Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Dec '16 17:13
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Desu02EK2ck


    funny that clinton wasn't elected partly because she is in the pocket of Wall Street and Trump picks Wall Street reps for his cabinet, including someone who directly profited from the economic crisis.

    who was dumb enough to think that Trump, a billionaire (so he says) who takes pride in not paying taxes, who constantly stiffs his workers and business partners, will be the champion of the people.



    i have said that you can't paint all trumpettes as racist. you can however safely say that all who believed his promises are stupid.
  2. 08 Dec '16 17:19 / 1 edit
    promises he is not going to cut social security, medicare and medicaid.
    appoints tom price, someone who always wanted to cut these programs and worked for that goal
  3. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    10 Dec '16 10:45
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Desu02EK2ck


    funny that clinton wasn't elected partly because she is in the pocket of Wall Street and Trump picks Wall Street reps for his cabinet, including someone who directly profited from the economic crisis.

    who was dumb enough to think that Trump, a billionaire (so he says) who takes pride in not paying taxes, ...[text shortened]... trumpettes as racist. you can however safely say that all who believed his promises are stupid.
    "In a campaign commercial that ran just before the election, Donald J. Trump’s voice boomed over a series of Wall Street images. He described 'a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.' "[1]

    He's not warning us of something that has happened.

    He's bragging about what he will do.



    [1]"Trump’s Economic Cabinet Picks Signal Embrace of Wall St. Elite", The New York Times, Nov. 30, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/business/dealbook/trumps-economic-cabinet-picks-signal-embrace-of-wall-st-elite.html?_r=0
  4. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    10 Dec '16 10:50
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    promises he is not going to cut social security, medicare and medicaid.
    appoints tom price, someone who always wanted to cut these programs and worked for that goal
    Probably unintentional but zahlanzi posts some good news and something positive about Trump.

    Another thumbs up coming your way.
  5. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    10 Dec '16 11:52
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    "In a campaign commercial that ran just before the election, Donald J. Trump’s voice boomed over a series of Wall Street images. He described 'a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.' ...[text shortened]... /11/30/business/dealbook/trumps-economic-cabinet-picks-signal-embrace-of-wall-st-elite.html?_r=0
    Said it once, I'll say it again: Trump doesn't care about workers, wallstreet or anything as mundane as all that jazz.

    He cares about Trump and increasing Trump. Anything he says is either to promote Trump or tear down a threat to Trump.

    You've all seen him change his opinion about all sorts of things. That's not weird or hypocritical, it's him doing what he needs to to promote and protect Trump.

    A wall? He couldn't care less.
    Foreigners, workers rights.. he couldn't care less.
    Iran, ISIS... he couldn't care less.

    Unless it's a threat to him.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Dec '16 19:10
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    "In a campaign commercial that ran just before the election, Donald J. Trump’s voice boomed over a series of Wall Street images. He described 'a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.' ...[text shortened]... /11/30/business/dealbook/trumps-economic-cabinet-picks-signal-embrace-of-wall-st-elite.html?_r=0
    Apparently the CEO of Exxon Mobil who has exactly zero experience in any kind of governmental diplomatic post, but who is a good pal and business partner of Vladimir Putin, is Trump's choice for Secretary of State.http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rex-tillerson-exxon-mobil-expected-be-named-trump-s-secretary-n694371
  7. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    10 Dec '16 19:28
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Apparently the CEO of Exxon Mobil who has exactly zero experience in any kind of governmental diplomatic post, but who is a good pal and business partner of Vladimir Putin, is Trump's choice for Secretary of State.http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/rex-tillerson-exxon-mobil-expected-be-named-trump-s-secretary-n694371
    How much experience did Hillary have when Obama appointed her as Secretary of State? And what exactly did she accomplish other than padding her resume so that she could say, "I was Secretary of State"?
  8. 10 Dec '16 19:34
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    How much experience did Hillary have when Obama appointed her as Secretary of State? And what exactly did she accomplish other than padding her resume so that she could say, "I was Secretary of State"?
    Clinton had decades of political experience prior to being appointed Secretary of State, including a long tenure as Senator. But you knew that already - which leaves one to wonder why you would ask such a mindnumbingly stupid question.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Dec '16 19:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    How much experience did Hillary have when Obama appointed her as Secretary of State? And what exactly did she accomplish other than padding her resume so that she could say, "I was Secretary of State"?
    Quite a bit of government experience actually as well as being an internationally recognized and respected figure.

    Secretaries of State have almost always been such figures, not merely corporate buddies of the President and their favorite foreign leader. A list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_of_State_of_the_United_States
  10. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    10 Dec '16 20:00
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Clinton had decades of political experience prior to being appointed Secretary of State, including a long tenure as Senator. But you knew that already - which leaves one to wonder why you would ask such a mindnumbingly stupid question.
    The only significant difference imo is that she is an experienced politician. Politicians are like businessmen who don't necessarily need to accomplish anything other than acquire influence and (political) power for themselves.
  11. 10 Dec '16 20:02
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    The only significant difference imo is that she is an experienced politician. Politicians are like businessmen who don't necessarily need to accomplish anything other than acquire influence and (political) power for themselves.
    Yes indeed, the difference between someone who is experienced and someone who is inexperienced does tend to be experience.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Dec '16 20:21
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    The only significant difference imo is that she is an experienced politician. Politicians are like businessmen who don't necessarily need to accomplish anything other than acquire influence and (political) power for themselves.
    If you seriously think that the CEO of Exxon Mobil isn't interested in acquiring influence and power, I really don't know what to say to you.

    At least politicians are answerable to the People; CEOs are only answerable to other rich guys.
  13. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    10 Dec '16 20:31
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Quite a bit of government experience actually as well as being an internationally recognized and respected figure.

    Secretaries of State have almost always been such figures, not merely corporate buddies of the President and their favorite foreign leader. A list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_of_State_of_the_United_States
    Internationally recognized goes without saying, but I wouldn't characterize her as being universally respected.
    The term 'Clinton Fatigue' was first coined by Democrats near the end of Bill's tenure as president, and it particularly applied to those who knew or had dealings with (or were directly affected by) the Clintons.

    But putting that aside, I'm actually more interested right now in asking you a (non-confrontational) personal question. If you could go back in time before the election (knowing what you know now) would you have still voted for the green party candidate? I understand how green and independent pary voters influence the Democrat agenda and decision making, but if you knew in advance Trump would win would you have instead voted for Hillary?

    In other words, do you always vote your conscience regardless of the outcome? If you knew the outcome (in advance of the election) would you have still voted for Jill Stein?
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Dec '16 20:40
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    Internationally recognized goes without saying, but I wouldn't characterize her as being universally respected.
    The term 'Clinton Fatigue' was first coined by Democrats near the end of Bill's tenure as president, and it particularly applied to those who knew or had dealings with (or were directly affected by) the Clintons.

    But putting that aside, I'm ...[text shortened]... If you knew the outcome (in advance of the election) would you have still voted for Jill Stein?
    Yes; for reasons already explained on this Forum I could not in good conscience vote for HRC for President even though I think Trump will be worse in most ways.

    I have already voiced the opinion that a Trump Presidency might be better in the long run for progressive policies I favor than a Hillary Presidency would have been. I expect the Republicans to ram through a bunch of deeply unpopular policies (they have already proposed a Social Security "reform" that would slash benefits) that will eventually lead to popular backlash (though it will not be immediately decisive because of the anti-democratic measures put in place in many States) that will sweep progressives back into power.

    An HRC Presidency would have been a hopelessly deadlocked third Obama term that would have not served Progressive interests.
  15. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    10 Dec '16 20:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    If you seriously think that the CEO of Exxon Mobil isn't interested in acquiring influence and power, I really don't know what to say to you.

    At least politicians are answerable to the People; CEOs are only answerable to other rich guys.
    If you seriously think I have the same supernatural mind reading ability as you, I really don't know what to say to you.

    Not everyone who already has influence and power in the private sector is interested in having their personal life turned upside down and examined by morons under a microscope. Trump is not doing it for the money, nor is anyone else he's been considering for cabinet positions. Most of us already know what motivates most career politicians, so why would we want to be seeing more of the same from them?