Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
TheHamburglarRegardless of what you think of Trump's character or moral disposition, and regardless of whether you think Hillary is a criminal for her lack of intervention regarding big security risks in Benghazi, the truth is that Trump is wholly unfit for the position of POTUS, simply because he lacks any political experience at all. Hillary is more qualified, despite the huge number of seemingly true allegations regarding corrupt dealings.
Furthermore, other countries see Trump as laughable on the scale of global leadership, and see our citizens as equally laughable, and stupid, to have gotten this asshole so far in a fucking presidential election. Why do you think Putin and Un want Trump in office? He is easily manipulatable due to his extreme ignorance, bravado, and lack of experience. Putin will walk all over him. Electing Trump will GUARANTEE that America will never be great "again." End of story.
californiagrownI still haven't seen trump's daughters speech, and I haven't seen Hillary's speech, but I thouggt the dnc was hugely better than the rnc.
louie.miragsyou forgot about the fact that there is more than 2 political parties.. You have been manipulated.
mirozHe didn't say anything about them being the only two options. Your soapbox is showing!
louie.miragsWell I saw him comparing two candidates without any other options. So I figured I would add to the convo. Is he your client?
louie.miragsyou forgot about the fact that there is more than 2 political parties.. You have been manipulated.
louie.miragsWell I saw him comparing two candidates without any other options. So I figured I would add to the convo. Is he your client?
Charlie_KellyBloomberg is more of a man than you and Trump could ever hope to be.
S.J.WTrump is worth 4.5 billion. Meaning he multiplied his wealth after that million dollar loan by 45 times.
.MASSHOLE.What is the likelihood Trump attempts to weasel his way out of the debates? He is already crying foul play despite the dates being set over a year ago.
onenerdykidLiterally every time he opens his mouth concerning a serious issue, he fails miserably. He is completely ignorant of the world around him and it is embarrassing listening to him speak. Seriously, college freshman understand global politics better than this idiot. He is dangerously stupid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/world/europe/ukraine-trump-crimea-politics.html?mwrsm=Facebook&_r=0
“He’s not going into Ukraine, O.K., just so you understand,” Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee, said when the issue came up. “He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.”
“Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?” Mr. Stephanopoulos interrupted.
californiagrownThat's just the start. Scary thing is, he was picked to make the Trump ticket look less insane and more like they had a plan.
I still haven't seen trump's daughters speech, and I haven't seen Hillary's speech, but I thouggt the dnc was hugely better than the rnc.
roddy116not really they were both equally stupid, people just say one was better than the other because of what they each covered.
DNC was basically a shitty smear campaign based around social justice.
RNC was a shitty smear campaign based around, whatever.
TheHamburglarIf you seriously think any 3rd party has a shot, then you're incredibly delusional and unrealistic
TheHamburglarIf you seriously think any 3rd party has a shot, then you're incredibly delusional and unrealistic
louie.mirags^congrats dude.. You're the example of how the brainwashing and social engineering works.
.MASSHOLE.Statistically speaking, given the polls recently, they have less than a 1% chance of winning.
Now, that is not to say 3rd Parties are worthless but with the way the current system is set up (the electoral college), they play the a negative roll in swing states. People old enough to remember Nader can attest to this fact. If you want to vote for a 3rd Party in a swing state, depending on the party you vote for, you are hurting one of the favored candidates and perhaps enabling the candidate you truly do not want to win.
If you are not in a swing state, a 3rd party vote is a good thing because it will help these parties get to the 5% required to gain federal funding. But as recent history has shown, this very rarely happens. Perhaps this year will be different.
The problem is 3rd Parties shoot for the moon and put themselves at a disadvantage because no one takes them seriously. Perhaps if they were to build a presence at state and Congressional levels they would be taken more seriously....
roddy116Yeah but if he gets on a major news outlet, say a debate. Then Gary would have a decent chance. I mean he would most likely debate much better than Clinton or trump.
louie.mirags^congrats dude.. You're the example of how the brainwashing and social engineering works.
.MASSHOLE.Statistically speaking, given the polls recently, they have less than a 1% chance of winning.
Now, that is not to say 3rd Parties are worthless but with the way the current system is set up (the electoral college), they play the a negative roll in swing states. People old enough to remember Nader can attest to this fact. If you want to vote for a 3rd Party in a swing state, depending on the party you vote for, you are hurting one of the favored candidates and perhaps enabling the candidate you truly do not want to win.
If you are not in a swing state, a 3rd party vote is a good thing because it will help these parties get to the 5% required to gain federal funding. But as recent history has shown, this very rarely happens. Perhaps this year will be different.
The problem is 3rd Parties shoot for the moon and put themselves at a disadvantage because no one takes them seriously. Perhaps if they were to build a presence at state and Congressional levels they would be taken more seriously....
louie.mirags^congrats dude.. You're the example of how the brainwashing and social engineering works.
.MASSHOLE.Statistically speaking, given the polls recently, they have less than a 1% chance of winning.
Now, that is not to say 3rd Parties are worthless but with the way the current system is set up (the electoral college), they play the a negative roll in swing states. People old enough to remember Nader can attest to this fact. If you want to vote for a 3rd Party in a swing state, depending on the party you vote for, you are hurting one of the favored candidates and perhaps enabling the candidate you truly do not want to win.
If you are not in a swing state, a 3rd party vote is a good thing because it will help these parties get to the 5% required to gain federal funding. But as recent history has shown, this very rarely happens. Perhaps this year will be different.
The problem is 3rd Parties shoot for the moon and put themselves at a disadvantage because no one takes them seriously. Perhaps if they were to build a presence at state and Congressional levels they would be taken more seriously....
onenerdykidI don't think any of us are arguing that the idea of a 3rd (or 4th) party is an inherently bad thing. It's just a bad thing at the moment because their existence only becomes apparent during a Presidential election. At the moment, they have no real base, no real support, and the masses have no idea who they are and why they should be taken seriously. Therefore, they are statistically a long shot.
At the moment, a 3rd party will definitely pull votes away from the main party they resemble, thus weakening said party. Nader in 2000 is a perfect example of how this ends badly for both the main party & 3rd party because they both lose.
But I do think we need 3rd and 4th parties to exist and end this retarded shit show of a 2-party system. But entering the Presidential election out of nowhere is dumb idea. They need to garner support at the state level, build a meaningful & loyal base, and then hope that it gets them the 15% needed to be a part of the debate process.
roddy116Yeah but if he gets on a major news outlet, say a debate. Then Gary would have a decent chance. I mean he would most likely debate much better than Clinton or trump.
louie.miragsThe loyal base is there. Way bigger than you think. And its growing and the media is going to ignore it.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/penn-jillette-wasted-vote/
louie.mirags^congrats dude.. You're the example of how the brainwashing and social engineering works.
louie.miragsThe loyal base is there. Way bigger than you think. And its growing and the media is going to ignore it.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/penn-jillette-wasted-vote/
californiagrownLol. Trump is the worst debator and public speaker in the history of this country's presidential elections. Not only is he bad at actually speaking and conveying ideas, he actually has nothing of substance to say. Yet he has close to half the country's support.
Why do you think someone making cogent arguments, pitching real implementable policy in a professional and clear manner would garner votes? That shit ain't entertaining. 'murica wants a leader who scapegoats the same people and blows nice warm air up their asses.
You overestimate the intelligence and objectiveness of the American public, my friend.
.MASSHOLE.No, no he won't. He has to steal voters away from both Clinton and Trump. If you look at his platform, there is certainly overlap with the other two, but then other aspects are the complete opposite.
For example, Johnson is pro-small government, anti-regulation, and basically wants to cut the budget via reducing government programs. Now, the small government and cutting government programs is appealing to Trump supporters, but he has some parts of his platform that are the exact opposite of what his supporters want, including free trade, keeping money in politics, change how police are armed, is OK with immigration, etc.
On the Clinton side, he is certainly socially progressive in regards to gay marriage, workplace and social discrimination, separation of church and state, believes in a pathway for legal status for illegal immigrants, etc. But on the core economic issues, he is so far right compared to her. He is pretty hands off with environmental policies, pro-free trade, wants to tax higher incomes less, wants to remove social security, etc.
These are major trade-offs for voting for Johnson that many voters will not want to give up.
roddy116Well unfortunately the voters dont know what they want, and right now most people want someone who isn't percieved to be insane, or is a flat out criminal.
And he is very capable of doing that if he was allowed to debate. Its so easy to swing the average person because a good amount of the voters just vote on who looks better, who is what race/ sex/ relgion etc... that might not be true for this election given the amount of information we are getting nowadays. But yes he is more than capable of stealing voters away.
TheHamburglarcongrats dude, you're an example of how to fuck up posting in a thread.
Also you do understand that the US electoral college system is essentially built to support bipartisanship, largely due to the fact that we use a single-member district, as opposed to other countries, who have multiple seats per district, and can therefore allocate to various persons representing different parties. Therefore, the single-seat-per-district winner-take-all strategy of electing basically ensures that its either one or the other, left or right. Sure, a large group of people may move from one party to another over time, and the new party will ultimately replace the old one (Republican replaced Whig circa 1850), but this takes time and clear leadership to change.
TLDR; Ultimately, the way our countries voting system is set up hugely supports bipartisanship. While it may not always be dems vs repubs, it's nearly impossible for a third party to get elected short of political revolution. We don't have the time or the means to make this happen before November. So keep saying "you're brainwashed" or read a fucking book, dipshit
roddy116are you capable of reading?
louie.miragsVoting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
ToursTime to burn down the mosques.
WildBANimalDo it then, pussy. You won't.
onenerdykidThis tends to happen after convention season anyway, BUT the Donald isn't doing so hot, even according to the latest Fox News poll in the article: Clinton 49%, Trump 39%
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12374000/trump-clinton-polls-today
CampeadorOne word, Brexit.
The debates (and potentially world events) will ultimately determine people's enduring decision on who to vote for.
Whether it goes well for Trump, who can say? I'd like to hope he shows Hillary for the corrupt, sickly, and disgusting woman that she is. Donor controlled politicians need to be destroyed.
I also know that the Democrat machine is hard at work coming up with all sorts of voter fraud schemes in key areas, hence their desperation to fight voter ID laws (frankly all people should be required by law to have an ID).
Also, the 24/7 obsession of the far-left media hyenas with everything Trump will eventually backfire.
californiagrownWait, what? You want to force everyone in the country to have a government issued ID?
CampeadorI also know that the Democrat machine is hard at work coming up with all sorts of voter fraud schemes in key areas, hence their desperation to fight voter ID laws (frankly all people should be required by law to have an ID).
CampeadorOne word, Brexit.
.
Also, the 24/7 obsession of the far-left media hyenas with everything Trump will eventually backfire.
Gods_FatherDo you want illegals voting?
