USA Today abandons no-endorsement policy to declare Trump unfit for office - Polidicks

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;51140382]Damn Obama even disappoints Croatians I guess[/QUOTE] His decisions in Ukraine and Syria were awful, his weak responses had only encouraged Putin imperialistic ambitions and caused deeper instability in Middle East while started destabilization of Europe.

Newspapers are supposed to give you the facts so you can decide what you think of something, not spoonfeed their opinion to you and make it yours. I don't like it when any paper or news agency endorses any candidate or legislative proposal.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51134288]An unendorsement then? As in, 'vote for anyone BUT THIS PERSON.'[/QUOTE] Vermin Supreme 2016

[QUOTE=Ridge;51141024]Newspapers are supposed to give you the facts so you can decide what you think of something, not spoonfeed their opinion to you and make it yours. I don't like it when any paper or news agency endorses any candidate or legislative proposal.[/QUOTE] You've clearly not paid attention to what the news has become across the worlds these days. You're also ignoring the fact that newspapers typically have opinion pieces too.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51141024]Newspapers are [b]supposed to[/b] give you the facts so you can decide what you think of something, not spoonfeed their opinion to you and make it yours. I don't like it when any paper or news agency endorses any candidate or legislative proposal.[/QUOTE] Editorials and opinion pieces are not a new invention. That's how newspapers work, and there is nothing wrong with it, unless they present their opinions as solid, objective facts rather than opinions.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51141024]Newspapers are supposed to give you the facts so you can decide what you think of something, not spoonfeed their opinion to you and make it yours. I don't like it when any paper or news agency endorses any candidate or legislative proposal.[/QUOTE] YPu support a candidate backed and managed by Stephen Bannon of Brietbart media. Needless to say that's rich

[QUOTE=Ridge;51141024]Newspapers are supposed to give you the facts so you can decide what you think of something, not spoonfeed their opinion to you and make it yours. I don't like it when any paper or news agency endorses any candidate or legislative proposal.[/QUOTE] Then don't read the paper, shit ain't hard.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51141178]YPu support a candidate backed and managed by Stephen Bannon of Brietbart media. Needless to say that's rich[/QUOTE] I support Gary Johnson.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51141610]I support Gary Johnson.[/QUOTE] have fun getting 1 electoral college vote

[QUOTE=Badballer;51134405]I want Trump to win so 2020 will be Trump vs Kanye[/QUOTE] This will really be when I immigrate to Canada :v:

[QUOTE=Ridge;51141610]I support Gary Johnson.[/QUOTE] isn't he like, shit though

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51142990]isn't he like, shit though[/QUOTE] He means well, and claims he was successful when he governed New Mexico, but Libertarians and their economic policies... [editline]2nd October 2016[/editline] Gary gets criticism from the far reaches of the Libertarian party for basically being diet Libertarian though, so he might not be so bad maybe still better than Trump

[QUOTE=Ridge;51141024][B]Newspapers are supposed to give you the facts[/B] so you can decide what you think of something, not spoonfeed their opinion to you and make it yours. I don't like it when any paper or news agency endorses any candidate or legislative proposal.[/QUOTE] that's what USA today just did :v:

[QUOTE=lavacano;51144300]He means well, and claims he was successful when he governed New Mexico, but Libertarians and their economic policies... [editline]2nd October 2016[/editline] Gary gets criticism from the far reaches of the Libertarian party for basically being diet Libertarian though, so he might not be so bad maybe still better than Trump[/QUOTE] Gary Johnson is a horrible libertarian. He ran New Mexico like a moderate Republican.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51144309]Gary Johnson is a horrible libertarian. He ran New Mexico like a moderate Republican.[/QUOTE] He's still fronting for the [I]fuck you, got mine / every man for himself[/I] party.

[QUOTE=Badballer;51134405]I want Trump to win so 2020 will be Trump vs Kanye[/QUOTE] Instead of a debate they should have a rap battle about their policies.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51129516]Can't wait for a Hillary presidency. You guys might not think it, but she'd be the most liberal president in decades. At least since Jimmy Carter, if not even further back[/QUOTE] now that's just batshit insane liberal =/= good [QUOTE=Sobotnik;51142990]isn't he like, shit though[/QUOTE] Awful because he supports more open borders, the TPP, and other bad things, but on a lot of other issues he's pretty reasonable. It seems like every other candidate has serious drawbacks as well; Hillary - Loss of civil liberties, a lot of taxes, corruption, pointless weapons bans, etc. Trump - Loss of civil liberties, corruption, populism Stein - Racist discriminatory laws, taxes to death, potential loss of civil liberties, massive inflation, est. upwards of 40 trillion national debt

[QUOTE=space1;51145163]now that's just batshit insane liberal =/= good Awful because he supports more open borders, the TPP, and other bad things, but on a lot of other issues he's pretty reasonable. It seems like every other candidate has serious drawbacks as well; Hillary - Loss of civil liberties, a lot of taxes, corruption, pointless weapons bans, etc. Trump - Loss of civil liberties, corruption, populism Stein - Racist discriminatory laws, taxes to death, potential loss of civil liberties, massive inflation, est. upwards of 40 trillion national debt[/QUOTE] What civil liberties are being threatened by Clinton? Like, I guess you could consider gun rights, but even that is a bit of a stretch if you ask me. Her current proposals are mandatory background checks ([I]fairly reasonable request imo[/I]), restrictions to magazine size and certain classifications ([I]probably not very well conceived[/I]) and restricting weapons to people on watchlists ([I]same as Trump -- bad idea until watchlists are more transparent and give the chance for appeal[/I]). Beyond that, I don't see what other civil liberties she could possibly be threatening, especially when compared to Trump who has personally and repeatedly endorsed violating or revoking key provisions of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and fourteenth amendments. And, again, possibly the 2nd amendment depending on how you feel regarding his policy on gun access for people on watchlists.

Under Clinton's tax plan the vast majority of American's will either keep paying the same amount of taxes or less, with only the very rich seeing an actual increase. The only "civil liberties" I see being threatened by Clinton are attacks against gun rights and increasing, or at the very least supporting, the survelliance state, which Trump would probably do anyway. Guns are one of the very, very few legitimate reasons for supporting Trump over Clinton so if guns are your single issue then whatever, I can't deny that Trump won't campaign against them as hard as Clinton. Something to consider though: Obama made an AWB a promise of his first term and it never happened. After 8 years of pandering to the liberal anti-gunners with teary-eyed speeches the only gun bills that have crossed Obama's desk with his signature [I]expanded [/I]gun rights. It is definitely not a guarantee that gun rights would be eroded under a Clinton presidency, particularly because if she doesn't win the GE by a landslide Congress will almost definitely become Republican-controlled in 2018 if it doesn't remain that way in 2016.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51145853]Under Clinton's tax plan the vast majority of American's will either keep paying the same amount of taxes or less, with only the very rich seeing an actual increase. The only "civil liberties" I see being threatened by Clinton are attacks against gun rights and increasing, or at the very least supporting, the survelliance state, which Trump would probably do anyway. Guns are one of the very, very few legitimate reasons for supporting Trump over Clinton so if guns are your single issue then whatever, I can't deny that Trump won't campaign against them as hard as Clinton. Something to consider though: Obama made an AWB a promise of his first term and it never happened. After 8 years of pandering to the liberal anti-gunners with teary-eyed speeches the only gun bills that have crossed Obama's desk with his signature [I]expanded [/I]gun rights. It is definitely not a guarantee that gun rights would be eroded under a Clinton presidency, particularly because if she doesn't win the GE by a landslide Congress will almost definitely become Republican-controlled in 2018 if it doesn't remain that way in 2016.[/QUOTE] But if she gets a friendly House/Senate, she can get a lot more done than Obama ever did. He pretty much had an uphill battle to fight on anything. Plus, gun rights are not the kind of thing that gets restored after they are taken away. It's really my biggest issue this cycle because if I want to be safe with it, I have to pick the man-child, but if I want to go with what is probably better in the long run, I have to pick the other thing and hope she doesn't bite... This really reinforces my hope/idea/belief that Trump just won't be able to do anything and he will be cockblocked with any crazy legislation. He would just be a really loud mouthpiece. No one is going to be daft enough to try to take away LGBT rights now that they are here, minus your handful of crazy governors. The other amendments are basically safe, bar a few minor squabbles, but the 2nd is under a pretty big threat should the lawmaking turn left.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51145905]This really reinforces my hope/idea/belief that Trump just won't be able to do anything and he will be cockblocked with any crazy legislation. He would just be a really loud mouthpiece.[/QUOTE] What on Earth makes you think this? If he gets a Republican senate and Republican house, he'll be free to ram through as much horrible shit as he wants. No Republican senator is going to "cockblock" him on all the horrible shit they want to do just because SOME of Trumps ideas are too crazy for even them. [QUOTE]No one is going to be daft enough to try to take away LGBT rights now that they are here, minus your handful of crazy governors. The other amendments are basically safe, bar a few minor squabbles, but the 2nd is under a pretty big threat should the lawmaking turn left.[/QUOTE] Look at Mike Pence (Trump's VP that will basically be running his presidency the way Dick Cheney did) and look at his track record. Don't you dare say that LGBT rights aren't at risk, especially if multiple Supreme Court justices die and Trump/Pence is given the opportunity to replace them along with the potentially Republican Senate's opportunity to approve them. Are guns really worth gambling the rights of LGBT, the US Economy, the safety nets of millions of Americans, and our foreign relations?

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51145970]What on Earth makes you think this? If he gets a Republican senate and Republican house, he'll be free to ram through as much horrible shit as he wants. No Republican senator is going to "cockblock" him on all the horrible shit they want to do just because SOME of Trumps ideas are too crazy for even them. Look at Mike Pence (Trump's VP that will basically be running his presidency the way Dick Cheney did) and look at his track record. Don't you dare say that LGBT rights aren't at risk, especially if multiple Supreme Court justices die and Trump/Pence is given the opportunity to replace them along with the potentially Republican Senate's opportunity to approve them. Are guns really worth gambling the rights of LGBT, the US Economy, the safety nets of millions of Americans, and our foreign relations?[/QUOTE] I really find my gun rights under a much greater risk than my LGBT rights. Also, half of the Republican party hates the guy and will probably try to cut him out of the equation to save face as much as they can. Hell, Paul Ryan can't even back him worth a damn. If the only support he has is from his campaign, then what string will he pull in office. People really overestimate the power of the presidency as far as legislation goes. Aside from his power to appoint justices, which are likely to live the next 4 years, he isn't much of a threat besides being a loud mouth, which he will get knocked into place for.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146007]I really find my gun rights under a much greater risk than my LGBT rights. [/QUOTE] Nice. God help your magazine gets restricted, rather than people lose benefits and be relegated to minorities that are free to be discriminated against. Again. And I'm a gun owner.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146007]I really find my gun rights under a much greater risk than my LGBT rights. Also, half of the Republican party hates the guy and will probably try to cut him out of the equation to save face as much as they can.[/QUOTE] You think Republicans will vote against Republican bills just because Trump is president? That's downright deluded. Trump is going to side with the Republicans on nearly every issue which means the Republicans would have the presidential veto on their side. And there's ALREADY a Supreme Court Justice ready to be replaced by whoever Trump wants as soon as he gets a Republican senate.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51129516]Can't wait for a Hillary presidency. You guys might not think it, but she'd be the most liberal president in decades. At least since Jimmy Carter, if not even further back[/QUOTE] I wouldn't consider Hillary to be very liberal...

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51146019]Nice. God help your magazine gets restricted, rather than people lose benefits and be relegated to minorities that are free to be discriminated against. Again. And I'm a gun owner.[/QUOTE] I logically see a very minimal threat to any of that. State's have been fully capable of doing what NC's HB2 does, but yet, no one has done it. It isn't popular, it's not supported, and it's just irrational for anyone to do it. Hell, even NC, which is undoubtedly conservative, has only a 37% approval on that bill. But yes, I am going to put my faith in the other branches of the government to hope they do what is right. [QUOTE=Helix Snake;51146034]You think Republicans will vote against Republican bills just because Trump is president? That's downright deluded. Trump is going to side with the Republicans on nearly every issue which means the Republicans would have the presidential veto on their side. And there's ALREADY a Supreme Court Justice ready to be replaced by whoever Trump wants as soon as he gets a Republican senate.[/QUOTE] Republicans aren't going to vote against Republicans, but they are certainly going to be wary of what they pass. They know their image is completely fucked, and Trump is the perfect example of that. No sane human can twist that into a good thing. So I really see them try to maintain a good status quo for the next 4 years and try to regain the chunk of the public they lost through Obama and their idiotic roadblocking. Currently the SCOTUS sits 4-4 with Republican or Democratic affiliated justices. One of those 4 Republican justices (Kennedy) is really more liberal compared to the the remainder, significantly so. If I had to venture an opinion, I would say that the liberal justices are far more "extreme" in their ideology than the conservatives are. Which is neither good nor bad, but I think it highlights the direction the SCOTUS is and will continue to go.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146007]I really find my gun rights under a much greater risk than my LGBT rights.[/QUOTE] You value your inanimate literal killing machines more than human lives. That kinda speaks volumes of your character. Wow.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51146007]I really find my gun rights under a much greater risk than my LGBT rights. Also, half of the Republican party hates the guy and will probably try to cut him out of the equation to save face as much as they can. Hell, Paul Ryan can't even back him worth a damn. If the only support he has is from his campaign, then what string will he pull in office. People really overestimate the power of the presidency as far as legislation goes. Aside from his power to appoint justices, which are likely to live the next 4 years, he isn't much of a threat besides being a loud mouth, which he will get knocked into place for.[/QUOTE] I see absolutely no reason why Republicans wouldn't vote for things that align with Trumps platform. The RNC platform matches up almost exactly with Trump's as well. You are putting far too much faith into supposed bad blood. It's more likely that they will just work with what they have, which in this case is someone who agrees with them 9/10 times anyway.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51146128]I see absolutely no reason why Republicans wouldn't vote for things that align with Trumps platform. The RNC platform matches up almost exactly with Trump's as well. You are putting far too much faith into supposed bad blood. It's more likely that they will just work with what they have, which in this case is someone who agrees with them 9/10 times anyway.[/QUOTE] Honestly, what does his platform even consist of that would be something you'd see Republicans jump on? Blocking Muslims from coming in? Worst case, we don't take as many refugees, a situation that is already screwed up beyond American control. Unfortunate, but it is so. Building a wall? A huge waste of money, time, and labor. Mexico isn't paying for it, they know it, we know it. We already have a wall any how. Obamacare? Honestly, in an ideal world we could repeal it start, fresh and not suffer any hiccups from the change. But that isn't going to happen. At least he plans on opening insurance across state lines, that is if he even gets his way to start. I will say that Obamacare in it's current state, as helpful as some claim it to be, is pretty disastrous, and an awful foundation to start building universal healthcare. I could continue, but I really see the pattern getting weaker the further we go. Energy being the only thing I find harmful that is likely to get pushed through.

Where does this whole thing with "Trump is going to take away LGBT rights" come from? He's pretty pro-LGBT from what I've seen on his social media.