Seriously, why do you think Trump is a better candidate?

[Dakota 4722]

3 minutes ago, fignig said:

Pucker up kid, your argument bouta get TOBEEB'd

How did a 4 post nobody get a title and get away with naming himself fignig

 

And he isn't making a good argument because he is still avoiding climate change which is what mine is based on. He's stuck on the unfortunate side effect of industry changes. The only article he posted that was relevant was the last one. The first is just facts he already presented and the second is the breaking news that solar panels aren't advanced enough to be highly effective.

[Tribadissm 0]

3 minutes ago, Beerman said:

How did a 4 post nobody get a title and get away with naming himself fignig

Not an argument

[fig 11]

12 minutes ago, Beerman said:

How did a 4 post nobody get a title and get away with naming himself fignig

Im da bes

 

How did someone with incredible double-standards and a terrible racist biased mind get admin?

 

Also, racist,

fignig stands for figniggard, look it up.

 

refer to my signature. have nice day

[TOBEEB 50]

49 minutes ago, Beerman said:

 

 

 

 

First off, why should I consider the coal mining families at all? I'm thinking about my future kids and grandkids. Fuck those people. I don't see milkmen driving around anymore, economies change and jobs become obsolete. Coal miners? That's a job I can deal with being deemed unnecessary. And I wasn't being an asshole when I said I hope they get a new job.

 

 

Secondly, I don't care about our environment in a tree hugging kind of way. The earth will still be here regardless of what we do to it, I just want to make it so humans can still be here too.

 

 

Quote

@tobeeb The Earth doesn't care about our jobs you realize that right?

 

Not quite sure, but it seems like you have it in your mind that I'm advocating for a total shutdown of coal and a rampant increase of spending on alternative energy sources as soon as the election is over. As if all of this wouldn't take decades to accomplish.

I wonder how I got that in my head.

[Dakota 4722]

Those two quotes don't show any indication of a time frame. And yes, I do hope someday coal mining is deemed unnecessary. So again, you're grasping for a wrapped rationale that I'm not even presenting.

And yeah dude. The Earth doesn't care about our jobs. The Earth can wind up like Venus and be perfectly content in its existence.

[TOBEEB 50]

5 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Those two quotes don't show any indication of a time frame. And yes, I do hope someday coal mining is deemed unnecessary. So again, you're grasping for a wrapped rationale that I'm not even presenting.

And yeah dude. The Earth doesn't care about our jobs. The Earth can wind up like Venus and be perfectly content in its existence.

Ah.

 

Okay look, it's clear that you are concerned with global warming...

 

http://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/deforestation.html

https://www.carbonbrief.org/deforestation-in-the-tropics-affects-climate-around-the-world-study-finds

http://www.eartheclipse.com/climate-change/how-does-deforestation-affect-climate-change.html

 

...and understand your concern; however, I feel it is misguided in the fact that it considers coal to be the major issue. I would like to discuss this further, but I have to go, so I'll leave you with this: deforestation is more of a concern than the carbon footprint caused by coal (a natural element that we have been using for a very long time).

[BananaPeelz 709]

1 hour ago, TOBEEB said:

Ah.

 

Okay look, it's clear that you are concerned with global warming...

 

http://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/deforestation.html

https://www.carbonbrief.org/deforestation-in-the-tropics-affects-climate-around-the-world-study-finds

http://www.eartheclipse.com/climate-change/how-does-deforestation-affect-climate-change.html

 

...and understand your concern; however, I feel it is misguided in the fact that it considers coal to be the major issue. I would like to discuss this further, but I have to go, so I'll leave you with this: deforestation is more of a concern than the carbon footprint caused by coal (a natural element that we have been using for a very long time).

 

You do realize that none of those links actually supports your assertion that deforestation contributes more to our carbon footprint than carbon emissions from burning coal right? I won't disagree with the notion that deforestation is a huge contributor to anthropogenic climate change, but burning coal accounts for 44% of global carbon emissions and the second article you linked states that deforestation results in only a quarter of that. And even if your statement is true, so what? Just because there is a greater contributor to climate change doesn't mean we should be ignoring smaller contributors to the problem (and coal is a very significant cause of climate change). It's also a pretty shitty argument to make that we should be fine with coal just because we've been using it for a while and it's natural. There's plenty of naturally occurring elements and compounds that we don't touch because they're super dangerous to human health (plutonium, mercury, arsenic, etc.) and there's overwhelming amounts of evidence that show burning coal has been very harmful to our environment.

The simple truth is that coal jobs are not coming back and the number of people employed by the coal industry is going to keep declining, just as it has done since 1923. Hell, mechanization has killed more coal jobs than treehugging liberals like myself could have ever dreamed of. Our economy is shifting away from coal, for both economic and environmental reasons (but mostly economic), and the harsh truth is that the 0.1% of Americans employed by the coal industry are going to need to find different jobs. The job market and economy is constantly changing due to innovation and competition. Coal jobs are being killed because it's now cheaper to power our plants with natural gas because of the fracking and shale gas boom. Stagecoach jobs no longer exist because the railroad and automobile industries grew to prominence. Hopefully the job market will transition from coal and natural gas to renewable sources of energy in the near future. Fortunately humans are not horses and are able to transition to new fields of work and learn new skills, which is why I'm in favor of retraining programs and a safety net. And while I'm sympathetic to the people who will lose their jobs because of the shifts in the market, I'd much rather the government pay for ways to get them back into employment than have to pay to deal with the consequences of climate change. 

[fig 11]

28 minutes ago, BananaPeelz said:

 

You do realize that none of those links actually supports your assertion that deforestation contributes more to our carbon footprint than carbon emissions from burning coal right? I won't disagree with the notion that deforestation is a huge contributor to anthropogenic climate change, but burning coal accounts for 44% of global carbon emissions and the second article you linked states that deforestation results in only a quarter of that. And even if your statement is true, so what? Just because there is a greater contributor to climate change doesn't mean we should be ignoring smaller contributors to the problem (and coal is a very significant cause of climate change). It's also a pretty shitty argument to make that we should be fine with coal just because we've been using it for a while and it's natural. There's plenty of naturally occurring elements and compounds that we don't touch because they're super dangerous to human health (plutonium, mercury, arsenic, etc.) and there's overwhelming amounts of evidence that show burning coal has been very harmful to our environment.

The simple truth is that coal jobs are not coming back and the number of people employed by the coal industry is going to keep declining, just as it has done since 1923. Hell, mechanization has killed more coal jobs than treehugging liberals like myself could have ever dreamed of. Our economy is shifting away from coal, for both economic and environmental reasons (but mostly economic), and the harsh truth is that the 0.1% of Americans employed by the coal industry are going to need to find different jobs. The job market and economy is constantly changing due to innovation and competition. Coal jobs are being killed because it's now cheaper to power our plants with natural gas because of the fracking and shale gas boom. Stagecoach jobs no longer exist because the railroad and automobile industries grew to prominence. Hopefully the job market will transition from coal and natural gas to renewable sources of energy in the near future. Fortunately humans are not horses and are able to transition to new fields of work and learn new skills, which is why I'm in favor of retraining programs and a safety net. And while I'm sympathetic to the people who will lose their jobs because of the shifts in the market, I'd much rather the government pay for ways to get them back into employment than have to pay to deal with the consequences of climate change. 

 

Actually, TOBEEB's articles found that deforestation causes 11% of global warming just from the trees not being there. This article also points at an unaccounted factor, which is presumably very large. I am assuming you know this because you are a self-proclaimed treehugger, but CO2 gas is "locked up" by plants using photosynthesis. Obviously, if a very large portion of these trees that used to be there to photosynthesize are no longer there to do so, you are going to have a very big problem very fast.

 

I think that deforestation caused the coal issue to be a way bigger problem, because now, not only is the CO2 being produced and released into the atmosphere, but less trees are there to stop this greenhouse gas effect. With that, I concede. Your viewpoint was interesting, and I have no source.

 

[TOBEEB 50]

6 hours ago, BananaPeelz said:

 

You do realize that none of those links actually supports your assertion that deforestation contributes more to our carbon footprint than carbon emissions from burning coal right? I won't disagree with the notion that deforestation is a huge contributor to anthropogenic climate change, but burning coal accounts for 44% of global carbon emissions and the second article you linked states that deforestation results in only a quarter of that. And even if your statement is true, so what? Just because there is a greater contributor to climate change doesn't mean we should be ignoring smaller contributors to the problem (and coal is a very significant cause of climate change). It's also a pretty shitty argument to make that we should be fine with coal just because we've been using it for a while and it's natural. There's plenty of naturally occurring elements and compounds that we don't touch because they're super dangerous to human health (plutonium, mercury, arsenic, etc.) and there's overwhelming amounts of evidence that show burning coal has been very harmful to our environment.

The simple truth is that coal jobs are not coming back and the number of people employed by the coal industry is going to keep declining, just as it has done since 1923. Hell, mechanization has killed more coal jobs than treehugging liberals like myself could have ever dreamed of. Our economy is shifting away from coal, for both economic and environmental reasons (but mostly economic), and the harsh truth is that the 0.1% of Americans employed by the coal industry are going to need to find different jobs. The job market and economy is constantly changing due to innovation and competition. Coal jobs are being killed because it's now cheaper to power our plants with natural gas because of the fracking and shale gas boom. Stagecoach jobs no longer exist because the railroad and automobile industries grew to prominence. Hopefully the job market will transition from coal and natural gas to renewable sources of energy in the near future. Fortunately humans are not horses and are able to transition to new fields of work and learn new skills, which is why I'm in favor of retraining programs and a safety net. And while I'm sympathetic to the people who will lose their jobs because of the shifts in the market, I'd much rather the government pay for ways to get them back into employment than have to pay to deal with the consequences of climate change. 

I understand what you're getting at, but I disagree completely. Here's why:

 

Global warming is an issue, yes; however, the effects that it will have on us are unknown and, in spite of whatever stance I appeared to take, is not of real concern to me. Even if it was, there's nothing we can do about it in the United States that would make much of a difference. Coal mining isn't an issue taking place in just the US. Yes, we are a large consumer of coal; however, we only consume 12% of all coal worldwide. China consumes 43% and you don't find that their One-Party state is going to change that any time soon. The end goal to better the planet by cutting back coal mining (not consumption) in the U.S. is actually just a fruitless endeavor that isn't going to do much good. In the end, you're just destroying jobs that are responsible for exporting 8% of the entire world's coal power (and adversely affecting any revenue that would be generated by them).

 

Now, let's also address that fact that these hundreds of thousands of workers would need a different job. I don't know if you're aware, but the job market isn't exactly very open. To assume that you can create a program that would address the needs of 100k+ people is absolutely ridiculous. You would need to fund the program and it's workers, and prep these used-to-be coal miners to take on a field independent of the government, because otherwise, you're just blowing more tax dollars by having them work government jobs. This would mean one of two things: either send them to college or let them rot on the streets as they struggle to find a different source of income. Put simply, it isn't a very viable option and would make our homeless persons issue none the better.

 

Now, let's also address two other things: natural gas as a source for energy, and clean energy. Natural gas is a good substitute for coal being as it is easy to obtain and would create jobs in our current market. Fracking and drilling for oil in general provides good sources of energy and for businesses to grow and expand the current industry. Now, from your perspective as an environmentalist (I'm assuming you are being as you stated your liberal ideologies), this obviously isn't a valid solution in terms of protecting the environment either. Drilling is a risky business and spills happen (look at the BP spill). This has an adverse effect on any wildlife that may be present as it can be damaging to ecosystems. Not to mention, natural gas still leaves a decent carbon footprint and thus wouldn't help the case if natural gas just ends up becoming the leading contributor.

 

Clean energy seems to be the only viable option for the environment, right? Well, what about the current government expenditure and the cost of building solar farms? We need to look at some numbers. A solar farm costs $500,000 per acre of land and to have more clean energy we would need to have roughly 1.5 million acres dedicated to solar farms. That is the size of Delaware just in acreage. This alone would cost a total whopping expenditure of 2.4 trillion dollars. Bear in mind, this is only to outright replace coal with clean energy. To have completely clean energy via solar farms would cost roughly 7.5 trillion. Let's take another factor into account now: we do not, at this current juncture, possess an effective way to store electrical energy. Batteries take up too much space for how much storage they offer. Not only that, but they are also expensive and very poor for the environment in of themselves.

 

Okay, so solar panels are out of the question in our current state of technological advancement and government budgeting. So what about wind turbines? Are they viable? Short answer: no. Long answer: wind turbines are an inefficient way of producing energy in the first place and lack the electric potential that solar panels possess. They are also more costly and take up much more space. Another huge factor with wind turbines is that they start to lose energy over distance. This is due to the plain and simple fact that wind is a physical phenomenon. As the wind transfers energy to the turbines, it loses it's effectiveness over other turbines and so forth.

 

And to just quickly write off hydro-plants: There are too few sources of hydro energy capable rivers to provide for America's massive energy consumption. On top of that, they are costly to maintain and build.

 

Let's put it like this: if getting rid of coal outright is plausible and also possible, why hasn't it been done yet?

 

Food for thought.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/replacing-coal-with-clean-energy-let-me-count-the-ways

http://innovativesolarfarms.com/solar-farm-cost-per-acre/

http://www.mining-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-biggest-coal-consumers-4353695/

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_1

 

 

 

 

[UnknownLegend 5480]

Wait, are you guys actually taking the alt-right /pol/ trollbait? 

 

Let's just bring back CC90 and Secure to start trolling you guys too.  At least they were openly neo-Nazis.

[Carl Sagan 2577]

you guys are dumb nuclear power is by far the cleanest source of energy no contest

[fig 11]

6 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

you guys are dumb nuclear power is by far the cleanest source of energy no contest

 

I have said in earlier posts I agree

 

7 hours ago, Junzou said:

Wait, are you guys actually taking the alt-right /pol/ trollbait? 

 

Let's just bring back CC90 and Secure to start trolling you guys too.  At least they were openly neo-Nazis.

 

Can't actually tell if you have legitimate retardation or not.

[TOBEEB 50]

6 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

you guys are dumb nuclear power is by far the cleanest source of energy no contest

Nuclear power is definitely the best option in terms of cost effectiveness. Unfortunately, the general public is under the impression that nuclear = bad.

[fig 11]

Nuclear power is clean energy, it is very efficient, and already makes up a fairly sizable percent of this country's energy production. It has two problems, one being waste. Nuclear waste is a big problem, right? Well, nuclear power is the only large scale energy producing technology that takes full responsibility for all it's wastes and fully costs this into the product. Also, comparatively speaking, the amount of nuclear reactor waste or decaying material that has to be cooled (HLW) is tiny compared to the burning of fossil fuels. Also, this is assuming that the waste is even treated as a waste and not a resource. I'm sure you are aware that decaying material produces heat, which can be used to produce steam which can be used to generate energy. And, if the waste material is used as a waste, it is much easier to treat, manage, and is not particularly hazardous compared to the burning of fossil fuels. As far as final disposal of the material goes, safe disposal methods have already been proven and internationally it has been decided to use geological disposal.

 

Now the other problem, which is a much bigger problem, is price. A complete nuclear reactor ready-to-go is estimated at a round $9,000,000,000. This price, like I said, already includes waste disposal and deuterium pools. This price is not very steep and very efficient compared to solar energy, however, one may argue that solar energy can be deployed easier if people install it on their homes using their own money.

 

The only other thing that I can think of going against nuclear energy is mainstream fear of meltdowns by people who literally know nothing about what a nuclear reactor is (and how they can fail), and only know about meltdowns in the past.

 

Clean, green energy is the future. This is inarguable. However, like TOBEEB said, it is not the now. And taking into account current price and economic reasons to not get rid of fossil fuels, and incentives to not replace them given to republican and democratic nominees this year, I would say that clean energy is not in the next 4 years, at least here. Europe, especially Germany, is adopting new forms of energy currently despite the price, because the price for green energy in those countries is currently less than it is to import fossil fuels that Europe hasn't had since long ago.

 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

I'm not going to read everyones argument because I can feel the cancer seeping in from the randoms. I come from a coal area though in northeast Pennsylvania. Our entire economy was built up around it and eventually the mining destroyed basically all the land around the town I grew up years before I was born. It also meant we had a massive share of the workforce with no education that the moment the coal company decided to move/get outta the business the local economy collapsed. We should gradually begin moving in the direction of renewable energy with nuclear being used as the bridge. Relying on coal is simply setting the stage for further environmental impact as well as the downfall of coal communities because they never have a backup plan.

[Ian 325]

On 10/12/2016 at 2:12 PM, ZachPL said:

The ACA would have been fairly different if it wasn't from republican opposition at the time which led them to compromise to get the bill passed, we likely wouldn't be running into as many issues as we have now. Obviously some things need to be changed, but starting back from square one and removing 20 mil people who have health insurance under the act would only cause more harm than good.

 

Original ACA draft banned MAC pricing? It included pricing for prescription drugs and lab testing other than AWP? That's news to me. Like I said before, there are Americans who will be starting back from square one no matter what. Bloomberg published this great article recently show that insurers leaving the marketplace will result in more than a million Americans losing their coverage.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-14/more-than-1-million-in-obamacare-to-lose-plans-as-insurers-quit

 

 

[< FoxCom > 18]

The thing is I do understand why people would elect Trump, because of his supposed honesty and the fact that he tends to appeal to fears and desires that people are too timid to express because their controversial, like immigration and such. But the main problem is the he has no experience and this election is about capability, not a popularity contest or who is best liked. Imagine that its like a noob on CS:GO vs. a hacker. Maybe you hate the hacker (Hillary and hacker both start with an H coincidence I think not) and maybe you put your money on the noob just to spite the other guy, but in the end you still have to pick the hacker for your team in a tournament because even if he cheats, he gets the job done and is probably still a decent player without them, and he KNOWS the game inside and out. No matter how much you like the noob, he just won't play properly and you would never invite him onto your team if you were being practical. That's like the election now. Hillary may cut corners and walk the fine lines but in the end she has more than 35 years of experience in politics to Trump's zero. And if you argue that Trump ran a company and therefore he can run a country, because one is basically the scale model of the other...well that's just not true. They're completely different. That's like comparing a guy who builds computers all day to a guy who builds advanced AI rockets and shuttles. One has far more impact and complexity than the other, no matter how complex the first one seems at face value. Plus, I bet Trump doesn't really even care all that much if he wins or loses. He's a rich playboy who ran for President just to see if he could get to the final stretch; whereas Hillary, despite her questionable morals, has goals and long term reform in mind, maybe even before she entered politics. And let's not forget she was basically a backseat driver to her husband's presidency. She's bound to have almost firsthand experience based on that alone. Anyway. I know the thread wasn't technically about why you would want to vote for HILLARY and not Trump, but I figured since we were on the subject I might as well give my essay-long two cents on it.

[TOBEEB 50]

13 hours ago, < FoxCom > said:

The thing is I do understand why people would elect Trump, because of his supposed honesty and the fact that he tends to appeal to fears and desires that people are too timid to express because their controversial, like immigration and such. But the main problem is the he has no experience and this election is about capability, not a popularity contest or who is best liked. Imagine that its like a noob on CS:GO vs. a hacker. Maybe you hate the hacker (Hillary and hacker both start with an H coincidence I think not) and maybe you put your money on the noob just to spite the other guy, but in the end you still have to pick the hacker for your team in a tournament because even if he cheats, he gets the job done and is probably still a decent player without them, and he KNOWS the game inside and out. No matter how much you like the noob, he just won't play properly and you would never invite him onto your team if you were being practical. That's like the election now. Hillary may cut corners and walk the fine lines but in the end she has more than 35 years of experience in politics to Trump's zero. And if you argue that Trump ran a company and therefore he can run a country, because one is basically the scale model of the other...well that's just not true. They're completely different. That's like comparing a guy who builds computers all day to a guy who builds advanced AI rockets and shuttles. One has far more impact and complexity than the other, no matter how complex the first one seems at face value. Plus, I bet Trump doesn't really even care all that much if he wins or loses. He's a rich playboy who ran for President just to see if he could get to the final stretch; whereas Hillary, despite her questionable morals, has goals and long term reform in mind, maybe even before she entered politics. And let's not forget she was basically a backseat driver to her husband's presidency. She's bound to have almost firsthand experience based on that alone. Anyway. I know the thread wasn't technically about why you would want to vote for HILLARY and not Trump, but I figured since we were on the subject I might as well give my essay-long two cents on it.

See, it's not putting money on a hacker vs a noob. It's putting your money on a noob vs an unknown dick that you just met.

 

Hillary is notorious for her many fuckups while acting in public office. And just to name a few of her majors, her fuckups are as follows: Failure to respond to the Benghazi attack (resulting in the death of a US ambassador in Libya), Voted for the war in Iraq, Stored sensitive information on a non-government server, Sold arms to Sunni rebels in the Middle East (The Muslim Brotherhood which is a terrorist organization), supported the withdrawal of all American troops and essentially a complete "fuck you" to Middle Eastern countries (We destabilized the countries and then pulled our troops out before order was restored essentially paving the way for terrorist organizations to rise), and she supported the Iran Nuclear Deal. Let's also not forget that she essentially cheated Bernie Saunders out of a legitimate democratic victory through the use of super delegates. Also, I don't know if you're following the current leaks that are being done by Wikileaks, or "Russianleaks" if you believe the Russian farce that shes cocked up. If you are following the leaks, you'll find that she has been using her current office to amass wealth and destroy competition. The Clintons are worth over 100 million dollars, in case you didn't know.

 

Currently, her one job is foreign affairs. And you're lying to yourself if you say that she's doing alright at it.

 

Now, Trump on the other hand, is essentially being argued against because he says some hard words; however, I'm going to focus more on the political aspect being as the ad-hominem shit that's been thrown at him is a stupid argument anyways. He talks big on securing the borders and renegotiating bad trade deals. Do I think he can do it? Hell, I'd be surprised if he didn't at least have some experience in terms of trade. Securing the borders? I honestly have no clue how he thinks he'll get Mexico to pay for a wall that we're going to build, but anything stricter than what we have right now isn't bad. Another thing that he talks big on is avoiding a war with Russia. Hillary says she is going to establish a no-fly zone in Syria and that we need to go after the Russians. Why the fuck would ANYONE want to risk starting WWIII over a third world nation that we shouldn't have been fucking around with in the first place? We need to stop playing World Police and Trump essentially wants to do just that.

 

I'll take the unknown with a shitty personality who says things that I agree with vs the noob who talks big with a bad track record.

[Dakota 4722]

Make pussy grabable again.

Calling the advocacy of sexual assault as hard words is so delusional I hope you apply so I can talk more shit on you.

But I'm glad you agree with most illegal Mexicans being rapists and that we should just force ourselves onto women.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

2 hours ago, TOBEEB said:

See, it's not putting money on a hacker vs a noob. It's putting your money on a noob vs an unknown dick that you just met.

 

Hillary is notorious for her many fuckups while acting in public office. And just to name a few of her majors, her fuckups are as follows: Failure to respond to the Benghazi attack (resulting in the death of a US ambassador in Libya), Voted for the war in Iraq, Stored sensitive information on a non-government server, Sold arms to Sunni rebels in the Middle East (The Muslim Brotherhood which is a terrorist organization), supported the withdrawal of all American troops and essentially a complete "fuck you" to Middle Eastern countries (We destabilized the countries and then pulled our troops out before order was restored essentially paving the way for terrorist organizations to rise), and she supported the Iran Nuclear Deal. Let's also not forget that she essentially cheated Bernie Saunders out of a legitimate democratic victory through the use of super delegates. Also, I don't know if you're following the current leaks that are being done by Wikileaks, or "Russianleaks" if you believe the Russian farce that shes cocked up. If you are following the leaks, you'll find that she has been using her current office to amass wealth and destroy competition. The Clintons are worth over 100 million dollars, in case you didn't know.

 

Currently, her one job is foreign affairs. And you're lying to yourself if you say that she's doing alright at it.

 

Now, Trump on the other hand, is essentially being argued against because he says some hard words; however, I'm going to focus more on the political aspect being as the ad-hominem shit that's been thrown at him is a stupid argument anyways. He talks big on securing the borders and renegotiating bad trade deals. Do I think he can do it? Hell, I'd be surprised if he didn't at least have some experience in terms of trade. Securing the borders? I honestly have no clue how he thinks he'll get Mexico to pay for a wall that we're going to build, but anything stricter than what we have right now isn't bad. Another thing that he talks big on is avoiding a war with Russia. Hillary says she is going to establish a no-fly zone in Syria and that we need to go after the Russians. Why the fuck would ANYONE want to risk starting WWIII over a third world nation that we shouldn't have been fucking around with in the first place? We need to stop playing World Police and Trump essentially wants to do just that.

 

I'll take the unknown with a shitty personality who says things that I agree with vs the noob who talks big with a bad track record.

1st. Bengazi was in trouble because the republicans cut embassy security funding and even if she did respond like everyone says and sent in the marines who is to say that wouldn't have gone even worse? You think 30 marines confronting a hostile crowd would have ended ok?

2nd. She voted for Iraq after being shown false intel by a republican administration. It was viewed as unpatriotic to vote no and in case you forgot Trump's only public stance either way despite the lies he spews was support.

3rd. Why is Hillary the first secretary of state to be confronted over using a private server when Bush's sec of state did as well? Is it because the republicans are desperate to run a smear campaign because they cant win based on policy positions?

4th. The iraqi government made us withdraw based upon an agreement GEORGE BUSH made. Obama had nothing to do with it it just happened while he was president if we stayed we would be illegally occupying iraq according to international law.  

5th. Can you tell me what is wrong with the Iran deal besides the lies fox news spews? Iran's recent elections just gave a shit ton of power to pro western politicians. Iran is gradually shifting internally towards a more moderate friendly stance towards us and the republicans want to reverse that because half their foreign policy relies on the idea Iran is a threat.

6th, I was a bernie supporter and I can still say she won without the superdelegates. She won the popular vote and the elected delegates the superdelegates did not decide who won. 

7th. You honestly don't think russia is involved lol? Russia wants trump to win because hes promised them he wont stop them no matter what they try to pull. Two of the most famous people in america are worth 100 million? Jesus what a surprise. Meanwhile trump is rich because he dosen't give enough of a shit for america  to pay his taxes or pay his workers fair or keep the jobs in america. 

8th. Trump admitted in that video to sexual assault. He said he touches women sexually without asking. If he was anyone else he would have been arrested by now for confessing to sexual assault.  

9th. Hillary will not start a war with Russia. In case you didn't know they aren't the soviet union anymore and their military is a joke compared to ours. They do all this little proxy war bullshit because they know we would wipe them off the map in a conventional war and putin wouldnt fire nukes over Syria. So your entire argument there is irrelevant. 

10th and finally. Trump has on multiple occasions shown he dosen't even understand how congress works by implying Hillary should have changed internal laws of New York if she really believed in her policies. The only part of the constitution hes read is the second amendment so he could quote it to the rednecks that fill his rallies.  The international community thinks hes a basket case. He's a horrible choice and would make america look like we've gone of the deep end if he won.

[TOBEEB 50]

8 hours ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

1st. Bengazi was in trouble because the republicans cut embassy security funding and even if she did respond like everyone says and sent in the marines who is to say that wouldn't have gone even worse? You think 30 marines confronting a hostile crowd would have ended ok?

2nd. She voted for Iraq after being shown false intel by a republican administration. It was viewed as unpatriotic to vote no and in case you forgot Trump's only public stance either way despite the lies he spews was support.

3rd. Why is Hillary the first secretary of state to be confronted over using a private server when Bush's sec of state did as well? Is it because the republicans are desperate to run a smear campaign because they cant win based on policy positions?

4th. The iraqi government made us withdraw based upon an agreement GEORGE BUSH made. Obama had nothing to do with it it just happened while he was president if we stayed we would be illegally occupying iraq according to international law.  

5th. Can you tell me what is wrong with the Iran deal besides the lies fox news spews? Iran's recent elections just gave a shit ton of power to pro western politicians. Iran is gradually shifting internally towards a more moderate friendly stance towards us and the republicans want to reverse that because half their foreign policy relies on the idea Iran is a threat.

6th, I was a bernie supporter and I can still say she won without the superdelegates. She won the popular vote and the elected delegates the superdelegates did not decide who won. 

7th. You honestly don't think russia is involved lol? Russia wants trump to win because hes promised them he wont stop them no matter what they try to pull. Two of the most famous people in america are worth 100 million? Jesus what a surprise. Meanwhile trump is rich because he dosen't give enough of a shit for america  to pay his taxes or pay his workers fair or keep the jobs in america. 

8th. Trump admitted in that video to sexual assault. He said he touches women sexually without asking. If he was anyone else he would have been arrested by now for confessing to sexual assault.  

9th. Hillary will not start a war with Russia. In case you didn't know they aren't the soviet union anymore and their military is a joke compared to ours. They do all this little proxy war bullshit because they know we would wipe them off the map in a conventional war and putin wouldnt fire nukes over Syria. So your entire argument there is irrelevant. 

10th and finally. Trump has on multiple occasions shown he dosen't even understand how congress works by implying Hillary should have changed internal laws of New York if she really believed in her policies. The only part of the constitution hes read is the second amendment so he could quote it to the rednecks that fill his rallies.  The international community thinks hes a basket case. He's a horrible choice and would make america look like we've gone of the deep end if he won.

+*"It was the Republicans! It's also the Russians that are trying to fuck us up and make us vote for the wrong guy!"

 

+*Not an argument with any base.

 

****"Only Rednecks support Trump!"

 

****Not an argument.

***"Hillary won't start a war! The fact that she said that she plans to make Syria a no-fly zone is irrelevant and TOTALLY COULD NOT drag us into war between a nation that has a larger nuclear arsenal than us! And the fact that they have a larger nuclear arsenal is irrelevant as well! The fact that they are no longer the Soviet Union proves this!"

 

***I would actually like to address that before I continue with my mockery escapade. For someone that is liberal and holds humanitarianism in high regard shouldn't be arguing that simply because we can win, it isn't an issue. If we formally went to war with Russia, you can bet your ass that North Korea and China would jump all over that fuckin' opportunity. The destruction would make WWII seem like a trivial affair. Stop trying to be world police and let the Russians do what they're going to do. It's not worth risking a war. If we were to strike down Russian craft, their hand would be forced and you would be a fucking fool to assume that Putin would let that shit slide. Meanwhile, our NATO allies armies are severely lacking in comparison. We are over half of the NATO forces strength. Not to mention, China alone has manpower that puts us to shame and the Russians have developed a battle tank that is considerably stronger than what we are currently using. Lots of people could die, and I can't see how you could vote for that.

 

**"I get upset when Billionaires get women because they have money! Women aren't easily drawn to wealthy men! They have more integrity than that! They wouldn't try and get at a man with money for the sake of getting nice things -- it's ridiculous!"

 

**This isn't a new thing. Women do this. If you think they don't, you're lying to yourself. Not to mention, these women that have come forth and claimed Trump assaulted them sexually are not credible in the slightest. Tell me how you believe that these women decided to wait 10-30 years (it varies based on some of these claims) to come forth, with zero evidence that Trump raped them, months before a crucial election. I'm sorry, but I'm calling bullshit.

 

You're a god damn fool if you believe any of that.

 

*"Trump said to change the laws in New York! Yes, he said that!"

 

*This, I don't actually know whether or not he claimed; however, if he did, he isn't wrong. It is well within the realm of possibility to change state law (not national law) as a senator. It takes time and effort but with real perseverance and real attempt, it is possible to be done within eight years. Campaign for a cause and you'll find vocal people with power that agree. The fact that you personally think this to be an impossibility only makes me question whether or not you're looking at trump with your eyes or with your heart. He's a shitty person, I won't deny that, but the last thing we need is a Clinton presidency and zero change due to the fact that the senate and congress are controlled by Republicans. It's going to be the past eight years again. Nothing is going to get done.

 

Trump may say some crazy shit about how he wants to build a wall and he may also be a bit wish-washy on some of his policies, but if there is one thing that he hasn't ever deviated from, it's that he believes in America and wants to make us a proud nation again (this has been consistent for years and years even before he announced his candidacy). If you can't get behind that, I refuse to call you my friend and neighbor.

 

9 hours ago, Beerman said:

 

Make pussy grabable again.

 

Calling the advocacy of sexual assault as hard words is so delusional I hope you apply so I can talk more shit on you.

 

But I'm glad you agree with most illegal Mexicans being rapists and that we should just force ourselves onto women.

Nice strawman, cunt. Bring an actual argument next time.

[Dakota 4722]

@TOBEEB Man you're trying so hard to defend this guy. You're an active supporter of an active supporter of sexual assault. Gotta break a few eggs I guess though right?

[TOBEEB 50]

@BeermanI actually just hate women and want the country to burn. I also get my kicks by making racist remarks to my next door neighbors.

[trav 6834]

I feel like Trump supporters will make him into whatever candidate they want him to be. Due to the fact that he's pretty much said everything under the sun at this point, they can cherry-pick from all the things he said and make him into a star candidate they want him to be by ignoring all the rest.

 

It's an interesting strategy and seems to be working. When I see arguments supporting Trump, it seems like the supporters forget that most of what he promises/plans is usually contradictory to the other things he's promising/planning.

 

I suppose the same could be said for the people against Trump though.

 

 

In all reality, these two candidates probably won't get much done for the country and it will remain status-quo regardless of what either of them say. Remember all these promises that Trump makes will require a lot of political power (which he has very little of) to get what he wants done. He will need a majority of congress behind him and when some of the republican party doesn't even support him at this point, how are you going to any of these bold changes in congress?

[Nau 739]

5 minutes ago, Travesty said:

I feel like Trump supporters will make him into whatever candidate they want him to be. Due to the fact that he's pretty much said everything under the sun at this point, they can cherry-pick from all the things he said and make him into a star candidate they want him to be by ignoring all the rest.

 

It's an interesting strategy and seems to be working. When I see arguments supporting Trump, it seems like the supporters forget that most of what he promises/plans is usually contradictory to the other things he's promising/planning.

 

I suppose the same could be said for the people against Trump though.

 

 

In all reality, these two candidates probably won't get much done for the country and it will remain status-quo regardless of what either of them say. Remember all these promises that Trump makes will require a lot of political power (which he has very little of) to get what he wants done. He will need a majority of congress behind him and when some of the republican party doesn't even support him at this point, how are you going to any of these bold changes in congress?

Since this election is a joke I'm voting for the candidate with the most entertainment value and moving to Toronto. Want to grab some Tim Hortons? @Travesty