Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '16 14:051 edit
    YouTube

    a wonderful piece on why the US deserves Trump v Clinton. (and later on, a very likely four year period of Trump)
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52853
    09 Jun '16 14:16
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBK1P00Nbw

    a wonderful piece on why the US deserves Trump v Clinton. (and later on, a very likely four year period of Trump)
    It was the best of times, it was the worse of times.....

    I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president but Trump? It seems there are no real choices, nobody pops out as presidential. I wouldn't mind Sanders but he would have to have both houses to get anything done.

    I am hoping people will wake up and smell the non-existent coffee of the present congress. What a bunch of asssholes. We need to clear the whole bunch out and start over.

    I am all for ditching democracy anyway. Install a system of lotteries. That way nobody will be bought out, at least for the first week🙂 Hey, Joe Plumber, you are now president.

    Could it possibly be worse than the horse pucky government we have now?
  3. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    09 Jun '16 21:47
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It was the best of times, it was the worse of times.....

    I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president but Drumpf? It seems there are no real choices, nobody pops out as presidential. I wouldn't mind Sanders but he would have to have both houses to get anything done.

    I am hoping people will wake up and smell the non-existen ...[text shortened]... ou are now president.

    Could it possibly be worse than the horse pucky government we have now?
    "I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president"
    why? because she lost to obama once? because she is named clinton? because she is a woman?

    you could have had elizabeth warren as the first woman president.
  4. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65528
    09 Jun '16 22:49
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president"
    why? because she lost to obama once? because she is named clinton? because she is a woman?

    you could have had elizabeth warren as the first woman president.
    What has the persons sex got to do with this position? Why do you feel it is important to define a person by their sex?
  5. SubscriberWajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    Provocation
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    65528
    09 Jun '16 22:501 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president"
    why? because she lost to obama once? because she is named clinton? because she is a woman?

    you could have had elizabeth warren as the first woman president.
    Would your choice when voting be swayed by the sex of a candidate?
  6. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Jun '16 00:00
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    What has the persons sex got to do with this position? Why do you feel it is important to define a person by their sex?
    nothing
    i didn't
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Jun '16 00:00
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    Would your choice when voting be swayed by the sex of a candidate?
    no
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '16 00:06
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "I think Clinton deserves a chance to show what she would do as president"
    why? because she lost to obama once? because she is named clinton? because she is a woman?

    you could have had elizabeth warren as the first woman president.
    But Elizabeth Warren didn't run... Clinton did.

    Clinton has resoundingly won the Democratic primary with a clear majority of support from that party.
    She clearly has flaws, and the voters chose her anyway.

    From where I stand she's a fairly standard centre right moderate fairly uninspiring manager politician.
    The world is full of them, they tend to be forgotten by history due to not really doing a lot and being
    boring, but that's no great evil. Obviously it's deeply frustrating for those who want great change,
    particularly for those on the actual progressive left, given they now have a choice between a moderate
    centre right president or a whacko-loonytoons-racist-sexist-mysogenist-loose-cannon president leading
    a super crazy far right/authoritarian/regressive/anti-government party. Which isn't inspiring.

    But that's what you get with a two party system.
    If the people who want a real left of centre progressive got their wish the factions in the Democratic party
    that want a moderate centre-right candidate will likely be equally upset. Both parties are made of coalitions
    of people who really aught to be in their own separate parties but can't be as there are only two.
    And the USA has a system designed to pretty much guarantee that that is always the case.

    However, when it comes to voting in December, [and bearing in mind that the President doesn't actually
    write the laws or the budget, although they do interpret and implement them] you have a choice of voting
    for a boring mainstream politician.... Or a total and utter catastrophe.

    There is no choice for any sane or moral person but to vote Hillary.

    Anyone thinking those two are equivalently bad has gotten so deeply lost in the weeds that they just cannot
    see strait.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Jun '16 00:32
    Originally posted by googlefudge to Zahlanzi
    But Elizabeth Warren didn't run... Clinton did.

    Clinton has resoundingly won the Democratic primary with a clear majority of support from that party.
    She clearly has flaws, and the voters chose her anyway.

    From where I stand she's a fairly standard centre right moderate fairly uninspiring manager politician.
    The world is full of them, ...[text shortened]... are equivalently bad has gotten so deeply lost in the weeds that they just cannot
    see strait.
    I don't know of any compelling reason why Hillary Clinton would be a worse US President
    than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama (which is not to say that I admired them very much).
    But Hillary Clinton has provoked more personalized vitriol than Bill Clinton received,
    and I have to attribute some of Hillary Clinton's 'unlikability' to sheer misogyny.

    "When it comes to voting in December ..."
    --Googlefudge

    It will be too late. The popular vote is scheduled for 8 November 2016.
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '16 01:10
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I don't know of any compelling reason why Hillary Clinton would be a worse US President
    than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama (which is not to say that I admired them very much).
    But Hillary Clinton has provoked more personalized vitriol than Bill Clinton received,
    and I have to attribute some of Hillary Clinton's 'unlikability' to sheer misogyny.

    "When ...[text shortened]... ..."
    --Googlefudge

    It will be too late. The popular vote is scheduled for 8 November 2016.
    Yeah, I know it's November, I remember thinking November... And landed up writing December instead...

    I obviously got distracted by something but I couldn't tell you what it was.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 01:262 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBK1P00Nbw

    a wonderful piece on why the US deserves Trump v Clinton. (and later on, a very likely four year period of Trump)
    I expect noting less from a government and society that has lost all their moral fiber as they continue to reject their Christian heritage well as being continually dumbed down by the public education system.

    With a $20 trillion debt, my only question is, how have they kept it together for so long?
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    10 Jun '16 03:02
    Originally posted by whodey
    I expect noting less from a government and society that has lost all their moral fiber as they continue to reject their Christian heritage well as being continually dumbed down by the public education system.

    With a $20 trillion debt, my only question is, how have they kept it together for so long?
    That is because you are ignorant of history as well as economics and morality.

    The absolute size of the debt is not a problem, the USA does not have [as a nation] a debt problem.
    One way you can tell is the ludicrously low interest rates your government still gets for borrowing more.
    What matters is how big the debt is relative to your ability to keep up with payments, the size of
    your economy. And on those terms your debt is not a problem.
    I mean it's generally better to have a smaller debt than a larger one, but not always, and there are
    far more important considerations... That money was borrowed FOR something after all.

    I expect noting less from a government and society that has lost all their moral fiber as they continue to reject their Christian heritage well as being continually dumbed down by the public education system.


    And yet all the moral improvements in your country are in removing and replacing the immoral practices
    and beliefs of your religious 'heritage'. The failures of your education system are vastly the fault of the
    republican party and those religions that YOU support. And that your country was founded by secularists
    who wanted religions as far removed from politic and ethics as they could possibly get them.
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jun '16 03:04
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    That is because you are ignorant of history as well as economics and morality.

    The absolute size of the debt is not a problem, the USA does not have [as a nation] a debt problem.
    One way you can tell is the ludicrously low interest rates your government still gets for borrowing more.
    What matters is how big the debt is relative to your ability to ke ...[text shortened]... s
    who wanted religions as far removed from politic and ethics as they could possibly get them.
    I see, so the failure of the education system is due to religion and the GOP and the US does not have a debt problem at $20 trillion.


    Thanks for that.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Jun '16 06:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    I see, so the failure of the education system is due to religion and the GOP and the US does not have a debt problem at $20 trillion.


    Thanks for that.
    The US federal debt is comparable to a car plant worker having a $50k mortgage, except with a much lower interest rate. We've explained this ad nauseam.
  15. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Jun '16 08:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    I expect noting less from a government and society that has lost all their moral fiber as they continue to reject their Christian heritage well as being continually dumbed down by the public education system.

    With a $20 trillion debt, my only question is, how have they kept it together for so long?
    "With a $20 trillion debt,"
    you have no idea how national debt works.
Back to Top