Trump calls Putin "a leader far more than [Obama] has been" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51023194]He was unintentionally divisive. He spoke out in favor of Martin and Brown before the facts ever came out.[/QUOTE] i'm not sure that "if i had a son, he would look like trayvon" is unintentional. that seems pretty intentional to me. maybe he doesn't want to rile up the black community, but it certainly did that and he didn't reappear with any sort of follow-up to it.

[QUOTE=Pops;51023152]i am neither conservative or old enough to run for president (not that i would).[/QUOTE] but you're still hilariously uninformed and choosing to remain that way, either way. you're what's wrong with this country.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51023220]but you're still hilariously uninformed and choosing to remain that way, either way. you're what's wrong with this country.[/QUOTE] you have your opinions, and i have mine. son, we're on a fucking internet forum. if you think some sort of real discussion or debate can take place here, you're as delusional as me.

[QUOTE=Pops;51023218]i'm not sure that "if i had a son, he would look like trayvon" is unintentional. that seems pretty intentional to me. maybe he doesn't want to rile up the black community, but it certainly did that and he didn't reappear with any sort of follow-up to it.[/QUOTE] iirc he said it when the pic of ~13 year old innocent Martin was plastered everywhere by the media and once the more recent gun toting pics surfaced he did a 180 and stopped talking about it. I think he had good intentions in mind but was too quick to jump into these cases to quell tensions. It ultimately only worsened things once the facts came out.

[QUOTE=Pops;51023232]you have your opinions, and i have mine. son, we're on a fucking internet forum. if you think some sort of real discussion or debate can take place here, you're as delusional as me.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pops;51021765]most of the country "approves" because they don't want to be labeled racist for disliking the first black president. [/QUOTE] this isn't an opinion. this is just making facts up to suit your already misplaced opinions. and the fact you think you can't have a proper discussion on the internet says more about you than me. again, i repeat -- you're the problem. someday you'll realize it, i hope.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51023242]iirc he said it when the pic of ~13 year old innocent Martin was plastered everywhere by the media and once the more recent gun toting pics surfaced he did a 180 and stopped talking about it. I think he had good intentions in mind but was too quick to jump into these cases to quell tensions. It ultimately only worsened things once the facts came out.[/QUOTE] good intentions, bad wording.

[QUOTE=Pops;51023232]you have your opinions, and i have mine. son, we're on a fucking internet forum. if you think some sort of real discussion or debate can take place here, you're as delusional as me.[/QUOTE] literally the only thing standing in the way of honest conversations is people like you. I engage in them openly, you act mockishly from the get go so what am I supposed to do? Engage if you want it but don't say it's impossible.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51023242]iirc he said it when the pic of ~13 year old innocent Martin was plastered everywhere by the media and once the more recent gun toting pics surfaced he did a 180 and stopped talking about it. I think he had good intentions in mind but was too quick to jump into these cases to quell tensions. It ultimately only worsened things once the facts came out.[/QUOTE] He literally stood on the graves of the Dallas cops during their memorial to push a pro-Black Lives Matter movement agenda. It is absurd to say he has good intentions as far as race relations.

putin would be a great leader to play as in civilization

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51020992]Obama is charismatic but underwhelming and just not a noteworthy president[/QUOTE] He black tho... the precedent black president, pretty noteworthy.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51021074]Forgive me for sounding callous but I'm really only concerned for the US. Would it really be so bad for the United States? [editline]8th September 2016[/editline] This is what happens when your campaign platform sounds too good to be true.[/QUOTE] Are people supposed to write their campaign platforms based on what they think the Republican congress won't block? I want a president who wants those things, look at all the people who wanted Bernie Sanders. The point is they will be the ones who fight most strongly to accomplish progress in that kind of direction. If someone campaigns are pro-drug legalization, do you really think they won't vote yes on legalizing just weed? Like, Obama was impeded a shitload by congress for most of his time in Office, and that's how the democracy is supposed to work, I know, but is it his fault that people who would block literally most anything he wanted stopped him from accomplishing what he wanted to? And still, everyone knows of the massive stimulus package and ObamaCare, which are two social-democrat-ish things that Obama accomplished that are important, the problem is that no one is appreciating their impact right now with an opposition that is dedicated to not reporting any good news while the other side's president is in power. So I think Obama did pretty well in office. Did he get involved in any of the major scandals of past presidents, or crash the economy, or start a draining war? No. And he got a few good things done. Don't act like he did nothing

[QUOTE=cis.joshb;51025180]Are people supposed to write their campaign platforms based on what they think the Republican congress won't block? I want a president who wants those things, look at all the people who wanted Bernie Sanders. The point is they will be the ones who fight most strongly to accomplish progress in that kind of direction. If someone campaigns are pro-drug legalization, do you really think they won't vote yes on legalizing just weed? Like, Obama was impeded a shitload by congress for most of his time in Office, and that's how the democracy is supposed to work, I know, but is it his fault that people who would block literally most anything he wanted stopped him from accomplishing what he wanted to? And still, everyone knows of the massive stimulus package and ObamaCare, which are two social-democrat-ish things that Obama accomplished that are important, the problem is that no one is appreciating their impact right now with an opposition that is dedicated to not reporting any good news while the other side's president is in power. So I think Obama did pretty well in office. Did he get involved in any of the major scandals of past presidents, or crash the economy, or start a draining war? No. And he got a few good things done. Don't act like he did nothing[/QUOTE] Pump the brakes. I think Obama did fine with what he was given--Dodd-Frank, the stimulus package, and ARRA have all been great successes under his presidency. However, he massively over-promised on both his campaigns regarding really sensitive issues like Guantanamo, nationalized healthcare, the ongoing meth epidemic, and Israel, and that's what breaks it for me, because these were issues he campaigned on really hard in my state (especially the meth). [editline]d[/editline] His platforms come across as unreasonable and unrealistic in hindsight, and that bothers me given the "hope and change" vibe he campaigned on.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51025864]Pump the brakes. I think Obama did fine with what he was given--Dodd-Frank, the stimulus package, and ARRA have all been great successes under his presidency. However, he massively over-promised on both his campaigns regarding really sensitive issues like Guantanamo, nationalized healthcare, the ongoing meth epidemic, and Israel, and that's what breaks it for me, because these were issues he campaigned on really hard in my state (especially the meth). [editline]d[/editline] His platforms come across as unreasonable and unrealistic in hindsight, and that bothers me given the "hope and change" vibe he campaigned on.[/QUOTE] I appreciate your lack of a bias, but do you really think a platform should be written based not on what a candidate wants, but what they think congress will pass during their term? Like how can you even know 100 percent what congress will refuse to pass, and it's not like you can predict how the house election and especially midterm elections are gonna go

[QUOTE=Chonch;51025864]Pump the brakes. I think Obama did fine with what he was given--Dodd-Frank, the stimulus package, and ARRA have all been great successes under his presidency. However, he massively over-promised on both his campaigns regarding really sensitive issues like Guantanamo, nationalized healthcare, the ongoing meth epidemic, and Israel, and that's what breaks it for me, because these were issues he campaigned on really hard in my state (especially the meth). [editline]d[/editline] His platforms come across as unreasonable and unrealistic in hindsight, and that bothers me given the "hope and change" vibe he campaigned on.[/QUOTE] Yeah, over promising is what makes him kind of underwhelming imo. Promise the world and no matter what you do it all has a disappointing end.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51018429]Didn't Trump already piss off Putin and the Kremlin by putting Russia in the same category as ISIS? If he's going back on that stupid ad, this is just another example of his flip-flopping. [video=youtube;17EOM3RTD1Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17EOM3RTD1Y[/video][/QUOTE] Oh my god. This video has that thing where it's right on the edge of looking like a joke without being self-aware. It looks like it was done by someone's out of touch grandparent who emails everybody funny pictures. It looks like Trump made it himself.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51031357]Yeah, over promising is what makes him kind of underwhelming imo. Promise the world and no matter what you do it all has a disappointing end.[/QUOTE] In Obama's defense, I don't think anyone back in 2008 would've imagined the Republicans would've been as vehemently opposed to him as they ended up being. He had just under a year to pass legislation before Senator Kennedy died and the Republicans began blocking anything and everything. And all of that said, he did get a surprising amount of his campaign promises done, especially in light of his opposition. Plus for what it's worth he might still close Guantanamo, there's not a whole lot of prisoners left in it, and Obama has spent the last few months getting as many out as humanly possible while he still has time left in office. Seems like he doesn't want it as a stain on his legacy.

I don't disagree honestly.

Spot the commie!

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51021787]People like him because they have jobs they didn't have 4 years ago[/QUOTE] unemployment is still rampant [QUOTE=Raidyr;51021787]gas is cheap[/QUOTE] one word: syria [QUOTE=Raidyr;51021787]and our foreign interventions are no longer in the news cycle.[/QUOTE] just because they aren't in the news cycle doesn't mean it isn't happening

[QUOTE=nezo;51040348]unemployment is still rampant[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate[/url] [quote]US unemployment rate was recorded at 4.9 percent in August 2016, unchanged from the previous two months while missing market expectations of 4.8 percent. The number of unemployed persons was flat at 7.8 million and the labor force participation rate stood at 62.8 percent. Unemployment Rate in the United States averaged 5.82 percent from 1948 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 10.80 percent in November of 1982 and a record low of 2.50 percent in May of 1953.[/quote] it's actually on target - 5% unemployment is typically what every country aims for and it's a good figure to have. the current 4.9% is below the average from 1948 to 2016 and it's back to pre-recession levels. it's the lowest it's been in nearly a decade now

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51040877][url]http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate[/url] it's actually on target - 5% unemployment is typically what every country aims for and it's a good figure to have. the current 4.9% is below the average from 1948 to 2016 and it's back to pre-recession levels. it's the lowest it's been in nearly a decade now[/QUOTE] Only accounts for the people actively looking for employment.

[QUOTE=nezo;51041152]Only accounts for the people actively looking for employment.[/QUOTE] Where's your sources

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51041160]Where's your sources[/QUOTE] It says it in his source m8 [QUOTE=http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate]In the United States, the unemployment rate measures the number of people actively looking for a job[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=nezo;51041172]It says it in his source m8[/QUOTE] Yeah so I'm asking for your source on why you think the number not looking is significant

[QUOTE=nezo;51041152]Only accounts for the people actively looking for employment.[/QUOTE] Yeah... your point being?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51041194]Yeah so I'm asking for your source on why you think the number not looking is significant[/QUOTE] It is significant. The statistics and reports you typically hear are from a sample too small to get a better picture, and it masks the desperate situation many are in. Also, I live in the U.S. and I know how things are, if that means anything to you. [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-12-15/unemployment-worse-than-it-looksbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice[/url] [url]http://nypost.com/2016/06/03/ugly-jobs-report-is-even-worse-than-it-looks/[/url] [QUOTE=The Vman;51041212]Yeah... your point being?[/QUOTE] My point being that the situation is a lot more bleak than it looks and you won't get an accurate picture when some factors are assumed/disregarded.

[QUOTE=nezo;51041238]It is significant. The statistics and reports you typically hear are from a sample too small to get a better picture, and it masks the desperate situation many are in. Also, I live in the U.S. and I know how things are, if that means anything to you. [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-12-15/unemployment-worse-than-it-looksbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice[/url] [url]http://nypost.com/2016/06/03/ugly-jobs-report-is-even-worse-than-it-looks/[/url] My point being that the situation is a lot more bleak than it looks and you won't get an accurate picture when some factors are assumed/disregarded.[/QUOTE] It doesn't because you live in one part of the US with a very anecdotal perspective. Statistics are far more credible than you think, regardless of what you think of statistics.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51041261]It doesn't because you live in one part of the US with a very anecdotal perspective. Statistics are far more credible than you think, regardless of what you think of statistics.[/QUOTE] Welp. You've convinced me.

An article from 2008 and one about a bad period of one year is not the indication you clearly believe it is [editline]12th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=nezo;51041267]Welp. You've convinced me.[/QUOTE] You're trying to convince me and I'm asking for why you think what you do. When your explanation doesn't hold water because partially it's emotionally driven and biased based on personal anecdotes then no I'm not convinced

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51041268]An article from 2008 and one about a bad period of one year is not the indication you clearly believe it is [editline]12th September 2016[/editline] You're trying to convince me and I'm asking for why you think what you do. When your explanation doesn't hold water because partially it's emotionally driven and biased based on personal anecdotes then no I'm not convinced[/QUOTE] It's an article from 2008, but it explains how statistics are gathered and they are still gathered to this date.