county at a time. NATO by comparison basically managed to drive the Taliban to brink of remote areas. Every Taliban offensive against NATO was a failure, and the only reason the Taliban have managed to win anything back, which I'll remind is their first major victory since 2001, is because they are no longer fighting NATO, but primarily the Afghan National Army at this rate.

That being said I tire of the subject so I'm just going to drop it. BACK TO PRESIDENT STUFF. Good Show.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on May 20, 2016, 04:11:47 am
Quote
Every Taliban offensive against NATO was a failure, and the only reason the Taliban have managed to win anything back,


No not everyone and I'm sorry Nato didn't hold on to all its gains at all. Thanks to the likes of British being undermanned and armed, but there again Blair and John Reid shamefully only set our troops in to help with reconstruction work . That Blair has so much blood on his hands its untrue

Quote
which I'll remind is their first major victory since 2001, is because they are no longer fighting NATO


The USA/Nato didn't win at all . The Taliban never agreed to drop their arms, never agreed to a cease fire at all; That's what tends to happen when your army is defeated. NATO and USA have just cut and run . It's true to say that the USA did smash the structure of Al though.

[/size]
Quote
Corbyn is just a left wing version of Cameron from what I've seen.
Not as bad, but almost . Corbyn hates Europe membership , but due to Party reasons doesn't come out and say so
Quote
Think what you like about the Lib Dems, but it's pretty clear to me without them the tories have proven to be utterly shambolic and disgusting in their attitude and ideas.

[/font]
[/size]Those Libs are the worst of the lot , They don't stand for anything at all and as soon as they get a smell of power they are there.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on May 23, 2016, 05:13:15 pm
Trump is actually leading against Clinton. Just go to the Realclearpolitics website.


Trump can win.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Clint Forrester on May 26, 2016, 12:31:46 am
Well the Dems are also still currently split between Sanders and Clinton. Once the primaries are over things may change. For sure though Clinton's reception has been lukewarm and people resent the way the contest was rigged in her favor right from the outset.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on May 31, 2016, 11:55:40 pm
I have to laugh when I see initiatives like this. All people want is to be treated equally. This does the complete opposite and puts them on a stand.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Moody on June 01, 2016, 12:47:17 pm
Obama has officially made June LGBT Pride month in America

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1226352

Cool.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on June 01, 2016, 02:47:49 pm
Trump: "I skipped the debate with Bernie Sanders because I was busy raising money for our veterans during Memorial Day."

Media: "Prove it, you lying racist!"

Clinton: "I had people killed and lied about my Emails being privatized."

Media: "No problem at all. Case closed."
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on June 02, 2016, 08:45:05 pm
Pcm92, do you really think Trump would suffer from Clinton's win?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on June 04, 2016, 10:13:19 pm
Who said anything about Crooked Hillary winning? Trump will win. He tapped into the anger of many Americans who are fed up with working two or three part time jobs to keep a roof over their heads.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on June 09, 2016, 11:40:02 am
So...how come Sanders isn't doing well? Whenever I see or hear him, he seems like quite a sincere guy who wants better for America. The other two though seem to be throwing every media trick going.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on June 09, 2016, 04:14:45 pm
So...how come Sanders isn't doing well? Whenever I see or hear him, he seems like quite a sincere guy who wants better for America.

It's nice and one thing to want things. It's an entirely different thing to be able to execute on those plans.

His vague answers on the his exact plans on breaking up banks, his holier than thou attitude in abandoning southern minorities because they wouldn't vote for him, A seemingly complete lack of foreign affairs knowledge after his disastrous Univision interview...these things tend to add up.

Probably the final nail in the coffin was when he went after Barney Frank. A man not only with a lot more accomplishments than Bernie himself, but a man who votes even more to left of Bernie on just about all of Bernie's issues. He's been the literal face of Progressive America for some time now and co authored the largest financial regulation bill in the history of the country.

While I became somewhat concerned with Bernie after the first 2 or 3 things, his little barrage with Frank quite frankly put me off of him almost completely. He's done some good in pushing a few issues out to the front, but I honestly am just not feeling the Bern anymore after his recent escapades.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on June 10, 2016, 10:45:08 am
Ah, I get it. The Lib Dems over here are similar. They have a lot of good ideas and mean well, but they are unelectable.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on June 29, 2016, 09:52:49 pm
I think Donald Trump is considering Allen West for his VP choice. It's obvious who Clinton wants. We still have to wait for the convention to know for sure. I'm a moderate and the only way for me to vote for Trump is if he chooses a good VP. Allen West would be excellent.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on July 20, 2016, 07:45:16 am
Trumps been named the Republican nomination then.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on July 20, 2016, 11:39:50 am
He is officially the nominee as of yesterday.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on July 24, 2016, 02:35:54 pm
Plot twist, the russians were right all along
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on July 24, 2016, 06:20:34 pm
What does everyone else think of Mike Pence and Tim Kaine?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on July 25, 2016, 05:46:20 pm
Trump just swooped past Clinton in the polls.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on July 25, 2016, 07:26:52 pm
The CNN poll completely ignores the 18-34 YO Demographic btw. Might have something to do with it.

Or rather, the margin of error was apparently too high to report with it. Still, a close race in a year drifting towards the DARKEST TIMELINE is....something.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on July 25, 2016, 09:19:51 pm
We may as well all vote for Trump. Let's laugh at his hair and get this whole civil war thing over with already.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on July 26, 2016, 01:05:53 am
Thankfully, he won't actually be able to do most of the things he's suggested (I doubt he can even remember what he said anyway). Regardless of his position, he'd still need to get his ideas past others before they can go ahead.

I think what's really worrying here though, is just how broken the democratic system is in the US. One of the richest men going who has said some disgusting and outrageous things has managed to get where he is...
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on July 26, 2016, 10:41:41 pm
It is also confirmed that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will make it to the debate stage. This will be very interesting. I think it will be very close between Clinton and Donald Trump. Let's just say that it will be Donald Trump as the winner because clearly it is what will happen.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: jonboy101 on July 27, 2016, 08:10:26 am
No idea where you read your news Spock, but Gary Johnson and Jill Stein aren't confirmed and nowhere near the 15 percent in polling needed to get on the stage.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on July 27, 2016, 09:48:52 pm
No idea where you read your news Spock, but Gary Johnson and Jill Stein aren't confirmed and nowhere near the 15 percent in polling needed to get on the stage.

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/libertarian_party_gary_johnson_debate_trump_clinton.html
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on July 29, 2016, 06:56:48 am
The Democrats must so desperate to tie Trump in to this e-mail hack that they seem to have forgotten that the Obama Administration's cyber security is complete shit (http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2015/06/12/report-new-government-data-breach-includes-sensitive-military-intelligence-personnel-data/#1288da6a2314).


And for Putin's influence can someone remind me again how Russia managed to get their hands on several american bussinesses (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html)?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on July 29, 2016, 07:18:50 am
I hope they both die before elections
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on July 29, 2016, 07:47:42 am
Sometimes during elections, you have to choose between a douche and a turd. 2016 just happened to be one of those years.

I've noticed that a lot of people hate Trump but never mention how happy they are with Hillary running for President... Like I mentioned, it's one of those years.


Edit: Yes I am aware that I'm quoting a really old South Park episode.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on July 29, 2016, 10:40:04 am
@Happy Cat Yeah, sad, but true.

It definitely feels like you're picking the best of the worst this time.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: jonboy101 on July 29, 2016, 01:43:19 pm
http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/libertarian_party_gary_johnson_debate_trump_clinton.html

That says may. It's speculation. The commission on presidential debates looks at an average of select polls to make its decision. He'll have to poll over 15 in several of them to balance out not being over 15 in others. He won't be in the debate. Neither will Jill.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: jonboy101 on July 29, 2016, 01:46:13 pm
Sometimes during elections, you have to choose between a douche and a turd. 2016 just happened to be one of those years.

I've noticed that a lot of people hate Trump but never mention how happy they are with Hillary running for President... Like I mentioned, it's one of those years.


Edit: Yes I am aware that I'm quoting a really old South Park episode.

I'm pretty happy with Hillary. She looks bad because she's been tarred and feathered for thirty years. I think she'll be solid.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on July 29, 2016, 03:59:24 pm
I loved Obama's speech at the DNC. I'm going to miss having him as president, he's a great speaker. Thankfully the presidential library is opening near my wife's work, so hopefully I get to meet him or hear him speak. I actually met Obama in 2003 at the St. Patrick's Day parade. I shouted "Ohhhhbama!" and he waved. That counts as meeting, right?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on July 29, 2016, 04:11:45 pm
Was it a "Hello there" wave in a friendly manner or in a "hello peasant" type of way?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on July 29, 2016, 07:50:03 pm
Oh totally friendly. The guy was the scrappy young hopeful future Senator, and was at the back of the parade. Looked like he was having a good time.

(http://www.crazywebsite.com/Website-Clipart-Pictures-Videos/Saint-Patricks-Day/Obama_Chicago_St_Patricks_Day_Parade_2003_Toilet_Plunger-1enlg.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Happy Cat on July 29, 2016, 11:48:20 pm
Obama is really cool. As I've said before. I'll be sad to see him go.

Anyways, things are about to get interesting. Especially since Trump has been heavily praising everything related to Russia as of late

Quote
The FBI and Justice Department are investigating a computer hack of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in addition to its examination of intrusions of other Democratic Party organizations, two law enforcement officials said Friday.
The campaign said in a statement that its internal systems were not compromised.

There is strong evidence indicating the cyber intrusion of the DNC was the work of hackers working on behalf of Russian intelligence, US officials said this week.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1255227
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on July 30, 2016, 03:09:22 am
I never understood why USA joining forces with Russia would be a bad thing for Americans. They are literally the only nation capable of kicking your ass, why not befriend them?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on July 30, 2016, 09:58:43 am
Russia has always been the manliest country. It's not the communist Soviet Union anymore, so I also don't see why anyone would think Russia is bad.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on July 30, 2016, 10:33:59 am
Think its because they've done little to really improve their image over the years. That and the high levels of corruption and allies with some less then nice people.

It's a shame really, as the people themselves are absolutely fine.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: JRcade19 on July 30, 2016, 11:09:47 am
I never understood why USA joining forces with Russia would be a bad thing for Americans. They are literally the only nation capable of kicking your ass, why not befriend them?

Because Politics. Bush Sr/Clinton and Boris Yeltsin all got along fine. Bush Jr/Obama and Vladimir Putin however are a much different set. Corruption and Nepotism is all bad and awful, but the single biggest driver of straining is the resurgence of a more aggressive Russia, with a government slowly slipping into a state of Totalitarianism. The fact that it has Nukes is just a bonus.

That being said Russia and the US already work together on a lot of things.

The most immediate would be the ISS and Near earth Space exploration.

Russia and the US worked together during the collapse of the Soviet Union in order to safeguard nuclear weapons and materials. Afterwards the US and Russia cooperate on the reduction of their Nuclear Stockpiles.

While opposing the Iraq war in 2003, Russia is a supporter of the War on Terror. It is active in helping the US patrol African coasts for pirates and lends support to US operations in Afghanistan and throughout central Asia. Both logistical and Military such as Spetznaz Operators working with JSOC and other forces(Intelligence and Geographical knowledge), training officers in those countries on Conter-narcotics and counter terrorism operations.

US and Russia also cooperate training wise. Operation Northern Eagle in Norway, Vigilant Eagle in Canada, and Joint Counter terrorist training in Germany between both.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Clint Forrester on July 30, 2016, 03:43:53 pm
I'm not an expert on Russia or Putin's history so I can't say for sure whether or not we should fear them as enemies, but I feel like the Call of Duty games have brainwashed an entire generation into believing that Russians are indeed our worst and most bitter enemies in the world.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on July 30, 2016, 10:39:11 pm
There are two words I would say to Hillary Clinton if I saw her in person. The first would start with "F" and the second would start with "Y".
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on July 31, 2016, 10:49:06 am
https://youtu.be/tLSy8Tl2bjs
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on July 31, 2016, 04:21:23 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5nwNfmkaV_I
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on July 31, 2016, 05:01:22 pm
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vOUi6WalHNI
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on August 11, 2016, 06:15:09 pm
I think people here in the UK have pretty much come to the conclusion Trump is actually just pretending to be dumb to get attention and votes from those that actually believe him.

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 05, 2016, 11:47:14 am
So, not long to go now, eh? I keep hearing Trump might edge it from the media, but whenever I hear an actual expert or professor etc talking, they've pretty much debunked the claim. I don't know much about the system in America, but they're saying something about the college? They'll stop it apparently.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 05, 2016, 01:58:58 pm
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a48894/trump-lichtman/
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 05, 2016, 03:01:29 pm
Huh. Interesting...bet he's a good friend to go to the bookie's with :)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Moody on November 06, 2016, 10:06:40 am
I'm pretty fuckin' terrified of this election, honestly. I'm not big on either candidate, Clinton doesn't fully line up with my views (though she hits most of them), and Trump is a giant fuckwit that has absolutely no experience in politics and only got this far on name alone. But Trump as president would be incredibly dangerous for the entire world. Every progressive idea we've had in the last fifty years would likely be completely undone, I have every reason to believe he'd start a new war, he'll probably completely trash the economy, and god only knows what he's gonna do with foreign affairs. Trump winning would send the world into a much worse condition.

Right now, all my social media stuff is constant urging to get out and vote for Hillary (as voting third-party would be tossing the vote away and just help Trump), and yeah, it IS important to vote, everyone should vote Hillary, because at least she won't be Trump. It's just stressful to be constantly reminded that an egomaniacal failed businessman non-politician could take the oval office.

As for his chances of actually winning, I hear a lot of different opinions. Some say he could win, others say he absolutely can't win. I take this is as a combination of opinion and looking at the numbers differently.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 06, 2016, 10:03:42 pm
So you both want the U.S. to be even more progressive? Like how? Full scale communism? I suggest you both just move to North Korea in that case. Also, saying that everyone should be forced to vote for her would be against United States voting rights.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 07, 2016, 12:37:15 am
The Electoral College could stop Trump: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/17/if-no-one-else-stops-trump-the-electoral-college-still-can-its-in-the-constitution/

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 07, 2016, 04:50:30 am
So America, land of the free, would force everyone to vote on Hilary just because the second best candidate is a douche?

Your freedom works in mysterious ways.
Even more so when we think that the constitution itself was written by men far worse than Trump as human beings.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 07, 2016, 07:58:34 am
Your freedom works in mysterious ways.
Even more so when we think that the constitution itself was written by men far worse than Trump as human beings.

One thing I do find odd is how some people say they can't get rid of guns as it's in the constitution yet said constitution has had numerous amendments.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 07, 2016, 09:08:55 am
One thing I do find odd is how some people say they can't get rid of guns as it's in the constitution yet said constitution has had numerous amendments.
The right to bear arms IS an ammendment.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 07, 2016, 09:30:55 am
It's a dumbass right.

Your whole constitution is shit. Someone should really write a new one.
Everyone talks about progress, yet you want to stick to 230 year old laws. That makes very little sense
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 07, 2016, 11:52:12 am
I never said I was progressive. The constitution is what the U.S. was founded on. If we abandoned it entirely, then it would have to be a different country. Ammendments on the other hand were written after the constitution and can be repealed. The right to bear arms in the country with the most guns will always remain though. It would start a war of the government decided to ban all guns.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on November 07, 2016, 12:07:41 pm
The US politics thread is full of non-US citizens arguing about the US, lol.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 07, 2016, 12:53:10 pm
The US politics thread is full of non-US citizens arguing about the US, lol.

Hey, we whinge because we care :)

Edit: Seriously though. It does matter. Like everywhere it of course has problems, but America is important to a lot of us.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 07, 2016, 04:45:21 pm
I am beginning to regret starting this topic because of how controversial it is. I will say one thing just to set the record straight. Hillary Clinton is just another Dilma Rousseff. Starving the American people to death while we keep hearing about her emails over and over is not something that I look forward to.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 07, 2016, 10:32:03 pm
I am beginning to regret starting this topic because of how controversial it is. I will say one thing just to set the record straight. Hillary Clinton is just another Dilma Rousseff. Starving the American people to death while we keep hearing about her emails over and over is not something that I look forward to.

From what I can gather, it's not a choice of picking who's good. Just one of picking who's the better of the two worst candidates America has had to pick.

In that contest, it's quite shocking that Trump is even in the running after all he's done and said. His tactic is nothing new either. It is however, very dangerous.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 08, 2016, 03:24:51 am
Americans could just....not vote
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 08, 2016, 03:28:27 am
America is important to a lot of us.
For the UK maybe. Everywhere else we just enjoy the shittalking
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on November 08, 2016, 09:20:13 am
Americans could just....not vote

People are free to not vote, but to do so means you really should shut the fuck up when it comes to the outcome and how things progress in the country. You can still vote and not vote for the candidate(s), though I am the firm believer of looking at each candidate and where they stand and voting for the one who best aligns with your views.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 08, 2016, 10:39:59 am
but to do so means you really should shut the fuck up when it comes to the outcome and how things progress in the country.
This a bullshit view overall.
If I live in a country and live under its rules, I have as much a say on what is going on as anyone else. Same way I can't say "fuck your rules, I didn't even vote".
You have the right to not vote, and doing so does not mean you wave off other rights. Not voting is a vote in itself, it's taking a stand of complete apathy for every single candidate.

Voting in someone just in spite of another is pure hypocrisy. It's signing your name bellow a set of rules you don't even believe in so that others do not get their way with what they actually believe.

America's stupid biparty system generates this issue.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 08, 2016, 12:26:26 pm
For the UK maybe. Everywhere else we just enjoy the shittalking

You really shouldn't though. When a big country such as America is making a huge change it can effect things on a global scale. Financial, security, military, trade etc.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 08, 2016, 10:59:33 pm
Wow. I think Trump really is about to win. Is this some type of revenge for reelecting Obama?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 09, 2016, 12:36:41 am
*wakes up and stretches*

Good morning worl- ohh my god!
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on November 09, 2016, 02:08:44 am
Wow. I think Trump really is about to win. Is this some type of revenge for reelecting Obama?

Well, look at it this way: the results of this election clearly do not portray Obama's 8 years of service in the most positive light. Still... I-I still can't beleive what I'm witnessing right here, right now...
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 09, 2016, 02:40:20 am
Now people are turning this against Obama instead of just admiting that Hillary blew the easiest election in US history?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 09, 2016, 02:43:08 am
You really shouldn't though. When a big country such as America is making a huge change it can effect things on a global scale. Financial, security, military, trade etc.
Spain has much more influence in my economy than the US.
EU countries are all interdependent, the US doesn't have that much of a say
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: CrazyT on November 09, 2016, 03:45:16 am
Now people are turning this against Obama instead of just admiting that Hillary blew the easiest election in US history?
When you put it that way it really sounds shameful. Damn
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on November 09, 2016, 06:56:58 am
Bigots won this election, and they are the most difficult people to get through to. Trump spoke to them, Hillary did not (and could not). Now we see if Trumps impossible promises were something his voters actually wanted or if they never gave a fuck.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 09, 2016, 11:57:29 am
A editor here in the UK pretty much summed it up a few weeks ago I think. "If literally anyone else was against Trump, this would be over already."

It is a bit worrying though. Regardless of country, there seems to be a return of right wing parties with an ideology I long thought had been stamped out. Sure, there's bound to be a few, but it seems to be growing in voice across the world. We all know those who don't usually vote are coming out in force again and at a guess, I think I know why.

These are the sort of voters who had long given up on voting as none of the parties seemed particularly bothered or willing to help those struggling to get by despite promising they would. Then, a long comes someone who's completely different and isn't afraid to say anything and not say the usual lines thrown out by politicians.

The problem is, they're simply believing a different type of lie and handing power over to an unkown. We've seen a rise of this type of politics across the world lately.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 09, 2016, 12:12:02 pm
You need balance between left and right.
The left isn't all-good nor is the right all-bad, regardless of our feelings towards both.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 09, 2016, 12:29:10 pm
You need balance between left and right.
The left isn't all-good nor is the right all-bad, regardless of our feelings towards both.

I completely agree. There's a center ground that politicians need to work towards. It's painfully obvious here in the UK that the lib dems (center) were the heart and brains behind our government when they and the tories (right) were in a coalition. As soon as that ended, we've had issue after issue from the Tories.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on November 09, 2016, 06:08:38 pm
I am not going to be biased on here anymore, but I have to know one thing.

Barry, are you still proud to be an American just like you previously said?

I wouldn't want to see that you left the country.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on November 09, 2016, 08:39:59 pm
Bigots won this election, and they are the most difficult people to get through to. Trump spoke to them, Hillary did not (and could not). Now we see if Trumps impossible promises were something his voters actually wanted or if they never gave a fuck.

Yep all of us Trump voters are bigots, every single one. My vote was just one big "fuck you" to Mexicans, blacks, women, muslims, gays, and everyone else Trump's platform isn't actually against. You tell 'em Barry.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on November 09, 2016, 08:59:31 pm
Hey, if you're mad, own the guy you elected. All of him. You support him? You support that shit.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: CrazyT on November 09, 2016, 09:13:52 pm
Yep all of us Trump voters are bigots, every single one. My vote was just one big "fuck you" to Mexicans, blacks, women, muslims, gays, and everyone else Trump's platform isn't actually against. You tell 'em Barry.
As a muslim I think the problem doesn't lie mostly with Trump's message in 'scapegoating' and pointing fingers at groups, but the followers taking it as a free pass to freely express racist remarks. I think if trump really wants to prove your stance,now that the race is over, he should reject and condemn that kind of behaviour. It is something he hasnt done yet, either becauze he doesnt see the problem with it, or because of strategic reasons in wanting the votes of these idiots. If it's the former than this dude is a big problem. There's enough hate around the world already but thankfully I dont experience direct racism in my country. I can only imagine how that would feel. It would be awful
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Mengels7 on November 09, 2016, 09:31:29 pm
Hey, if you're mad, own the guy you elected. All of him. You support him? You support that shit.

Support what? The non-existent bigotry the liberals won't quit literally crying over?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Barry the Nomad on November 09, 2016, 10:05:39 pm
As a muslim I think the problem doesn't lie mostly with Trump's message in 'scapegoating' and pointing fingers at groups, but the followers taking it as a free pass to freely express racist remarks. I think if trump really wants to prove your stance,now that the race is over, he should reject and condemn that kind of behaviour. It is something he hasnt done yet, either becauze he doesnt see the problem with it, or because of strategic reasons in wanting the votes of these idiots. If it's the former than this dude is a big problem. There's enough hate around the world already but thankfully I dont experience direct racism in my country. I can only imagine how that would feel. It would be awful

Even McCain, who I am no fan of, stood up to a woman calling Obama a Muslim. Trump though? He was happy to fan those flames.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: George on November 09, 2016, 10:19:30 pm
Is Trump racist? I don't know. I do think making that your whole campaign issue leading up to the vote was a bad call for Hillary Clinton. People might disagree but both candidates were bad. I truly felt that Hillary was not a great candidate and had huge problems, her ads should have been focused on the issues and her not being charismatic really screwed her.

Trump was really bad at speaking, I felt like a lot of his slip ups could be avoided. I think he brought that stigma on himself, but is he racist? I don't think he is in a sense, I just think he is like every billionaire that lives in a bubble where he was allowed to do whatever he wanted. Does he want to help out he common man like he states? Probably not, he is probably worried about his legacy more than that, but so is Clinton. But I think part of wanting to have a good legacy means that you have to leave the presidency in a positive light. He wants to be Ronald Reagan of our time. That isn't good, in my opinion.

Its really weird. I just wish in the end both candidates focused on issues instead of mud slinging. The truth is the DNC had a massive failure on their hands. They lost the senate, house and presidency. Where do dems go from here?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 10, 2016, 12:58:02 am
Support what? The non-existent bigotry the liberals won't quit literally crying over?

Non-existent? It's nonsense like that which scares me about some people. We have all the means to get the information we need about anything now and people still manage to come to the conclusion that it's just liberals moaning. It's exactly the same with the EU vote to leave. Anyone having legitimate concerns are now dubbed "remoaners". It's ridiculous.



Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on November 10, 2016, 03:32:04 am
I think it's important for Democrats to take a good long good at the past 8 years and understand the many mistakes they made along the way. "Bigotry won" shouldn't not part of this equation because if it does, then the Democrat party should also answer for their whitewhasing of problematic groups such as OWS and BLM. And these recent protests with flag burning? Not good. Regardless of how one feels about however won. Same with the recent bizarre California succession thing (which will burn out as soon as the adrenaline stops)


This is just my personal insight on the matter: Democrats have been proactive bullies for the last 8 years. Having institutional, educational, cultural, media and political power under the same roof(so to speak), created a climate in which the american left could attack and deligitimize without suffering any visible backlash. And after 8 years of an unreasonable amount of bullying, it's understandable that things turned out this way.


I'm just confused how the same demographics in Florida, Pennsylvania and such are now racist even though those states gave Obama 's 2nd term.
I would think Obama and Clinton angering Cuban Americans by essentially legitimizing the Castro Regime might have played a larger role in Hillary losing Florida. Or rubbing steel mill workers the wrong way in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio caused Hillary to lose those states. But like I said this is merely my limited perspective.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 10, 2016, 03:35:26 am
We have all the means to get the information we need about anything now and people still manage to come to the conclusion that it's just liberals moaning.
Do we have those means tho? Where do you get the information, the media?
The only way to do so would be actually listening to what he says without preconceptions and drawing conclusions.

A couple months ago I asked here: can facts be racist? If statistically blacks commit more crimes, am I racist for stating so? Is it racist to stop illegal immigrants?

Pointing out that some groups of people have certain issues that are more significant within their communities isn't racist at all.
What makes you a racist is if, based on those facts or not, you prejudge everyone from the same group, regardless if they are part of the problem or not.

Liberals (manyof them) believe that having a pragmatic problem solving attitude within specific communities is racist in itself. Most of the media is liberal.
So yea, most of the information you get over a subject is biased to make you believe anyone outside the liberal circle is racist.

As Barry illustrated, for him anyone who voted Trump is a bigot.
Same way all blacks are criminals (joke. Get the point?)
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 10, 2016, 04:23:40 am
Yes, we do have those means. The internet allows you to see exactly what Trump has said throughout this campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 10, 2016, 06:24:48 am
But that's the point. When you get into his actual words, it's pretty hard to support the "he's a racist" opinion without resorting to media propaganda.

The main issue is the media really. Most of what we read and hold as "truth" is just propaganda.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 10, 2016, 08:56:46 am
How is it "propaganda" when he stands on a stage and says harmful things? You can't blame the media for that.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 10, 2016, 10:25:40 am
I'm not going to ask "like what" for you to provide a list which I will rationalize at will, to your (justified) indifference.

But I will say that I do not find said harmful things worse than saying the USA should continue to provide weapons to Syrian rebels to spite a proxy war with Russia.

Both candidates sucked. Propaganda is believing otherwise.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 10, 2016, 12:13:52 pm
Sounds like you'd just make excuses for him in all honesty. Regardless, that still wouldn't be media propaganda. There's a huge difference.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 10, 2016, 02:03:07 pm
Like I give a rats ass about Trump or the US. I wouldn't vote for any of them if I was in the US.

That doesn't mean everything everyone throws at Trump is true. It isn't. Saying illegal mexicans are wrong isn't racism.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 10, 2016, 02:44:25 pm
Oh, I agree there. I'm referring to his more on the nose comments like women.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 10, 2016, 03:35:57 pm
Oh, he's totally a pig, no doubt
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 10, 2016, 05:55:18 pm
I am very pleased with Trump' s victory, but I sure as hell hope Julian Castro doesn't run in 2020. He is the only one who could beat him. Julian scares me.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: CrazyT on November 10, 2016, 09:46:54 pm
Even McCain, who I am no fan of, stood up to a woman calling Obama a Muslim. Trump though? He was happy to fan those flames.
He needs to adress it asap. I'm trying my best to be reasonable because I feel like trump is extremely unpredictable, as it should be expected from his business background. It is someone who will do anything to get shit done including lying and deceiving, hence I wouldn't put it out of the question that he may have said things solely to cater to groups as learning from analysts how fanatic said voters are. I guess this is wishful thinking but him not being part of establishment compared to Hillary, despite me being a muslim, will always get a huge plus from me. I wasnt a fan of either candidates but its pretty clear that one of them is the quietly sly one from my perspective. Experience has taught me that these can be the more dangerous people. Chances are that the things hillary was arguing against verbally, would be the same with her behind the curtain. I'm talking about destabilzing parts of the world for benefits and overall acting on interest and power gain for the ruling part of the world. Hillary really wasn't any better if you ask me. I can give Trump the benefit of the doubt if he starts adressing the division he has created.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Berto on November 10, 2016, 11:45:52 pm
For you guys who live in States..
Is this all true?

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

I didn't see any of this on television, but it's going viral on Twitter & Facebook so I kinda wonder.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: CrazyT on November 11, 2016, 01:43:31 am
For you guys who live in States..
Is this all true?

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

I didn't see any of this on television, but it's going viral on Twitter & Facebook so I kinda wonder.
Unsettling... what a bunch of freaks..
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Team Andromeda on November 11, 2016, 09:38:25 am
Oh, I agree there. I'm referring to his more on the nose comments like women.

Like Bill Clinton was any better ?  Most of the French Presidents shag anything that moves and have countless affairs and the less said about Silvio Berlusconi the better .

Most of them make Trump look like a saint tbh
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on November 11, 2016, 10:45:51 am
For you guys who live in States..
Is this all true?

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

I didn't see any of this on television, but it's going viral on Twitter & Facebook so I kinda wonder.
Yes, from 9th November on, all racism is Trump's fault
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on November 11, 2016, 02:39:59 pm
Like Bill Clinton was any better ?  Most of the French Presidents shag anything that moves and have countless affairs and the less said about Silvio Berlusconi the better .

Most of them make Trump look like a saint tbh

Ah, yes. Berlusconi. I remember him lol.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on November 11, 2016, 04:37:16 pm
For you guys who live in States..
Is this all true?

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

I didn't see any of this on television, but it's going viral on Twitter & Facebook so I kinda wonder.
Donald Trump is not the president yet. He will be inaugurated on January 20th. There are plenty of ignorant Americans who think he's already in office though.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 11, 2017, 02:10:58 am
He's not even in yet and it's looking bad.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on January 11, 2017, 10:48:35 am
Here's my two cents on the matter...


This post-election period has been frankly... weird.


Some people pestering the electoral college and congress to stop Trump from being sworn into office or confirm any of his nominations.
The whole "fake news" circus which could never accurately identify what was the fake news piece that somehow swayed the election in Trump's favor.
Several Trump-themed hate crimes have been pushed and many are of dubious origin / were fabricated.
In the same manner, the equally bizarre Neo Mcharty-ism that's blossomed within some members on the left, who genuiely beleive tooth and nail that Russia somehow played a hand in the elections, thus vindicading Hillary or something.
Just yesterday, this golden shower report that Buzzfeed got ahold of is comprised of mostly unconfirmed and unverifiable claims that somehow are being treated seriously.


It's been a mess.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on January 11, 2017, 12:06:44 pm
America has a bigger issue than Trump, the fact that so many outlets and people only believe in democracy if they like the candidates.

Trump got elected through the same rules as Obama or whatever. Good or not, it's the way it is. Unless people want left totalitarianism..
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 11, 2017, 12:24:32 pm
I'm going to guess he'll step down before his term is over. More and more will go on and he'll have no choice.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 11, 2017, 07:00:23 pm
I don't think he will step down because the house and the senate are both controlled by Republicans.

It's not really long until the 2020 election. I don't think Donald Trump will win the next election. Don't know who the Democratic nominee will be though.

I'm guessing either George Clooney or Joe Biden.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 12, 2017, 03:20:21 am
I'd say that's exactly why he'll step down personally. Like him or not, this has got to be having an effect on him and if he does step down, the republicans can just grab someone else in his place.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: max_cady on January 12, 2017, 03:23:31 am
Since the election is all but over, here's my final thoughts / rants on the matter:

I find it ironic that Democrats have been complaining non-stop about fears of interference from Russia during the elections because CNN, NBC, the NYT and much of the entertainment industry have done nothing but meddle in the elections to conceal one inconvinent truth, IMHO: Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate for the Democrat Party.

Barack Obama had done more than enough damage to the Democrat Party but Clinton was pure poison for the brand. Even her most fanatical devotee's who prattled on and on about how Trump is basically the Anti-Christ couldn't come up with a good reason she'd make a good president over Trump. That alone showed complete lack of confidence and enthusiam from her base of supporters.

And going back to meddling in elections, was Clinton ever asked any tough questions? She and her cronies were almost always never questioned about her problems with the Clinton Foundation, her time as Secretary of State under Obama (which I'm sure he regrets), the multiple investigations pertaining to her and a couple of her cronies. I find it ironic as well that an unconfirmed intellenge document with multiple spelling errors and wrongly named organizations is being paraded around while the DNC and Clinton's emails that were leaked (not hacked, but leaked) were initially shunned, barely reported, deemed phony and many people on Twitter and such have decided to highlight meaningless comments from the e-mail dump rather than focus on the very serious problems such as:

- Clinton's collusion with the Electors to throw Bernie Sanders under the bus;
- Clinton's Pay for Play scam while Secretary of State;
- Clinton's collusion with the FBI;
- Clinton's paid speeches regarding borders;
- Clinton admiting that the Iran deal was horrible;
- Clinton campaign's collusion with several media outlets (again, genuine interference);
- Clinton's problematic email server (deleted emails and communicated with Obama himself through that private server);

The only time I could recall Clinton being asked about any of this was in the very last debate about her paid speech in Brazil. Cue election and Trump wins big by getting Pensylvania, Florida, Michigan and a few other swing states (by small margins in a few of those). Prompting shock and outrage from the very remaining blue areas that decide to riot and break stuff in their own cities(?).

The rest is what we've all witness thus far:


- Jill Stein's publicity stunt to demand a recount on three key states in which she got more money than her entire presidential run and ironically helped Trump;
- The whole ask the electoral college voters to not vote for Trump (again, should count as genuine interference);
- The supossed peaceful transition in which we've witness the EPA throwing a massive hissy fit, intelligence briefings being sparsely provided and other weird incidents;
- Russians hacked the elections has become a permament fixture (she won the popular vote,remember?) and Trump is Putin's puppet or something (because it's possible to hack paper ballots and offline voting machines)
- Fake news, according to Buzzfeed, were shared more often than some of the more genuine articles but nowhere in this debate was there a clear example that swayed the elections in Trump's favor.


Regardless of how you feel about Trump, the undeniable truth at the end of the day is this: Hillary was a terrible candidate.


My advice for the Democrat Party right now is this: admit defeat, take a deep breath and think about what went wrong. So you can bounce back and be credible, hopefully without resorting to media and entertainment stooges.


The first thing to fix is the "anyone who disagrees with me is a something-phobe" or the more recent "You are Putin's pawn" everytime someone expresses doubts about Russia's role in the elections, certainly did no favors to Hillary's campaign;

Update: One final thing...


Let me get this straight, Trump isn't allowed to diss CNN but Obama's was allowed to treat Fox News like an unwanted pregnancy for 8 consecutive years.




End of rant, for reals this time.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 12, 2017, 05:26:20 am
I can't comment too much on it all as I don't live there, but it seems to me that it's not just democrats moaning. Even those in the republican party seemed a bit weary of Trump winning. Then when you move onto the person in question, you can't help but see why.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 20, 2017, 10:58:37 am
Well, that's it. Trumps in.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on January 20, 2017, 12:21:40 pm
Good. Is this the end of the media craze? I'm sick of american politics. Hell, it doesn't even affect us here
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 20, 2017, 02:59:18 pm
Probably not. I dare say, European leaders are going to be a bit itchy with what he does now. Heck, a number of policies have already been changed. They've cancelled climate change initiatives.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on January 20, 2017, 04:01:29 pm
I believe in global warming, but I also believe it is an overblown issue that is being used to force changes in the automotive industry. Changes that greatly benifit german and french car makers mainly.

I find that thought disgusting.

Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: pcm92 on January 20, 2017, 07:36:32 pm
I don't understand why Americans DO drive Japanese cars and Japanese people DON'T drive American cars.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 21, 2017, 12:00:47 am
France and Germany will always try stuff like that while they have the means. They sit very much at the top of the table within the EU and regardless of denying it, they always come out on top. Heck, the EU issued out a tax bill to other countries not so long ago...Germany and France got the lowest bill...funny that.

However, I don't think it's as overblown as you might think.

As for cars, it's like everything else, it's their preference and american cars don't appeal to Japan. I didn't think American cars were that highly regarded?
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on January 21, 2017, 03:44:34 am
American cars are big, loud and expensive.

Gas is expensive in most countries, and a 3L 400hp V6 or whatever bizarre engine American cars have sucks up crazy amounts of it
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on January 24, 2017, 05:06:04 pm
There is only one Democratic candidate that I would vote for in 2020. If Roy Cooper is not the nominee, then I'm voting for Trump again.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: crackdude on January 25, 2017, 03:41:31 pm
Kanye 2020 bbyyyy
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 26, 2017, 05:10:03 am
There is only one Democratic candidate that I would vote for in 2020. If Roy Cooper is not the nominee, then I'm voting for Trump again.

Really? He's only been in power a few days and he's going to do some really damaging things. Guess it needs to hit you before you want change.

On the plus side, Mexico are predicted to win gold, silver and bronze in the 2020 high jump.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Spock on January 26, 2017, 05:00:05 pm
Really? He's only been in power a few days and he's going to do some really damaging things. Guess it needs to hit you before you want change.

On the plus side, Mexico are predicted to win gold, silver and bronze in the 2020 high jump.
You whipped out that Mexican thing again.

I respect your opinions, but I think I should explain something.

I have no problem with the people of Mexico and neither does Trump. It's just that there are a lot of gangs from all over the world entering the U.S. through Mexico. These gangs range anything from the triads to isis themselves. Donald Trump is the only president thus far to understand this as a problem.

You say that it's a bad thing to oppose massive immigration and yet your country also voted against it with Brexit.

The U.S. is already trillions of dollars in debt and it's not easy to get a job here, so why should we give all our jobs away to millions of immigrants pouring in from Mexico?

The worst types of people in Mexico are being pushed into the United States by their government. Most of the largest suppliers of heroin, cocaine, and many other drugs are Mexican cartels that arrange to have Mexican immigrants trying to cross the borders and smuggle in the drugs. The Border Patrol knows this. Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border. The United States has become a dumping ground for Mexico and, in fact, for many other parts of the world. On the other hand, many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally.
Title: Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Post by: Tad on January 26, 2017, 06:13:14 pm
You do know that last part was just a joke, right?

I've said it before that I can't really comment on internal matters, however, things like climate change are a global issue and the world needs America to help in tackling it.

As for Brexit, it's more complex then just immigrants. The UK gets far more from countries outside the EU - which we can control - than in it. To be honest, it's so complex, I doubt we'll ever really know...though, I would say the media over here are more right leaning so there's that. I was actually in the mind we shouldn't of had the ref as I suspect nobody can really know the damage and the "better out" notion is nothing more then crystal ball gazing.

Regardless of country though, I do wonder if a bulk of the immigrants did go would the work actually be done? Would Brits, America's etc really find people at home willing to work hard labouring jobs etc for little pay? After all, that's how capitlism works.

I think that's the real thing people are sick of. The problem is, what's the alternative.