Donald Trump overtakes Hillary Clinton for first time since May in ABC poll
406 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jordax;51293971]They really should have ran Sanders, as much I have criticised the man himself on being so damn soft. At least he didn't have evidence of corruption piling up on him by the day, but the DNC insisted on running the one person with the most dirt of everyone in Washington on their person because it ''was her turn'', and the DNC establishment did every dirty trick in the book so they could to hand it to her.[/QUOTE]
The DNC doesn't "run" candidates until they win the primaries, which Democratic voters in their respective states have to choose. From what the leaked emails show us though, "every dirty trick" amounts to not really that much in reality, if anything at all.
[QUOTE=Jordax;51293971]In case Trump wins the presidency, there is something oddly commendable to see him having effectively ruined both sides of the establishment, and not only one, but two political dynasties to boot. I doubt anything could top this election cycle in the coming decades, what a wild ride this is.[/QUOTE]
Yeah dude this has been a sick spectacle. The only way this is going to be topped is if America really does elect an idiot who doesn't have a tangential grasp on any of the responsibilities a president should have. Can't wait!
I am ready
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51294009]Ironically, the dismissal of any analogy of involving Hitler, is [I]itself [/I]more an example of Godwin's Law than than it's target.[/QUOTE]
Sorry if having worked at a Holocaust Museum once that I find comparisons to Hitler generally lazy arguments.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51293998]Can a Clinton supporter please outline to me what positives they see in a Clinton presidency without mentioning Trump?[/QUOTE]
Congrats, you win nothing.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51294001]How is your "according to witnesses" concrete?
The only thing that is true is that they only know what they said to each other.[/QUOTE]
It's not concrete though that's the point? It's enough for reasonable doubt to come into the equation, something I thought you'd be familiar with since you have such a retardboner for Gowdy.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51294000]There was also the part where Sanders lost the primaries to Clinton. I'd say that that disqualified him from being the DNC's pick.[/QUOTE]
I bet that Sanders is kicking himself in the shins right now when thinking back on how he defended Clinton while debating her, saying that ''the e-mails didn't matter''. Sanders was way too soft during his entire campaign, as harsh that might sound. Didn't help either that he threw in the towel hard and bent the knee to Clinton before the primaries were actually over.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51293998]Can a Clinton supporter please outline to me what positives they see in a Clinton presidency without mentioning Trump?[/QUOTE]
- Stop imprisoning marijuana users
- Push for addiction programs for opioids and alcohol
- Computer services in schools
- Push for reforms on crime and drug laws
- Push to stop profiteering on prisons
- Include gender identity in anti-discrimination laws
Just a few off the top of my head
[QUOTE=Tudd;51294025]Sorry if having worked at a Holocaust Museum once that I find comparisons to Hitler generally lazy arguments.[/QUOTE]
Comparisons to Hitler are usually a last ditch attempt to make to illustrate a concept as simple as humanly possible for people who aren't quite on the ball.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;51293846]Yeah if that hilariously simplified and naive point of view were true then we wouldn't have had over 200,000 American casualties in Vietnam. Do you genuinely believe superior technology will allow us to just seamlessly win a war over one of the largest countries on the planet without either a massive loss of life or the use of nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE]
do you have any understanding of the vietnam war at all
The United States lost because they were sending conscripts who had no desire at all to fight in an area where they had little to no proper training and experience. This is especially obvious when compared to the enemy combatants, who had veterans from a previous and much recent war and had a better understanding of their surrounding area (See: The use of Spider Holes, Trees)
You can have all the military funding in the world, but it's ultimately useless when the people using it are inexperienced and mentally unsound.
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;51294027]Congrats, you win nothing.[/QUOTE]
I win everything. I live in the UK.
[sp]provided no nuclear war[/sp]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51294037]- Stop imprisoning marijuana users
- Push for addiction programs for opioids and alcohol
- Computer services in schools
- Push for reforms on crime and drug laws
- Push to stop profiteering on prisons
- Include gender identity in anti-discrimination laws
Just a few off the top of my head[/QUOTE]
So basically 'feel good' social measures? A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption and everything wrong with your political system. She's dirty, everyone knows it and I actually bet a hefty wad of money that she'll be impeached before the next election (because, lets face it, she's going to win).
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51294062]So basically 'feel good' social measures? A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption and everything wrong with your political system. She's dirty, everyone knows it and I actually bet a hefty wad of money that she'll be impeached before the next election (because, lets face it, she's going to win).[/QUOTE]
OK so suddenly voting based on good policies is a feel good social measure.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51293998]Can a Clinton supporter please outline to me what positives they see in a Clinton presidency without mentioning Trump?[/QUOTE]
Clinton is a career politician heavily embedded into the Democratic Party, she will follow the [URL="https://www.democrats.org/party-platform"]Party Platform[/URL] basically exactly, and a democratic president will be favorable to democratic policies. The democratic platform includes generally good social and fiscal policy, which I generally agree with.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51294062]I actually bet a hefty wad of money that she'll be impeached before the next election [/QUOTE]
alright what's your paypal lmao
If Trump is every elected, the fuckwad would probably get impeached considering how insanely unpopular he would be once elected. I mean the dude is literally hate by every minority.
If I'm going to vote for a president then I'm going to go by a huge number of factors, not just "what their beliefs are", "what party I identify as" or even "whether I believe they are corrupt" and anyone who uses one factor to determine their vote without weighing in others is a moron.
That being said, I can't say who I support because since I can't vote anyways I haven't done any real research, but from what I do know I don't particularly like either of them.
Also can we please go one thread without turning into picketfence zombies spouting the same shit every time causing a clusterfuck of biased and unsupported arguments
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51293973]fixed that for you. if it were sanders who isnt a corrupt and scandal ridden horrorshow. wouldve won against trump with ease.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure about that?
Sanders doesn't follow the Democratic platform for the most part, he's a more radical version of the average Democrat after all. Hence why he never ran before. It'd be very easy for the media to latch on to his "weird" ideas like treating the poor like real people and not letting the rich run off with all their taxes. He'd be dragged through the mud as a "socialist heathen" or some dumb shit.
Trump would look like a comparatively normal right wing nutjob (also known as the average GOP candidate). The right wing vote wouldn't be leached from him.
He'd probably do quite well, but I honestly don't think it'd be quite the cakewalk we'd all like it to be.
[editline]2nd November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jordax;51294035]I bet that Sanders is kicking himself in the shins right now when thinking back on how he defended Clinton while debating her, saying that ''the e-mails didn't matter''. Sanders was way too soft during his entire campaign, as harsh that might sound. Didn't help either that he threw in the towel hard and bent the knee to Clinton before the primaries were actually over.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he cares tbh. He knows Trump is a much greater threat to the country than Clinton. Not just because he's a fucking imbecile, but because they are polar opposites on the political spectrum. Sure he might not be happy about the loss, but Sanders isn't a self destructive moron.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51294286]Are you sure about that?
Sanders doesn't follow the Democratic platform for the most part, he's a more radical version of the average Democrat after all. Hence why he never ran before. It'd be very easy for the media to latch on to his "weird" ideas like treating the poor like real people and not letting the rich run off with all their taxes. He'd be dragged through the mud as a "socialist heathen" or some dumb shit.
Trump would look like a comparatively normal right wing nutjob (also known as the average GOP candidate). The right wing vote wouldn't be leached from him.
He'd probably do quite well, but I honestly don't think it'd be quite the cakewalk we'd all like it to be.[/QUOTE]
Those who hate socialists are those who wouldn't vote democrats any ways.
The main lesson here is if you wanna win more elections, go with the squeaky clean person who has a record of giving a damn.
It seems partisans on both sides of the aisle keep misreading and misunderstanding how swing voters think. This weakness works to their disadvantage.
Every time I've tried to argue with a Trump supporter, none of them seem to be able to formulate a competent argument or synthesis as to why Trump would be anything other than a cancer on the country for the next four years. Please, enlighten me on what Trump really brings to this country.
The Second Amendment is, of course, integral to the Bill of Rights, but if that's genuinely the biggest point that you have to defend Trump and his absolutely irresponsible actions, then I'm sorry that your hobby is getting in the way of this country's future and its diplomatic relations. I'm sorry that your precious guns is strong-arming you into voting for a man who has probably never shot a gun in his life, and instead is using the 2nd Amendment to pamper his predominately Southern audience into voting for him.
Look at his response, for example:
[QUOTE]KATY TUR, NBC NEWS: You’re for the Second Amendment. Do you have a gun?
DONALD TRUMP: I have a license to have a gun. Yes I do.
NBC: Do you use it? Gun ranges?
DONALD TRUMP: It is none of your business, it is really none of your business. I have a license to have a gun.
NBC: Gun control.
DONALD TRUMP: What are you talking about? Yes I have a gun and yes I have a permit for it.
NBC: Stronger background checks. What about that? Is there any steps that you would take to make it harder to get a gun in this country.
DONALD TRUMP: The problem is once you get into that you start getting into a situation, the slippery slope, where all of a sudden you are going to violate the Second Amendment. I don’t want to violate the Second Amendment. To me the Second Amendment is very important.[/QUOTE]
He never fucking says [I]anything[/I]. He dances around issues like a clown, and whenever you try to get him to go into specifics, he either goes into red herring mode or trails off into incomprehensible babble.
Here's some more of his [B]golden, totally presidential lines[/B]:
[QUOTE]If she(Clinton) gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks," Trump told a crowd in Wilmington, North Carolina on Tuesdsay. "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is I don't know.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]No more massive injections. Tiny children are not horses—one vaccine at a time, over time.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]There is something on that birth certificate — maybe religion, maybe it says he’s (Obama) a Muslim, I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t want that. Or, he may not have one.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me. Believe me. And I’ll build it very inexpensively. I’ll build a great, great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.[/QUOTE]
And a plethora of quotes before his presidency that is clearly of demeaning attitude towards women. And there's totally more than that!
And yet, Trump supporters still sit down with their arms crossed, and puff out, "So what? Clinton's worse,". As if that somehow nullifies Trump's crazed rhetoric. Here's what Clinton offers in her platform:
[QUOTE]We need comprehensive immigration reform with a path to full and equal citizenship. If Congress won't act, I'll defend President Obama’s executive actions—and I'll go even further to keep families together. I'll end family detention, close private immigrant detention centers, and help more eligible people become naturalized.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Politicians have no business interfering with women's personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women's access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I'll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]As secretary of state, I worked to restore America’s leadership in the world. As president, my top priority will be to keep us safe and defend our values. That includes maintaining a cutting-edge military, strengthening our alliances, being firm but wise with our rivals, cultivating new partners, defeating ISIS, and enforcing the Iran nuclear deal.
[/QUOTE]
Not only that, but Clinton has eons of experience compared to Trump. What did Trump do exactly? Create borderline-failing businesses and a shitty reality show? Superb credentials, honestly. Come on people. Do you seriously want Trump as the national figure for the United States? Do you seriously want to enter 4 years of [I]Trump[/I] being commander-in-chief? A lot of people say that the role of President isn't that much in the grand scheme, but that's fallacious. The world depends on the next President being a good router for strong diplomatic relations. I don't think Trump could ever fulfill that role, ever.
If you want a Republican president, then whatever. Wait for a sane candidate to actually join the race, and not a nutso byproduct of the shortcomings of the GOP. Follow Republican reformists like Evan McMullin instead, that are sweeps ahead of Trump in terms of actual policy and progressive ideals.
I don't like Clinton that much either, but I like her chances as President a hell of a lot better than Trump's.
Oh wake me up when the cult dies
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51294043]Comparisons to Hitler are usually a last ditch attempt to make to illustrate a concept as simple as humanly possible for people who aren't quite on the ball.[/QUOTE]
It's a lazy as fuck comparison that carries so many bad connotations that the person refuting it has to look like an asshole to go against it.
Stop thinking you just used it cleverly, there is a reason why Godwin's law is a frowned upon arguing move.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51293998]Can a Clinton supporter please outline to me what positives they see in a Clinton presidency without mentioning Trump?[/QUOTE]
The fact that as an LGBT person I don't need to worry about losing basic human rights/having a political party in power that sees me as less than human/unnatural.
The fact that I want a candidate who treats people as people instead of removing entire groups of people from the country just for being brown (if you think his 'stop the Muslims' rhetoric is gonna apply to any Eastern European people of the Islamic faith/Caucasian Islam followers you're blind).
The fact that I don't want a stupidly rich candidate who doesn't even pay his taxes to come up with a 'fair' tax plan for the rich.
The fact that putting up a literal god damn wall between America and Mexico is fucking ridiculous, would do little to nothing to curb immigration, and the money could be much, much better spent to help this so called 'problem'.
The fact that the man has been caught, in the legal system, discriminating against non-whites multiple times. And before you claim that there's no proof/sources are faked, have multiple actual sources instead of alt-right trash that Trump supporters often cite, [url]http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/donald-trump-blacks-lawsuit_n_855553.html[/url]
[url]http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/the-death-and-life-of-atlantic-city[/url]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/16/realestate/for-starrett-city-an-integration-test.html?scp=4&sq=trump+discrimination&st=nyt&pagewanted=all[/url]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1978/03/07/archives/trump-charged-with-rental-bias.html[/url]
The fact that no one who's openly admitted to sexually assaulting women + has been frequently accused of even more should be let to represent a fucking thing, let alone this country.
I can go on, but now can you give me a single point to back up Trump that isn't citing some alt-right trash, or that's 'b-b-b-but Shillary and cucks'!
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51293603]Can a trump supporter please outline to me what positives they see in a Trump presidency without mentioning Hillary?[/QUOTE]
Well, hes not hill-
crap
comparing trump to hitler is as fearmongering as saying hillary is going to cause ww3. they're both stupid and pretty baseless.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51294351]It's a lazy as fuck comparison that carries so many bad connotations that the person refuting it has to look like an asshole to go against it.
Stop thinking you just used it cleverly, there is a reason why Godwin's law is a frowned upon arguing move.[/QUOTE]
That reason being being sometimes people say "Nazis did X, and this person is doing X" Which is neither always a unwarranted comparison, nor is relevant to what GoDong-DK said. Somebody saying "Hitler" isn't a get out of argument free card.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51294062]I win everything. I live in the UK.
[sp]provided no nuclear war[/sp]
So basically 'feel good' social measures? A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption and everything wrong with your political system. She's dirty, everyone knows it and I actually bet a hefty wad of money that she'll be impeached before the next election (because, lets face it, she's going to win).[/QUOTE]
Ending the "war on drugs," and the for-profit prison culture, which have absolutely devastated our minority demographics, urban centers, and overall efficacy and safety of our criminal reform system are "feel good social measures?"
Come on, dude. You're just being obtuse, now. Our criminal justice system is in wretched shape, and I know you understand that having a properly functioning criminal justice system is [I]actually fairly important to society.[/I] That is hard policy, not a "feel good" social measure.
Just to expand with another point that he failed to mention, Clinton is also not a climate change denier. I hate that this is something I actually have to point out as something special, because it really shouldn't be, but that's the situation we find ourselves in. Climate change is, perhaps, the [I]single greatest threat[/I] to the continued well being of the human race, and having a leader who recognizes that, and will enact policy to that effect, is critical. While Clinton doesn't go nearly as far as I'd like to see in regards to climate change and clean energy policy, the simple fact that she recognizes that it's a problem and wants to take steps to address it makes her a considerably more credible candidate than her opponent, who believes that climate change is a Chinese hoax and has promised to increase our consumption of "clean coal." Progressive climate change policy is no "feel good social measure" either.
[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;51293998]Can a Clinton supporter please outline to me what positives they see in a Clinton presidency without mentioning Trump?[/QUOTE]
Hillary Clinton is not a climate change denialist, and would in all likelihood keep the Paris Agreement.
That should be the only reason that anyone will ever need, considering the danger to human civilization posed by a Republican presidency (since all the Republican primary candidates either denied that climate change is happening, or thought we shouldn't do anything about it).
Okay how about this one.
Can a Trump supporter describe how Clinton will ruin the country once she's actually in office?
Now I know, we've heard numerous well thought out arguments on this subject on FP, so I'll just list them below in detail so nobody's repeating themselves:
-Possible ban on all gun imports.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51294220]If Trump is every elected, the fuckwad would probably get impeached considering how insanely unpopular he would be once elected. I mean the dude is literally hate by every minority.[/QUOTE]
Thats not how impeachment works.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51293605]Lol Nate Bronze is melting down on Twitter posting all sorts of weird crap. He was totally wrong about Trump in the primaries and he's going to be wrong here. Him and his organization are an embarrassment now.[/QUOTE]
...?
Wrong how? You realize all he's doing is aggregating polling and demographic data and using those to estimate a statistical chance of victory, right? And that this updates every single day to reflect new polls and information, yeah? You can throw a fit over the data the polls are showing all you want, but your desire to blame Trump's lack of popularity on "Nate Bronze" is pretty laughable.
Like, even if Trump wins, it's not as if 538 will have been "wrong" in any sense. 538 isn't saying, "Hillary Clinton will win the presidency," they're saying, "Hillary Clinton has X% chance to win the presidency." Trump coming out on top is a statistical probability, and not even a very steep one. He has a nearly 30% chance of success as of today's polling update, and that's pretty significant.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51294411]Okay how about this one.
Can a Trump supporter describe how Clinton will ruin the country once she's actually in office?[/QUOTE]
Hillary won't ruin the country in one fell swoop, like Trump might, but Hillary probably will continue the country down the path of acting in the interests of corporations rather than the people as a whole. For example, I would expect at least one shit trade deal (as in, a trade deal that's designed around being of benefit to big corporations) to be passed within her first term.
A slow death is still a death, though better the slow death that might be reversed by the seemingly growing anti-establish crowd in the future.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.