Trump slowly catches up to Hillary, 5 pts behind this week, latest polls say trump ahead 1 point. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994841]That is completely normal. People who defend Hillary will attack Trump and people who defend Trump will attack Hillary. That's just how politics work[/QUOTE] Just look back to 2008 with McCain and you'll see two reasonable candidates with some different ideas on how to use the government. At the time, yeah, everyone was attacking each other, but both candidates had reasonable policy positions and both had respect for each other. McCain even defended Obama when some Tea Partier called him an Arab Muslim. Trump's gone far past policy disagreements. He's gone far past a mutual respect for his political opponent. His "policies" are unbelievably poorly-thought-out and his political message is harassment and name-calling of his opponents. There's no world where this is "politics as normal," it's gone from a rational, levelheaded debate between two experienced and intelligent yet ideologically opposed candidates to almost [I]nothing but[/I] personal attacks (on both sides of the aisle). It's shot flinging. It's embarrassing politics. It's basically reality TV with politics as a background.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994885]You literally said Trump has no experience. But right, being a successful businessman does not really matter[/QUOTE] Yes, because everybody going into business has the advantage of 'a small loan of a million' and only the best financial advisers to do all your work for you.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50994764]This is a lie. [/QUOTE] Is it? You can argue she never mentioned her personal email, but she was talking about the Russian hacks all right... that russia did it, that russia "hacked a lot of things...", references her increase of cyberspace security, and that attacks like that under her legislation will be met with political, economic and [B]military [/B]responses [QUOTE]Russia hacked into a lot of things ... Russia even hacked into the democratic national committee... maybe even some state election systems. so we gotta step up our game, make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As president, i will make it clear that the united states will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack, we will be ready with serous political, economic and military responses[/QUOTE] Ergo, if any country hacks her account, political, military and economic action will be taken... her words, her threat. [URL]https://youtu.be/lheYKeQ4Nmo?t=1351[/URL]

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994885]You literally said Trump has no experience. But right, being a successful businessman does not really matter[/QUOTE] I literally said that every single fucking presidential nominee had the same exact objective you posted. I said nothing about his experience and if you think otherwise you're fucking delusional.

It's funny that without Gee-Jay trump would be ahead already

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994898]Is it? You can argue she never mentioned her personal email, but she was talking about the Russian hacks all right... that russia did it, references her increase of cyberspace security, and that attacks like that under her legislation will be met with political, economic and [B]military [/B]responses Ergo, if any country hacks her account, political, military and economic action will be taken... her words, her threat. [URL]https://youtu.be/lheYKeQ4Nmo?t=1351[/URL][/QUOTE] If trump were to say he would take military action against someone, do you think he'd jump straight to nukes? Because that's basically what you're saying Clinton is going to do, instead of starting political, then economic and finally military if it continues.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994885]You literally said Trump has no experience. But right, being a successful businessman does not really matter[/QUOTE] Business is not politics. He thinks he can just bankrupt an entire country and be fine, since he's done it in business. Businesses are about maximizing profit at all costs, government is about minimizing expense for the best value. There has never been a US presidential candidate who hasn't either held elected office, been a political appointee, or been a high-ranking military official. Even people like Herbert Hoover, an investor and businessman and a terrible president who lengthened the Great Depression through complete inaction, was director of the FDA and the US Secretary of Commerce before he was elected president. Experience is required. Business experience is not political experience - it doesn't demonstrate any degree of leadership, charisma, or anything. Unless you think Bobby Kotick's business success with EA make him qualified for the presidency of the United States and the highest political and military office in the entire Western Hemisphere, you can't think that Trump's business experience qualifies him. It doesn't.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994715]One of Trump's objectives is to get the economy back on track. Do you think his past experience does not count for anything?[/QUOTE] No, I don't think it does. If elected, he would be one of the most unqualified presidents in history, having negligible experience in politics or economic policy. The only US presidents that have never won an election nor been a military general have been Hoover and Taft (Neither of which are held in high regard, mind you), both of which held cabinet positions at least, Trump doesn't even have that. Trump is mindbogglingly unsuited for the position, which I'd like to remind you, is one of the most important elected offices in the world. What the president of the US decides to do has direct ramifications in the entire world, if he gets elected, it's everyone's problem.

But guys, his ideas will be the greatest thing for the American and World economies to date! They'll be so great, that stacks of $100 bills will rain from the sky by the hundreds! Vote Trump and make the greatness of our country America assured! :vs:

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994950]It does affect everyone and that is exactly why I'd much rather see Trump elected, or at least not Hillary[/QUOTE] I have no idea how you reached that conclusion from what I've said.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994977][/QUOTE] You realize Big Bang's post was to paint the effect he would have as negative, right?

[QUOTE=Big Bang;50994972]I have no idea how you reached that conclusion from what I've said.[/QUOTE] It's no use trying to make Trump supporters understand that their big blowhard of an orange toupeed candidate doesn't care about the job, but only the power and prestige that goes with it. This is just another stunt to make himself relevant, no matter his claims he's being serious about the election.

[QUOTE=skullorz;50994933]If trump were to say he would take military action against someone, do you think he'd jump straight to nukes? Because that's basically what you're saying Clinton is going to do, instead of starting political, then economic and finally military if it continues.[/QUOTE] Thats irrelevant, she clearly said she would react militarily against cyber attacks. That could very well mean a seal team being dropped over russia to take out the source server of the attack, or it could mean something entirely different. i believe she deliberately does not clarify. point is, those speeches are made and tailored. If anything can be interpreted one way, it usually is SUPPOSED to hold that message. This was clearly a threat to Russia. saying "back off, or military..." In a speech like this, thats just warmongering... id expect this from putin or irans current leadership, but to hear it from the US worries me.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994950]It does affect everyone and that is exactly why I'd much rather see Trump elected, or at least not Hillary[/QUOTE] I'm very curious as to why you'd rather see someone with zero political experience and zero education in international or even domestic economic policy as president of a country that isn't yours. Hillary is justifiably disliked in South and Central America, so I understand that angle. But let me give you an example. A PS4 in Brazil, up until recently, cost $1800. Nintendo ceased all business operations in Brazil. The reason the price of a PS4 is so artificially inflated is [I]because[/I] of harsh import tariffs. Exactly the kind of tariff Trump is calling for. The price of a PS4 would inflate [I]even further[/I] under Trump's economic policy - because now the US is charging 35% tariffs for exports and Brazil is charging however much for imports, plus Brazil would retaliate against these higher US tariffs and [I]further[/I] increase all import tariffs from the US on top of the already high tariffs for electronic goods. How does this benefit you? How is this good for the consumer? His economic policy would make importing any goods more expensive for you, the consumer, because companies would absorb the tariff cost by [I]passing that expense on to the consumer.[/I] This brings in tax money for the government, but it also ramps up the cost of any and all foreign-produced goods and worsens the consumer market for literally everything. (I get that the PS4 isn't US-made but it was the most obvious example).

I don't understand, you literally don't know if this guy can do the job or not, but you'd take Trump as the person more suited for the job, compared to a US senator who also served as Secretary of State?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994994]Thats irrelevant, she clearly said she would react militarily against cyber attacks. That could very well mean a seal team being dropped over russia to take out the source server of the attack, or it could mean something entirely different. i believe she deliberately does not clarify. point is, those speeches are made and tailored. If anything can be interpreted one way, it usually is SUPPOSED to hold that message. This was clearly a threat to Russia. saying "back off, or military..."[/QUOTE] Threats do not usually follow up with actual military missions unless provocation really was severe enough to warrant that. I'm sure that the American government isn't going to waste its time on that kind of thing, because the last thing we'll need is a war between America and Russia.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994994]Thats irrelevant, she clearly said she would react militarily against cyber attacks. That could very well mean a seal team being dropped over russia to take out the source server of the attack, or it could mean something entirely different. point is, those speeches are made and tailored. If anything can be interpreted one way, it usually is SUPPOSED to hold that message. This was clearly a threat to Russia. saying "back off, or military..."[/QUOTE] It's perfectly relevant! You're saying she's going to jump right to war instead of pursuing political and economical consequences against the hackers first. Point for those consequences is to get them to stop without having to take further action. You're painting it as a bad thing, so clearly Trump doing something similar must also be bad.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994950]It does affect everyone and that is exactly why I'd much rather see Trump elected, or at least not Hillary[/QUOTE] why do you think clinton is worse

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994898]Is it? [/QUOTE] It is because she never once referenced her emails. What you said was an outright lie, one that becomes particularly egregious when you go to link her speech and have obviously listened to it.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994994]Thats irrelevant, she clearly said she would react militarily against cyber attacks. That could very well mean a seal team being dropped over russia to take out the source server of the attack, or it could mean something entirely different. i believe she deliberately does not clarify. point is, those speeches are made and tailored. If anything can be interpreted one way, it usually is SUPPOSED to hold that message. This was clearly a threat to Russia. saying "back off, or military..." In a speech like this, thats just warmongering... id expect this from putin or irans current leadership, but to hear it from the US worries me.[/QUOTE] US cyber security is "military." She's not threatening to nuke Moscow if they keep hacking the US. We already tell Russia "back off, or military" every single day. It's called NATO. Also the UN. Yet somehow we followed up the Crimea annexation with economic sanctions and denouncements and no military action. You have to be deluded if you think Hillary is gonna go send 40,000 troops to a nuclear state because they hacked some .gov servers. It's very obviously not what she meant. Trump, in the meantime, has campaign staff taking bribes under the table from pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and his foreign policy when it comes to Russia is basically "fuck NATO go for it Russia hey Putin lets go bowling."

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50995003]I'm very curious as to why you'd rather see someone with zero political experience and zero education in international or even domestic economic policy as president of a country that isn't yours. Hillary is justifiably disliked in South and Central America, so I understand that angle. But let me give you an example. A PS4 in Brazil, up until recently, cost $1800. Nintendo ceased all business operations in Brazil. The reason the price of a PS4 is so artificially inflated is [I]because[/I] of harsh import tariffs. Exactly the kind of tariff Trump is calling for. The price of a PS4 would inflate [I]even further[/I] under Trump's economic policy - because now the US is charging 35% tariffs for exports and Brazil is charging however much for imports, plus Brazil would retaliate against these higher US tariffs and [I]further[/I] increase all import tariffs from the US on top of the already high tariffs for electronic goods. How does this benefit you? How is this good for the consumer? His economic policy would make importing any goods more expensive for you, the consumer, because companies would absorb the tariff cost by [I]passing that expense on to the consumer.[/I] This brings in tax money for the government, but it also ramps up the cost of any and all foreign-produced goods and worsens the consumer market for literally everything. (I get that the PS4 isn't US-made but it was the most obvious example).[/QUOTE] The us can produce its own PS4 if need be, and they will... The idea behind trumps trade wars is that production is moved to the US... since it would be cheaper then to import. I mean dont get me wrong, i have a lot of questions with his approach, but what is hillaries economic plan? has she even given a talk explaining about it? i think trumps plan will either be disastrous, or it will be "okay", hillary does not have a clear direction in her plans, so im worried as to why she would want to become president in the first place... most people want to be president to fix 1 or a few issues they hold dear to their heart, and the rest kind of comes with the package once they are holding office. Hillary has no 1 or few issues... all she has is "my husband balanced the budget" and "me and obama" and before that "i have a vagina" her latest speech could have been said by Reagan... 2 months ago she was trying to copy Bernie sanders... who is this person, and what does she want to do? what does she represent?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994994]Thats irrelevant, she clearly said she would react militarily against cyber attacks. That could very well mean a seal team being dropped over russia to take out the source server of the attack, or it could mean something entirely different. i believe she deliberately does not clarify[/QUOTE] It leaves the door open to that hypothetical but I don't see how any reasonable person could assume that would happen, unless the attack was sufficiently damaging enough to American infrastructure and I doubt such an attack could be administered from a single server. Her speech is ambigous but this fantasy people are concocting where Navy SEALS will infiltrate Siberia and take out the big bad server that hacked emails through a cut-out isn't going to happen. Real life isn't Call of Duty or a Tom Clancy novel, fortunately.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50995022]The reason I want Trump to be elected and be a good president is because it will open South American people's eyes for a non-socialist government. In Brazil we have been getting fucked by corrupt left governments for years. I just don't want my country to have the same fate as Venezuela.[/QUOTE] brazil is pretty conservative though. we're already fairly open to the idea, even more so after the whole impeachment thing pt was successful because of its populist approach, not because of their liberal values

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50995036]It leaves the door open to that hypothetical but I don't see how any reasonable person could assume that would happen, unless the attack was sufficiently damaging enough to American infrastructure and I doubt such an attack could be administered from a single server. Her speech is ambigous but this fantasy people are concocting where Navy SEALS will infiltrate Siberia and take out the big bad server that hacked emails through a cut-out isn't going to happen. Real life isn't Call of Duty or a Tom Clancy novel, fortunately.[/QUOTE] In an IEA rapport i tried to find online, but couldn't (so take it as you want) it clearly stated the US energy infrastructure currently has almost no cyber attack defence. And with targetted strikes, up to an estimated XX percentage of the US could be put without power for days. i dont remember the exact number but it was somewhere in the 30's of percentages. The US infrastructure is ageing, and with power, if you shut down select points, the rest will shut down in a cascade. Also on the hypothetical... a threat is a threat... and i was not lying, id appreciate if you admit that.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50995022]The reason I want Trump to be elected and be a good president is because it will open South American people's eyes for a non-socialist government. In Brazil we have been getting fucked by corrupt left governments for years. I just don't want my country to have the same fate as Venezuela.[/QUOTE] Fair enough - I think you're wildly underestimating the effects his ideas would have on global markets, though. That's a fair reason. But Brazil has defaulted on its debt before, like Trump is proposing the US should do. It hasn't exactly helped your economy. The main difference is - US bonds are one of the most secure forms of monetary value in the world. Way more than gold or a normal currency. Defaulting on our foreign debt would trash global confidence in US treasury bonds, which would have global economic ripples (tsunamis?) on every market. This doesn't even include tariffs. I get your ideological argument and I can respect it, but I think it's very shortsighted to say "maybe he'll motivate my country to change their government" when your government has been following Trump's economic policy pretty solidly - defaulting on debt, high tariffs. I very much doubt it'll help you out if US treasury bonds lose value.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50995026] who is this person, and what does she want to do? what does she represent?[/QUOTE] Hopefully the people who don't use ellipsis. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50995049]In an IEA rapport i tried to find online, but couldn't (so take it as you want) it clearly stated the US energy infrastructure currently has almost no cyber attack defence. And with targetted strikes, up to an estimated XX percentage of the US could be put without power for days. i dont remember the exact number but it was somewhere in the 30's of percentages. The US infrastructure is ageing, and with power, if you shut down select points, the rest will shut down in a cascade.[/QUOTE] Yes and if a foreign government or unaffiliated group took advantage of this then what is wrong with military cybersecurity divisions working to defend or source the origin of attack? Like really this post is just helping vindicate Clinton's speech and the idea of keeping all options on the table. [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50995049] and i was not lying, id appreciate if you admit that.[/QUOTE] How about go fuck yourself, you said Clinton threatened Russia with war over her emails when she didn't threaten Russia with war nor mention her emails at any point during the speech. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Swebonny))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50995064]Hopefully the people who don't use ellipsis. Yes and if a foreign government or unaffiliated group took advantage of this then what is wrong with military cybersecurity divisions working to defend or source the origin of attack? Like really this post is just helping vindicate Clinton's speech and the idea of keeping all options on the table.[/QUOTE] Absolutely nothing, if that was what it was about... But she was talking clearly and precisely about the convention and 'related' hacks, the emails... do you think military action should be taken over private email accounts being hacked into? thats the point she raised, even if there were plenty of reasonable arguments to talk about cyber security she chose to talk about that point... [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50995064] How about go fuck yourself, you said Clinton threatened Russia with war over her emails when she didn't threaten Russia with war nor mention her emails at any point during the speech.[/QUOTE] I never did, thats a lie... i said military action, and that were her exact words in the video... perhaps you made a mistake, and should correct that.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50995022]The reason I want Trump to be elected and be a good president is because it will open South American people's eyes for a non-socialist government. In Brazil we have been getting fucked by corrupt left governments for years. I just don't want my country to have the same fate as Venezuela.[/QUOTE] This is fucking hilarious, because Trump is pretty much a South American dictator born in the wrong country.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50995026]The us can produce its own PS4 if need be, and they will...[/quote] What are international patent laws

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50995026]The us can produce its own PS4 if need be, and they will... The idea behind trumps trade wars is that production is moved to the US... since it would be cheaper then to import. I mean dont get me wrong, i have a lot of questions with his approach, but what is hillaries economic plan? has she even given a talk explaining about it? i think trumps plan will either be disastrous, or it will be "okay", hillary does not have a clear direction in her plans, so im worried as to why she would want to become president in the first place... most people want to be president to fix 1 or a few issues they hold dear to their heart, and the rest kind of comes with the package once they are holding office. Hillary has no 1 or few issues... all she has is "my husband balanced the budget" and "me and obama" and before that "i have a vagina" her latest speech could have been said by Reagan... 2 months ago she was trying to copy Bernie sanders... who is this person, and what does she want to do? what does she represent?[/QUOTE] Google is your friend. Twenty minutes and you can get into the grit of her economic policy and her tax plan and everything - Trump's is far more vague and yet I'm right here explaining it. I've explained to you before why businesses won't move back to the US unless the US tries to compete with labor/environmental regulations in South America and SEA. Wages are much higher, the cost of building a factory is much higher, safety standards for buildings are much higher, environmental regulations are much more stringent, corporate taxes are significantly higher - and every one of these things radically increases operating expenses. If moving back to the US will increase expense by 36%, and the tariffs are set at 35%, every company will continue operating abroad and exporting jobs for cheap slave labor in underdeveloped, low-regulation countries, and every cent that company has to pay to import their goods into the US will be [I]passed on to the consumer.[/I] The only other solution is a complete race to the bottom in regulation, which you do not want unless you want literal starvation wages in unsafe factories where people regularly die on the job like we had in the 1890s. And 36% is a low estimate. The costs of constructing a new factory in the US are orders of magnitude higher than making one in Indonesia. The cost of getting rid of production waste in these underdeveloped countries is the wages it takes to pay somebody to go dump them in a ditch somewhere - in the US that's millions of more dollars of expenses for safe disposal. Trump's plan only incentivizes companies to increase costs for the consumer, not move back to the US. Unless you cut the EPA and OSHA and eliminate the minimum wage and throw out all labor regulations and shrug when workplace deaths skyrocket.