|
Status
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 5 2013, 11:20 PM (694,530 Views)
|
|
Dylan
|
Nov 9 2016, 05:33 PM
Post #22381
|
- Posts:
- 2,261
- Group:
- RTZI Managers
- Member
- #3,043
- Joined:
- Nov 13, 2014
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Sex
- Male
- Age
- 16
|
I think naru makes good points. It is peoples decisions what they use guns for. Not the guns
If Pence wants to 'silence' LGBT, Muslims and other minorities, I would still with Trump. The Wall will never get built. We all know this. It is estimated to cost $25 bn that the US doesn't have/ could use in more effective ways. It would go over mountains, through rivers and deserts and towns. What about the Caribbean sea. People could just build rafts and boats like in the Mediterranean. Moreover (I think a point often overlooked) 40% of immigrants came by plane
|
|
|
| |
Flish
|
Nov 9 2016, 05:45 PM
Post #22382
|
- Posts:
- 1,804
- Group:
- Arctic Explorers
- Member
- #170
- Joined:
- Mar 25, 2013
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Male
- Real Name
- Mark
- Age
- 19
|
- Dylan
- Nov 9 2016, 05:33 PM
If Pence wants to 'silence' LGBT, Muslims and other minorities, I would still with Trump. Honestly the idea that you are ok with intentionally segregating others just because they are different than you is an unsettling trend.
|
|
|
| |
|
stargatedalek
|
Nov 9 2016, 05:52 PM
Post #22383
|
I'm not slow! That's just my moe!
- Posts:
- 5,061
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #245
- Joined:
- Apr 21, 2013
- Country
- Canada
- Sex
- Female
- Real Name
- 海巳慧琉
- Age
- 20
|
Way to prove my point about Trump supporters mate. Reported you for racism and homophobia too, regardless of context outright saying such people don't matter is a violation of site rules.
|
|
|
| |
Narukota
|
Nov 9 2016, 05:58 PM
Post #22384
|
blah
- Posts:
- 3,515
- Group:
- Magic Elves
- Member
- #1,975
- Joined:
- May 13, 2014
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Male
- Real Name
- Alexander Minh Le
- Age
- 19
|
- Dylan
-
If Pence wants to 'silence' LGBT, Muslims and other minorities No matter if Trump says so, or Pence says so, and even if they make laws
They literally cannot do that because that would lead to huge riots and eventually a coup.
spoiled for no reason @Flish&SGD: why did you open the spoiler then if you're gonna act all offended. i specifically put that spoiler for you guys. &@SGD: technically dylan didn't violate anything since it wasn't a direct offensive attack nor non-directive, but rather wrong wording. you on the other hand: - Quote:
-
4.1.2 Provocation || Posting provocative or aggressive posts towards a specific group of people, attacking others people's beliefs or political stand points and constantly getting into fights will be considered flaming even if you don't mention anyone directly.
Edited by Narukota, Nov 9 2016, 06:14 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Imperator Furiosa
|
Nov 9 2016, 06:03 PM
Post #22385
|
Chaos Theory
- Posts:
- 1,427
- Group:
- Trusted Members
- Member
- #5,134
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2015
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Female
- Age
- 21
- Real Name
- Gabe
|
Alright can we please try to calm down a bit? Yes, some people are legitimately scared and they have every right to express that. But the fact of the matter is Trump won, and there's nothing that will really change that (outside of his removal from the position for whatever reason). Also keep in mind that he isn't popular with establishment Republicans who still are largely in congress, so they'll act as a safe-guard hopefully. And believe it or not, but most Republicans will still try to uphold the law of the land rather than enforce their personal views. I'm not happy with the election results personally but all I can do is accept it and move on, that's all we can do.
|
|
|
| |
|
saurianne
|
Nov 9 2016, 06:27 PM
Post #22386
|
- Posts:
- 62
- Group:
- Junior Members
- Member
- #4,166
- Joined:
- May 11, 2015
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Female
- Age
- 21
|
Yeah Furiosa's got a point. Sorry if I added fuel to the fire, as it were. I did end my earlier statement the way I did earlier for a reason: whatever happens, things will probably be a bit rough for people going forward, so the best we can do is be there for each other. You seem to all be generally decent people, I think we can put aside our biases to be there for each other should something serious happen. I for one hope everyone here is okay in the coming months, I know a lot of people are freaking out worse than me.
Thankfully checks and balances are a thing that exists, so we'll see what happens. Hopefully we'll all come out of this okay.
|
|
|
| |
|
Burns
|
Nov 9 2016, 08:07 PM
Post #22387
|
King of Lemurs
- Posts:
- 6,273
- Group:
- Zoologists
- Member
- #630
- Joined:
- Jul 18, 2013
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Male
- Real Name
- Brendan
- Age
- 17
|
Meanwhile amongst the chaos, Burns has found out how to train and where to buy carrier pigeons.
|
|
|
| |
|
Envy
|
Nov 9 2016, 09:11 PM
Post #22388
|
Would you look at me? I'm setting records.
- Posts:
- 1,611
- Group:
- Trainees
- Member
- #2,299
- Joined:
- Jul 9, 2014
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Male
- Age
- 19
|
This is very entertaining. At least Narukota has gone into depth and not putting twists on what Trump has said.
Never has he said he wanted to deport all hispanics or that he wants to deport all muslims. He said he wants to cut down on illegal immigration. How is that racist? Are illegal immigrants a race? I never knew. Not to mention we have had the border up for a reason. Apparently wanting to defend a country's border is racism. I guess the Japanese are racist as well for being in isolation back in the 1600s and disliking foreigners, or any country that defends its borders to this day.
Oh, a perfect example on some muslims turning out to be terrorists is happening right now in Europe. Have you seen all increases in riots? There are Middle-Eastern people, most of them being refugees, attacking cops and raping European citizens. Unfortunately, they are making all muslims seem like this.
Yeah, there will always be rioting and rape, but it has been increasing ever since refugees have been left in without a stagnant amount of background checks. Even so it has failed.
Not to mention they aren't "running" to safety. There are plenty of countries between them and the war-torn areas, yet they are precisely going to places like France and Sweden. Why? For benefits, not safety. This is one of the main reasons the U.K. seceded from the European Union.
A perfect analogy to this is, if you were offered M&Ms but some of them were poisoned, would you still take them?
Now, I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but he's the lesser of two evils in this case. The whole "mysoginist" accussations from Clinton supporters is hypocritical because of what Bill Clinton did. Hillary silenced and even mocked the rape victims of Bill
Hillary has done so much worse things than Trump. While Trump said "mean stuff".
Don't even get me started on Sanders.
I'd go a lot more in depth but I'm probably going to be called a facist, racist, xenophobe, etc.
Just chill out, children.
Edited by Envy, Nov 9 2016, 09:13 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Acinonyx Jubatus
|
Nov 9 2016, 09:24 PM
Post #22389
|
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!
- Posts:
- 2,129
- Group:
- Trainees
- Member
- #121
- Joined:
- Mar 10, 2013
- Country
- Canada
- Sex
- Male
- Real Name
- Benjamin
- Age
- 20
|
- Burns
- Nov 9 2016, 08:07 PM
Meanwhile amongst the chaos, Burns has found out how to train and where to buy carrier pigeons. This is epic. Thank you, Burns. You made my day go up about ten notches.
Also, I looked at Tardigrades today! Real, living Tardigrades! It's amazing that creatures you can't even see (and are completely transparent when you can see them) can be so utterly adorable.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jannick
|
Nov 9 2016, 11:17 PM
Post #22390
|
Papua merdeka!
- Posts:
- 750
- Group:
- Maintenance Workers
- Member
- #391
- Joined:
- Jun 3, 2013
- Country
- Taiwan
- Sex
- Male
- Real Name
- Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard van Oranje-Nassau
- Age
- 22
|
- Narukota
- Nov 9 2016, 04:28 PM
huge political explanation and summary w/opinions. don't click if offended easily ok well time to begin a fun rant with opinions, pros and cons, and other butthurt material which i will try to make the least offensive. (but we all know there's that one person who gets totally butthurt)I'm a simple guy. I like to view the logical side of most things. Religion, politics, etc. I'm gonna start with some fun "pros and cons" of the most controversial statements from both sides, Hillary and Donald, and use logical deduction to see which is somewhat better (even if they're both "awful" to everyone). Hillary VS Trump on ECONOMICS:Hillary:So Hillary said a lot of awesome things. I actually agreed with some of them. She's a smart, intelligent woman, one of the most powerful women ever, and heck, the first female presidential nominee. However, some were ok but potentially hazardous. Remember in the 2nd or 3rd presidential debate, she said "people who make less than ($125,000?) will NOT have to pay taxes". Pros: WOAH NO TAXES. THAT'S AWESOME. Cons: ...that's gonna be a heckalot of people not paying taxes. But think about it. What are taxes? It's literally the government taking a portion of your money. But what do they do with the money? They use that money to fund government-funded stuff like hospitals, communities, businesses, financial aid, etc. They won't have the money to fund all that if Hilary cuts off the taxes. No taxes -> No money to the government -> No government-funded stuff -> less businesses -> less jobs -> more homeless/poor people -> huge collapse in the economy. Just that ONE simple thing. No taxes. That will lead to an automatic collapse in the economy. Pros - 0.5points // its actually a really awesome idea Cons - 1point // but it'll crash our economy in an instantaneous chain reaction _______________________ Hillary says "no college debt". Pros:Woah, that's actually really good. College debt is what ruins a person financially. Cons:Actually, there aren't any cons to this that I can think of.. It's actually really good. However, if Hilary launched the "no taxes" thing, then there won't be any college loans. Aren't college loans basically the government or a government-funded foundation loaning you money to pay for your college with our tax money? No taxes -> No college loans -> No college debt -> OH THATS WHAT SHE MEANT BY NO COLLEGE DEBT. HAHAHA. Pros - 0points // both win/lose Cons - 0point // both win/lose_______________________ Trump:Trumped up, trickled down economics! jk about thatLet's take a look at the main idea of it. Trump handling our economy? Even when we're trillions of dollars in debt? If he could start one of the largest businesses in the world with a "small loan of a million dollars", imagine what he can do with US's trillions/billions. It'll be cool to let a successful businessman run our country financially. ok so, Trump on businesses/jobs: Pros:Bro, he's a successful businessman. If it were me to choose, I'd let him handle us financially. He's gonna create more jobs for millions of people, support people with small businesses financially, and basically what he wants is for people to go out there and create their own businesses. More businesses -> more jobs -> more money -> less debt US owes Cons:Unfortunately, it may come at a high cost. He wants to get rid of illegals who are "taking all our resources and jobs". Well, you know, he's not wrong.. They do come in illegally and take up our resources and jobs, and I honestly hate deportation because it breaks apart families and that's pretty tragic. Pros - 1points // both win/lose; we need a boost in jobs and illegals are taking our jobs Cons - 0.5point // both win/lose; increase of jobs and resources in US would require deportation of illegals_______________________ During his speech once he became president, he said that he'll work together with everyone to ally the US with as many countries as we can. Pros:Is that even possible? Because if that's possible, that would be awesome. More supplies, trades, markets, etc Cons:well, it would be triggering if US allied themselves with two+ countries who are enemies with each other... Pros - 1points // more open trade routes, markets, supplies, resources, oil, etc Cons - .5point // possible 3+way war if we ally with the wrong countries_______________________ Hilary: 0.5:1 Trump: 2:1 Trump wins ECONOMICS (imo) Hillary VS Trump on IMMIGRATION/REFUGEES:Hillary:Hillary's stand on immigration is great. Everyone loves it. She wants open borders and let refugees and immigrants stay here and be cared for. Pros:Yo, that's awesome. She's right though, America was founded by people who immigrated to this land, so who are we to block off the immigrants? Cons:Unfortunately, there's always that one bad egg. Literally out of 10 Mexican families who immigrate here, 1 or 2 of them are here to deal drugs and run a huge drug cartel. It's the reason why US is so drugged up. Druggies buy drugs and these Mexicans make mad ca$h by selling drugs. Same with refugees. There's that one guy who's a terrorist and is probably ISIS or whatever and wants to bomb us. I can't argue with a person who wants to bomb us. I mean, so many stuff we do in our society is like taboo to them, but hey, we're a free country. Pros - 1points // It's great to let immigrants and refugees come to the US for safer and better environments Cons - 0.5point // there's always that one drug dealer or terrorist, so that's the bad side of letting immigrants and refugees come in_______________________ Trump:..where do i start The #1 most controversial thing about Trump and the reason why everyone hates him (besides him saying his hair isn't a toupee) is that he wants to BUILD A GIANT HUUUUUGE WALL and get rid of illegals. He also wants to ban muslim refugees. The most unbelievable part about this is how everyone is overreacting. Every Mexican is like "IM GONNA GET DEPORTED IF DOLAND TURMP WINS" and every muslim is like "HE'S GONNA BAN US ALLLLLLL". That's all media bull*$^%. NO, he is not getting rid of every single mexican. NO, he is not getting rid of every single muslim. and NO HE IS NOT BANNING MUSLIMS. He wants to: 1. deport the illegals, whom a majority (NOT ALL) are drug dealers and run the world's largest drug cartel 2. shut off the refugees by closing our borders (and build a giant wall), which will actually make our country more secure. Pros:Deporting illegal immigrants, not allowing refugees, and shutting off the borders will actually increase the security of US. Less immigrants/refugees -> Less potential drug dealers and terrorists -> Safer environment and we wont have repeats of incidents like the Pulse nightclub Cons:Yes, while it has some perks, it's really sad though. Imagine being a muslim refugee, having to evacuate your home because of wars and you want to go to US because it's a free and safe country, but they won't let you in. Or if you're mexican and the mexican economy is so bad that you need to go to US to live a better live financially, but there's a giant wall in your way with a huge poster of an orange guy with a toupee. Pros - 1points // there's always that one drug dealer or terrorist, so that's the bad side of letting immigrants and refugees come in and that's why we (need?) this. Cons - 0.5point // bad for the illegals (or families with illegals) and muslims seeking refuge here but not being allowed in_______________________ Hilary: 1:0.5 Trump: 1:0.5 Hillary and Trump tie on IMMIGRATION/REFUGEES (imo)
//END OF PROS & CONS; BEGIN OPINIONS. Hillary VS Trump on LGBT COMMUNITY:let's make this reaaaaaaaaaaally simple. Hilary: For-LGBT Trump: Neither For/Against-LGBT I don't think he made a statement about it yet, although I heard Pence is against gays or something. It looks like Trump is leaving it up to the states to decide to legalize/ban gay marriage which is best, imo, because each state has their own choices. Now I can see on Twitter that a TON of people are freaked out and panicking about gay marriage once Trump won, but it's just stupid and nonsensical. I mean, what is gay? what is lesbian? what is straight? THEY'RE ALL LOVE PREFERENCES. Who are we to argue with love? Isn't that natural? I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about with "GAYS ARE SPECIAL". If I "came out" saying that I'm straight, no one would bat an eye, but someone comes out saying they're gay, they're "brave" and get all the attention. But seriously, being gay or lesbian is your choice and you shouldn't be discriminated or anything because it's just a love preference. Hillary is pro-gay and supports the LGBT community so i can't really rant about it. She's all good. But I prefer Trump's choice on LGBT rights instead of Hillary's. The states should make their own choices instead of it being legalized nation-wide, because what if some people from other countries come to US for sightseeing and they see a gay couple kissing and are offended because gay rights are "taboo" in their POV? I know a bunch of you are scared that Trump and/or Pence will ban gays or whatever. The fact is? They can't. You can't ban love. There's no possible way to, even if they did. _______________________ Hillary VS Trump on GUNS:oh yes. get triggered. a spanish/asian texan is actually talking about guns. Again, making it simple: Hillary Against-Guns Trump For-Guns ok so as a texan, you'll think im biased about guns, but seriously, im looking at the logic here. hillary is all like "omg guns kill people!" and im here like "yeah hillaroy, and spoons make people obese." trump is all like "omg guns don't kill people!" and im here like "yeah trump, and spoons ma- oh wait i love you" Get it straight. PEOPLE kill people. Not guns. Everyone is like "oh we need to ban guns because guns kill people! if we ban guns, murder will be reduced drastically!!". NOT TRUE. IMO, being shot with a gun is the best way to go. It's quick and painless(iguess). If you ban guns, people will be murdered with knives and sticks and stones and ceramic statues of squirrels and even a piano. ...That's a really painful and awful way to go. But seriously, murder will not be reduced if guns are banned. It'll actually be higher because people won't be able to defend themselves anymore and the only ones who will have access to guns will be the thieves/criminals. I'm with Trump for guns, because 'murica is always depicted with an eagle holding a gun and a flag. _______________________ Hillary on WIKILEAKS:yo, this is huge. she's actually getting ruined because wikileaks leaked all the emails she deleted. Ok, so there are two top discoveries in the emails that WikiLeaks leaked, both to and from Hillary. 1. The Podesta SeriesThis series of over 2,000 out of the 30,000 emails that she deleted is about Hillary and her campaign manager, John Podesta (who is also a former advisor to Bill Clinton and Obama). So there's this company called Uranium One which digs for uranium deposits. Uranium is an element used in the making of nuclear material, such as a nuclear bomb. Turns out, 1/5 of Uranium One was sold to Russia. To sell the portion of the company to Russia, they needed to be approved by a "committee of composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies". Among the agencies that signed off the deal was the State Department, which was then headed by Secretary Clinton. So lemme get this straight. Hillary sold 1/5 of Uranium One to Russia so they can make nuclear weapons, and now she was trying to trigger a war with them???? What? 2. Spirit CookingWOAH. COVER YOUR EYES, KIDS. THIS IS GRAPHIC MATERIAL. SPOILED FOR GRAPHIC MATERIAL Ok, so this is probably the creepiest, trippiest, most exposing thing from Hillary and is the main reason why I didn't vote for her. Hillary was linked to a SATANIC RITUAL? WHAT? In one of the emails that Hillary deleted and WikiLeaks leaked, John Podesta (Hillary's campaign manager) was invited by performance artist Marina Abramovic to "spirit cooking" at her house. People searched up spirit cooking and what came up? A "satanic" ritual. WARNING: GRAPHIC MATERIAL Spirit Cooking is "mixing menstrual blood, breast milk, and sperm in an earthquake night and cutting your middle finger and "eating the pain". For more info and a video of the performance, search "spirit cooking" on Google. If anyone clicked the spoiler, that was creepy and messed up, right? So Marina Abramovic (twitter: AbramovicM666; lmao she even has 666 on her twitter handle) is a performance artist and I watched several of her performances on YouTube. She claims she's "not a satanist", but bro, those are REALLY CREEPY AND RITUALISTIC PERFORMANCES. AND HILLARY WAS LINKED TO THIS?? So yeah, just google that up and read about it if you want more info. That changed so many people's thoughts on Hillary. That's pretty much why I didn't vote for her. I really don't want a satanist (or linked to) to be our president. That would be such maximum hypocrisy, especially since this country was founded on christianity. "God Bless America" will turn into "Lucifer Subscribe To America" _______________________ Trump on S. ASSAULT ALLIGATIONS AND VIDEOS:SPOILED FOR INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT Grab her by the crotch!!
Gosh diggity, Trump got trumped when women started coming out and accusing him of rape.
hey wait a minute... that sounds like bill cos- .....naaaah
Ok so what really happened? In case if some of you were unaware:
- A video of Trump from like 11 years ago emerged, showing him in a locker room and saying "I grab women by the pu***".
- Women are coming out and accusing Trump of raping them; One anonymous person under the name Jane Doe accused him of child rape.
okokokokok lemme get this straight. because trump was running for president, that video emerged JUST NOW? Where on earth has it been for the past 11 years? and do I or anyone else honestly give a damn about what he said in the locker room 11 years ago? Might as well convict a whole bunch of guys in middle school because they're all saying stuff like "send n00ds".
I don't know about you guys, but I'm not offended one bit about Trump's video from 11 years ago.
-"THATS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A WOMAN"
Even if he, or Hilary said "I grab boys by the d***", I still wouldn't be offended. Why? That was locker room talk. Do you know how many guys talk about women like that in locker rooms? It's probably one of the most typical things ever. Heck it's a locker room stereotype. Now don't get offended and think "if all guys talk like that, all men are pigs". A majority of guys make insensitive and sexist jokes in locker rooms. They do not mean it and they're doing it because guys like to make dirty jokes. it's like fart jokes. :^)
That was some crazy and stupid thing he said 11 years ago. It's 11 years later. Who the hell cares? I certainly don't.
As for the rape accusations, I'm not believing any of them. Why? Because several of the women who accused Trump of raping them came out saying that they were lying and were doing it for the fame.
I mean think about it logically. None of the women came out saying that Trump raped them for YEARS. WHY ARE THEY ACCUSING HIM NOW? IF HE REALLY RAPED THEM, WHY NOT ACCUSE HIM THEN?
It's just so illogical to me, those women are either doing it for fame or were paid to say it.
As for the child rape accusation, no one believes it. Literally everyone is saying it's a lie/hoax. So this anonymous person under the name of Jane Doe accused Trump of child rape. She actually backed out of the first court hearing and her attorney said "she's scared to come out".
In the second court hearing, she backed out AGAIN, with the same excuse.
Honestly, with all the people accusing Trump of this and that, why is she the only one who's "too scared to come out". I guess that's why everyone said it's a fraud.
Ok, so that's about it, i guess. I just wasted the past two hours writing this, so props to you if you made it this far. To save time for anyone who wants to make a quick question, here's a few answers for potential questions/responses • "Where did you get all the numbers and figures?" -i didn't. i just make them up like trump does. • "This seems really biased." -well uhhh.. i liked both. hillary made valid points and so did trump. however, i look at the scale of how each would make impacts to this country and which would be the most logical and reasonable option. trump was the most logical and reasonable option since his goals are realistic and would make a positive impact, however it'll be at a cost, like deporting illegals or shutting down the borders. • "HA YOU RELY ON LOGIC BUT YOUR CHOICES AND FACTS ARE ILLOGICAL." -i don't think you understood the pun.. • "I hate you, therefore I hate your opinions, even if they are valid." -you're free to select your own opinions. i was simply stating my own opinion and not enforcing my opinion on anyone. • "You do realize that opinions are offensive now and I or someone will make a hate-response to you, right?" -yes. here's to hoping that everyone is mature enough to respect my and other's opinions without getting triggered. • "Ugh, this post is so offensive" -then why did you click on it? i spoiled it so easily offended people wont get offended unless they're offended by spoilers and click on the spoilers and get offended because the spoiled content was offensive to them and they were offended that the spoiled content was spoiled which offended them but the content was offensive so they don't know what to do but act all offended for no logical reason. • "I agree with this post!" -thank you and props to you, my fellow american (or non american). let's hope for the best. 
But seriously, thanks if you read it all, guys! Sorry if I misspelled anything or got my facts wrong, but you'll get the general idea of it. We can't work together and make America great if we're divided. Make America great again! God bless America and let's hope we can pull through for the next 4-8 years. Props to you for voting based on rational thought instead of letting yourself be guided by the high emotions that have dominated this election, but I'm afraid there are more than a few glaring problems with your reasoning.
spoiler because lots of words ECONOMICS Clinton -I can't find anything in her policy proposals that would suggest abolishing taxes for low-income Americans, but if that had genuinely been her plan, I think she would have mentioned it more than once. I'm inclined to believe that this was just a mishap or a soundbyte on her part during the debate rather than a serious policy point. As far as I can tell, her plan is the one she's been advertising: a fairer tax rate where the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest loads. -I can't really say much else about your college debt piece, since it hinges on your (AFAIK misguided) analysis of her tax plan.
Donald -He's a successful businessman. He knows how to run a business (sorta). That's all well and good, but who came up with the patently ridiculous idea that running a business = running a national economy?! Businesses serve to enrich their owners, and national economies serve to enrich their people (effectively, their employees). The two have fundamentally different purposes and as such require fundamentally different approaches. I would not be too excited about my country being run like a corporation, because it would be a perversion the purpose it serves. Looking at how Donald ran his business (underpaying employees, illegal labor, tax evasion) doesn't really inspire me to believe he's a conscientious leader either. Of course, a country is also way more than just an economy to fix, but we'll get to that later. -Donalds tax plan, unfortunately, does not support small businesses. It gives tax breaks to megacorporations so they can drive small businesses out of the market even more easily. If Donald does want to support small businesses (and not large corporations like, oh, say, his own, which he has not yet promised to be placed in a blind trust, mind you) he's going about it completely the wrong way. -Donalds protectionist plan to create jobs by reviving the manufacturing industry has two sides. Firstly, he has to make American manufacturing more competitive by lowering the production cost (i.e. lowering wages). Secondly, he intends to make outsourcing less attractive by suspending free trade agreements like NAFTA, which will make imports more expensive. What this means, effectively, is that prices will increase while minimum wage will be lower. Minimum wage is already hardly enough to get by in the US of A, and this will most likely only get worse. A good example of what I said before - an economy that serves its leaders, not its people. -The reason illegals 'take up all the jobs' is because they have no legal protection and can therefore be exploited (by, for instance, Donald) to work below minimum wage. Want to fix this? Naturalize them. -"He'll work together with everyone to ally the US with as many countries as we can" hardly counts as a 'pro' because this is what every president does. It's at the core of the job description. Your argument is invalid. Clinton would have been much better at it, as well.
REFUGEES Clinton -The amount of terrorist attacks in the US by refugees so far stands at a glorious none. Literally the entire line of thought behind this is "they're from the middle east, and so are the people who did 9/11, coincidence? I think not" and that, my friend, is what xenophobia is. It's exactly what ISIS wants. -Banning all refugees on the off chance one of them is going to be a terrorist is effectively the same as banning everyone in the country from giving birth because one of those kids might grow up to be a terrorist, except that would actually make more sense since the overwhelming majority of US terrorist attacks are committed by home-grown terrorists. -I don't know of any statistics regarding Mexican families, so I can't counter you on that one. However:
Donald -You go on to say that the majority of illegals come to the US to deal drugs, which is a direct contradiction of your previous statement. The majority of illegals come in the hopes of living the American Dream (like it hasn't died ages ago). -The vast majority of illegals enter the country perfectly legally and then simply overstay their visa. Stronger borders can't fix this. -Trump has certainly proposed a ban on all muslims entering the US. That does not mean banning all muslims, but I think you're downplaying what he has actually said. -America already has essentially the strongest border of every first world country (barring perhaps South Korea, but that's a special case) and yet it is still less safe than countries like the Netherlands, Germany, or Denmark, who have very permeable borders. At one point America is going to have to concede that making the borders even tighter is not going to do much to make the country safer and you're going to have to look to certain other issue areas.
LGBT RIGHTS -First things first: Homosexuality is not (nor has it ever been) a choice. -Democracy is more than just 'the will of the people.' Democracy should never be used to impose a tyranny of the many over the few, and that is exactly what allowing states to curb LGBT rights would be. Marriage equality does not and cannot infringe on anyones rights, but repealing it certainly does. -Your argument about tourists coming to the US and being 'offended' by seeing a gay couple kiss is so ridiculous I can hardly put it in words. If someone goes to a country where acceptance of homosexuality is the norm, they know what they're in for. Nobody goes to the Netherlands and is mortified by sudden realization of the existance of gay people, just like you wouldn't be suprised to see women wearing a niqab in Dubai.
GUNS -Clinton has never, ever, stated she would take away guns. As a matter of fact, she has repeated over and over again that she supports 2nd amendment rights and that she has no intention of taking away guns. What she wants is stronger gun legislation to alleviate the enormous gun problem America has, such as closing the online and gun show loopholes (the existence of which is baffling to begin with). -Stronger gun regulations are no problem for regular people who want guns to protect themselves. They are a problem for psychopaths who cannot pass a psych evaluation and should never get their hands on a gun. -Addendum: the murder rate in America is far higher than in other western countries, 'despite' the fact that we have no guns to protect ourselves from criminals. But I will concede the situation in the US is different.
WIKILEAKS -Firstly, uranium serves more purposes than just building nukes. One of them is harnessing nuclear power, for which it is so much more commonly used. Your argument is an enormous slippery slope fallacy. Secondly, the sale of Uranium One had to be approved by a representative of the State Department. Not Clinton herself, but a representative of the body of government (as well as representatives of other bodies of government). You jump to the conclusion that "Hillary sold uranium to Russia so they can build nukes" which is so grossly oversimplified and blatantly false that it would be almost hilarious if you hadn't based your vote on it. -Secondly, a Google search on Clinton's Spirit Cooking turns up exclusively conservative sources. Do you have anything that is neutral and not blown out of proportion?
TRUMPS SEXUAL ASSAULT -I find the child rape accusation lacking credibility as well. Point conceded. -There are a thousand-and-one reasons why a woman might not come forward after she has been raped. Examples? Look at the way Donald's supporters treated them. -Even if it was just 'locker room talk', that still doesn't excuse it. This whole 'boys will be boys' attitude to sexual harassment is symptomatic of the misogynistic culture that permeates Western society. Just because 14-year-olds do it in the locker room doesn't make it okay. We should expect senior citizens to have more control over their lusts than pubescent teenagers, and we should certainly hold a candidate for the most powerful office in the world to a higher standard than most. Sidelining his comments as 'just locker room talk' and rewarding him with the presidency of the US only sets an example to the youth of America that objectification of women is somehow acceptable.
Overall, I feel like you based your reasoning largely on information from conservative sources. Oh well. It's too late now anyway.
EDIT: Response to Envy - Quote:
-
Oh, a perfect example on some muslims turning out to be terrorists is happening right now in Europe. Have you seen all increases in riots? There are Middle-Eastern people, most of them being refugees, attacking cops and raping European citizens. Unfortunately, they are making all muslims seem like this.
Yes, I have seen the increase in riots. They are right-wing nationalists attacking refugee centers and protesting against the acceptance of refugees because they've been fed the same fearmongering that fueled Donalds election. Also, as far as I know, the new years' eve assaults were an isolated situation, blown vastly out of proportion in the US. There certainly has not been some epidemic of rape tearing through the European continent. - Quote:
-
A perfect analogy to this is, if you were offered M&Ms but some of them were poisoned, would you still take them?
Lovely analogy, but M&Ms aren't running from war, famine and other grave human suffering. We don't take in refugees for the heck of it, we take them in because they're human beings in an inhuman situation.
Edited by Jannick, Nov 10 2016, 12:04 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Captain Phasma
|
Nov 9 2016, 11:32 PM
Post #22391
|
Captain of the First Order and Boba Fett 2.0
- Posts:
- 1,445
- Group:
- Trainees
- Member
- #416
- Joined:
- Jun 8, 2013
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Sex
- Male
- Real Name
- Caleb
- Age
- 17
|
So yeah, Trump and Pence won, I'm scared ****less, and me and the boyfriend are moving to Canada 😂
|
|
|
| |
Narukota
|
Nov 9 2016, 11:36 PM
Post #22392
|
blah
- Posts:
- 3,515
- Group:
- Magic Elves
- Member
- #1,975
- Joined:
- May 13, 2014
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Male
- Real Name
- Alexander Minh Le
- Age
- 19
|
- Jannick
- Nov 9 2016, 11:17 PM
- Narukota
- Nov 9 2016, 04:28 PM
huge political explanation and summary w/opinions. don't click if offended easily ok well time to begin a fun rant with opinions, pros and cons, and other butthurt material which i will try to make the least offensive. (but we all know there's that one person who gets totally butthurt)I'm a simple guy. I like to view the logical side of most things. Religion, politics, etc. I'm gonna start with some fun "pros and cons" of the most controversial statements from both sides, Hillary and Donald, and use logical deduction to see which is somewhat better (even if they're both "awful" to everyone). Hillary VS Trump on ECONOMICS:Hillary:So Hillary said a lot of awesome things. I actually agreed with some of them. She's a smart, intelligent woman, one of the most powerful women ever, and heck, the first female presidential nominee. However, some were ok but potentially hazardous. Remember in the 2nd or 3rd presidential debate, she said "people who make less than ($125,000?) will NOT have to pay taxes". Pros: WOAH NO TAXES. THAT'S AWESOME. Cons: ...that's gonna be a heckalot of people not paying taxes. But think about it. What are taxes? It's literally the government taking a portion of your money. But what do they do with the money? They use that money to fund government-funded stuff like hospitals, communities, businesses, financial aid, etc. They won't have the money to fund all that if Hilary cuts off the taxes. No taxes -> No money to the government -> No government-funded stuff -> less businesses -> less jobs -> more homeless/poor people -> huge collapse in the economy. Just that ONE simple thing. No taxes. That will lead to an automatic collapse in the economy. Pros - 0.5points // its actually a really awesome idea Cons - 1point // but it'll crash our economy in an instantaneous chain reaction _______________________ Hillary says "no college debt". Pros:Woah, that's actually really good. College debt is what ruins a person financially. Cons:Actually, there aren't any cons to this that I can think of.. It's actually really good. However, if Hilary launched the "no taxes" thing, then there won't be any college loans. Aren't college loans basically the government or a government-funded foundation loaning you money to pay for your college with our tax money? No taxes -> No college loans -> No college debt -> OH THATS WHAT SHE MEANT BY NO COLLEGE DEBT. HAHAHA. Pros - 0points // both win/lose Cons - 0point // both win/lose_______________________ Trump:Trumped up, trickled down economics! jk about thatLet's take a look at the main idea of it. Trump handling our economy? Even when we're trillions of dollars in debt? If he could start one of the largest businesses in the world with a "small loan of a million dollars", imagine what he can do with US's trillions/billions. It'll be cool to let a successful businessman run our country financially. ok so, Trump on businesses/jobs: Pros:Bro, he's a successful businessman. If it were me to choose, I'd let him handle us financially. He's gonna create more jobs for millions of people, support people with small businesses financially, and basically what he wants is for people to go out there and create their own businesses. More businesses -> more jobs -> more money -> less debt US owes Cons:Unfortunately, it may come at a high cost. He wants to get rid of illegals who are "taking all our resources and jobs". Well, you know, he's not wrong.. They do come in illegally and take up our resources and jobs, and I honestly hate deportation because it breaks apart families and that's pretty tragic. Pros - 1points // both win/lose; we need a boost in jobs and illegals are taking our jobs Cons - 0.5point // both win/lose; increase of jobs and resources in US would require deportation of illegals_______________________ During his speech once he became president, he said that he'll work together with everyone to ally the US with as many countries as we can. Pros:Is that even possible? Because if that's possible, that would be awesome. More supplies, trades, markets, etc Cons:well, it would be triggering if US allied themselves with two+ countries who are enemies with each other... Pros - 1points // more open trade routes, markets, supplies, resources, oil, etc Cons - .5point // possible 3+way war if we ally with the wrong countries_______________________ Hilary: 0.5:1 Trump: 2:1 Trump wins ECONOMICS (imo) Hillary VS Trump on IMMIGRATION/REFUGEES:Hillary:Hillary's stand on immigration is great. Everyone loves it. She wants open borders and let refugees and immigrants stay here and be cared for. Pros:Yo, that's awesome. She's right though, America was founded by people who immigrated to this land, so who are we to block off the immigrants? Cons:Unfortunately, there's always that one bad egg. Literally out of 10 Mexican families who immigrate here, 1 or 2 of them are here to deal drugs and run a huge drug cartel. It's the reason why US is so drugged up. Druggies buy drugs and these Mexicans make mad ca$h by selling drugs. Same with refugees. There's that one guy who's a terrorist and is probably ISIS or whatever and wants to bomb us. I can't argue with a person who wants to bomb us. I mean, so many stuff we do in our society is like taboo to them, but hey, we're a free country. Pros - 1points // It's great to let immigrants and refugees come to the US for safer and better environments Cons - 0.5point // there's always that one drug dealer or terrorist, so that's the bad side of letting immigrants and refugees come in_______________________ Trump:..where do i start The #1 most controversial thing about Trump and the reason why everyone hates him (besides him saying his hair isn't a toupee) is that he wants to BUILD A GIANT HUUUUUGE WALL and get rid of illegals. He also wants to ban muslim refugees. The most unbelievable part about this is how everyone is overreacting. Every Mexican is like "IM GONNA GET DEPORTED IF DOLAND TURMP WINS" and every muslim is like "HE'S GONNA BAN US ALLLLLLL". That's all media bull*$^%. NO, he is not getting rid of every single mexican. NO, he is not getting rid of every single muslim. and NO HE IS NOT BANNING MUSLIMS. He wants to: 1. deport the illegals, whom a majority (NOT ALL) are drug dealers and run the world's largest drug cartel 2. shut off the refugees by closing our borders (and build a giant wall), which will actually make our country more secure. Pros:Deporting illegal immigrants, not allowing refugees, and shutting off the borders will actually increase the security of US. Less immigrants/refugees -> Less potential drug dealers and terrorists -> Safer environment and we wont have repeats of incidents like the Pulse nightclub Cons:Yes, while it has some perks, it's really sad though. Imagine being a muslim refugee, having to evacuate your home because of wars and you want to go to US because it's a free and safe country, but they won't let you in. Or if you're mexican and the mexican economy is so bad that you need to go to US to live a better live financially, but there's a giant wall in your way with a huge poster of an orange guy with a toupee. Pros - 1points // there's always that one drug dealer or terrorist, so that's the bad side of letting immigrants and refugees come in and that's why we (need?) this. Cons - 0.5point // bad for the illegals (or families with illegals) and muslims seeking refuge here but not being allowed in_______________________ Hilary: 1:0.5 Trump: 1:0.5 Hillary and Trump tie on IMMIGRATION/REFUGEES (imo)
//END OF PROS & CONS; BEGIN OPINIONS. Hillary VS Trump on LGBT COMMUNITY:let's make this reaaaaaaaaaaally simple. Hilary: For-LGBT Trump: Neither For/Against-LGBT I don't think he made a statement about it yet, although I heard Pence is against gays or something. It looks like Trump is leaving it up to the states to decide to legalize/ban gay marriage which is best, imo, because each state has their own choices. Now I can see on Twitter that a TON of people are freaked out and panicking about gay marriage once Trump won, but it's just stupid and nonsensical. I mean, what is gay? what is lesbian? what is straight? THEY'RE ALL LOVE PREFERENCES. Who are we to argue with love? Isn't that natural? I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about with "GAYS ARE SPECIAL". If I "came out" saying that I'm straight, no one would bat an eye, but someone comes out saying they're gay, they're "brave" and get all the attention. But seriously, being gay or lesbian is your choice and you shouldn't be discriminated or anything because it's just a love preference. Hillary is pro-gay and supports the LGBT community so i can't really rant about it. She's all good. But I prefer Trump's choice on LGBT rights instead of Hillary's. The states should make their own choices instead of it being legalized nation-wide, because what if some people from other countries come to US for sightseeing and they see a gay couple kissing and are offended because gay rights are "taboo" in their POV? I know a bunch of you are scared that Trump and/or Pence will ban gays or whatever. The fact is? They can't. You can't ban love. There's no possible way to, even if they did. _______________________ Hillary VS Trump on GUNS:oh yes. get triggered. a spanish/asian texan is actually talking about guns. Again, making it simple: Hillary Against-Guns Trump For-Guns ok so as a texan, you'll think im biased about guns, but seriously, im looking at the logic here. hillary is all like "omg guns kill people!" and im here like "yeah hillaroy, and spoons make people obese." trump is all like "omg guns don't kill people!" and im here like "yeah trump, and spoons ma- oh wait i love you" Get it straight. PEOPLE kill people. Not guns. Everyone is like "oh we need to ban guns because guns kill people! if we ban guns, murder will be reduced drastically!!". NOT TRUE. IMO, being shot with a gun is the best way to go. It's quick and painless(iguess). If you ban guns, people will be murdered with knives and sticks and stones and ceramic statues of squirrels and even a piano. ...That's a really painful and awful way to go. But seriously, murder will not be reduced if guns are banned. It'll actually be higher because people won't be able to defend themselves anymore and the only ones who will have access to guns will be the thieves/criminals. I'm with Trump for guns, because 'murica is always depicted with an eagle holding a gun and a flag. _______________________ Hillary on WIKILEAKS:yo, this is huge. she's actually getting ruined because wikileaks leaked all the emails she deleted. Ok, so there are two top discoveries in the emails that WikiLeaks leaked, both to and from Hillary. 1. The Podesta SeriesThis series of over 2,000 out of the 30,000 emails that she deleted is about Hillary and her campaign manager, John Podesta (who is also a former advisor to Bill Clinton and Obama). So there's this company called Uranium One which digs for uranium deposits. Uranium is an element used in the making of nuclear material, such as a nuclear bomb. Turns out, 1/5 of Uranium One was sold to Russia. To sell the portion of the company to Russia, they needed to be approved by a "committee of composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies". Among the agencies that signed off the deal was the State Department, which was then headed by Secretary Clinton. So lemme get this straight. Hillary sold 1/5 of Uranium One to Russia so they can make nuclear weapons, and now she was trying to trigger a war with them???? What? 2. Spirit CookingWOAH. COVER YOUR EYES, KIDS. THIS IS GRAPHIC MATERIAL. SPOILED FOR GRAPHIC MATERIAL Ok, so this is probably the creepiest, trippiest, most exposing thing from Hillary and is the main reason why I didn't vote for her. Hillary was linked to a SATANIC RITUAL? WHAT? In one of the emails that Hillary deleted and WikiLeaks leaked, John Podesta (Hillary's campaign manager) was invited by performance artist Marina Abramovic to "spirit cooking" at her house. People searched up spirit cooking and what came up? A "satanic" ritual. WARNING: GRAPHIC MATERIAL Spirit Cooking is "mixing menstrual blood, breast milk, and sperm in an earthquake night and cutting your middle finger and "eating the pain". For more info and a video of the performance, search "spirit cooking" on Google. If anyone clicked the spoiler, that was creepy and messed up, right? So Marina Abramovic (twitter: AbramovicM666; lmao she even has 666 on her twitter handle) is a performance artist and I watched several of her performances on YouTube. She claims she's "not a satanist", but bro, those are REALLY CREEPY AND RITUALISTIC PERFORMANCES. AND HILLARY WAS LINKED TO THIS?? So yeah, just google that up and read about it if you want more info. That changed so many people's thoughts on Hillary. That's pretty much why I didn't vote for her. I really don't want a satanist (or linked to) to be our president. That would be such maximum hypocrisy, especially since this country was founded on christianity. "God Bless America" will turn into "Lucifer Subscribe To America" _______________________ Trump on S. ASSAULT ALLIGATIONS AND VIDEOS:SPOILED FOR INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT Grab her by the crotch!!
Gosh diggity, Trump got trumped when women started coming out and accusing him of rape.
hey wait a minute... that sounds like bill cos- .....naaaah
Ok so what really happened? In case if some of you were unaware:
- A video of Trump from like 11 years ago emerged, showing him in a locker room and saying "I grab women by the pu***".
- Women are coming out and accusing Trump of raping them; One anonymous person under the name Jane Doe accused him of child rape.
okokokokok lemme get this straight. because trump was running for president, that video emerged JUST NOW? Where on earth has it been for the past 11 years? and do I or anyone else honestly give a damn about what he said in the locker room 11 years ago? Might as well convict a whole bunch of guys in middle school because they're all saying stuff like "send n00ds".
I don't know about you guys, but I'm not offended one bit about Trump's video from 11 years ago.
-"THATS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A WOMAN"
Even if he, or Hilary said "I grab boys by the d***", I still wouldn't be offended. Why? That was locker room talk. Do you know how many guys talk about women like that in locker rooms? It's probably one of the most typical things ever. Heck it's a locker room stereotype. Now don't get offended and think "if all guys talk like that, all men are pigs". A majority of guys make insensitive and sexist jokes in locker rooms. They do not mean it and they're doing it because guys like to make dirty jokes. it's like fart jokes. :^)
That was some crazy and stupid thing he said 11 years ago. It's 11 years later. Who the hell cares? I certainly don't.
As for the rape accusations, I'm not believing any of them. Why? Because several of the women who accused Trump of raping them came out saying that they were lying and were doing it for the fame.
I mean think about it logically. None of the women came out saying that Trump raped them for YEARS. WHY ARE THEY ACCUSING HIM NOW? IF HE REALLY RAPED THEM, WHY NOT ACCUSE HIM THEN?
It's just so illogical to me, those women are either doing it for fame or were paid to say it.
As for the child rape accusation, no one believes it. Literally everyone is saying it's a lie/hoax. So this anonymous person under the name of Jane Doe accused Trump of child rape. She actually backed out of the first court hearing and her attorney said "she's scared to come out".
In the second court hearing, she backed out AGAIN, with the same excuse.
Honestly, with all the people accusing Trump of this and that, why is she the only one who's "too scared to come out". I guess that's why everyone said it's a fraud.
Ok, so that's about it, i guess. I just wasted the past two hours writing this, so props to you if you made it this far. To save time for anyone who wants to make a quick question, here's a few answers for potential questions/responses • "Where did you get all the numbers and figures?" -i didn't. i just make them up like trump does. • "This seems really biased." -well uhhh.. i liked both. hillary made valid points and so did trump. however, i look at the scale of how each would make impacts to this country and which would be the most logical and reasonable option. trump was the most logical and reasonable option since his goals are realistic and would make a positive impact, however it'll be at a cost, like deporting illegals or shutting down the borders. • "HA YOU RELY ON LOGIC BUT YOUR CHOICES AND FACTS ARE ILLOGICAL." -i don't think you understood the pun.. • "I hate you, therefore I hate your opinions, even if they are valid." -you're free to select your own opinions. i was simply stating my own opinion and not enforcing my opinion on anyone. • "You do realize that opinions are offensive now and I or someone will make a hate-response to you, right?" -yes. here's to hoping that everyone is mature enough to respect my and other's opinions without getting triggered. • "Ugh, this post is so offensive" -then why did you click on it? i spoiled it so easily offended people wont get offended unless they're offended by spoilers and click on the spoilers and get offended because the spoiled content was offensive to them and they were offended that the spoiled content was spoiled which offended them but the content was offensive so they don't know what to do but act all offended for no logical reason. • "I agree with this post!" -thank you and props to you, my fellow american (or non american). let's hope for the best. 
But seriously, thanks if you read it all, guys! Sorry if I misspelled anything or got my facts wrong, but you'll get the general idea of it. We can't work together and make America great if we're divided. Make America great again! God bless America and let's hope we can pull through for the next 4-8 years.
Props to you for voting based on rational thought instead of letting yourself be guided by the high emotions that have dominated this elections, but I'm afraid there are more than a few glaring problems with your reasoning. spoiler because lots of words ECONOMICS Clinton -I can't find anything in her policy proposals that would suggest abolishing taxes for low-income Americans, but if that had genuinely been her plan, I think she would have mentioned it more than once. I'm inclined to believe that this was just a mishap or a soundbyte on her part during the debate rather than a serious policy point. As far as I can tell, her plan is the one she's been advertising: a fairer tax rate where the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest loads. -I can't really say much else about your college debt piece, since it hinges on your (AFAIK misguided) analysis of her tax plan.
Donald -He's a successful businessman. He knows how to run a business (sorta). That's all well and good, but who came up with the patently ridiculous idea that running a business = running a national economy?! Businesses serve to enrich their owners, and national economies serve to enrich their people (effectively, their employees). The two have fundamentally different purposes and as such require fundamentally different approaches. I would not be too excited about my country being run like a corporation, because it would be a perversion the purpose it serves. Looking at how Donald ran his business (underpaying employees, illegal labor, tax evasion) doesn't really inspire me to believe he's a conscientious leader either. Of course, a country is also way more than just an economy to fix, but we'll get to that later. -Donalds tax plan, unfortunately, does not support small businesses. It gives tax breaks to megacorporations so they can drive small businesses out of the market even more easily. If Donald does want to support small businesses (and not large corporations like, oh, say, his own, which he has not yet promised to be placed in a blind trust, mind you) he's going about it completely the wrong way. -Donalds protectionist plan to create jobs by reviving the manufacturing industry has two sides. Firstly, he has to make American manufacturing more competitive by lowering the production cost (i.e. lowering wages). Secondly, he intends to make outsourcing less attractive by suspending free trade agreements like NAFTA, which will make imports more expensive. What this means, effectively, is that prices will increase while minimum wage will be lower. Minimum wage is already hardly enough to get by in the US of A, and this will most likely only get worse. A good example of what I said before - an economy that serves its leaders, not its people. -The reason illegals 'take up all the jobs' is because they have no legal protection and can therefore be exploited (by, for instance, Donald) to work below minimum wage. Want to fix this? Naturalize them. -"He'll work together with everyone to ally the US with as many countries as we can" hardly counts as a 'pro' because this is what every president does. It's at the core of the job description. Your argument is invalid. Clinton would have been much better at it, as well.
REFUGEES Clinton -The amount of terrorist attacks in the US by refugees so far stands at a glorious none. Literally the entire line of thought behind this is "they're from the middle east, and so are the people who did 9/11, coincidence? I think not" and that, my friend, is what xenophobia is. It's exactly what ISIS wants. -Banning all refugees on the off chance one of them is going to be a terrorist is effectively the same as banning everyone in the country from giving birth because one of those kids might grow up to be a terrorist, except that would actually make more sense since the overwhelming majority of US terrorist attacks are committed by home-grown terrorists. -I don't know of any statistics regarding Mexican families, so I can't counter you on that one. However:
Donald -You go on to say that the majority of illegals come to the US to deal drugs, which is a direct contradiction of your previous statement. The majority of illegals come in the hopes of living the American Dream (like it hasn't died ages ago). -The vast majority of illegals enter the country perfectly legally and then simply overstay their visa. Stronger borders can't fix this. -Trump has certainly proposed a ban on all muslims entering the US. That does not mean banning all muslims, but I think you're downplaying what he has actually said. -America already has essentially the strongest border of every first world country (barring perhaps South Korea, but that's a special case) and yet it is still less safe than countries like the Netherlands, Germany, or Denmark, who have very permeable borders. At one point America is going to have to concede that making the borders even tighter is not going to do much to make the country safer and you're going to have to look to certain other issue areas.
LGBT RIGHTS -First things first: Homosexuality is not (nor has it ever been) a choice. -Democracy is more than just 'the will of the people.' Democracy should never be used to impose a tyranny of the many over the few, and that is exactly what allowing states to curb LGBT rights would be. Marriage equality does not and cannot infringe on anyones rights, but repealing it certainly does. -Your argument about tourists coming to the US and being 'offended' by seeing a gay couple kiss is so ridiculous I can hardly put it in words. If someone goes to a country where acceptance of homosexuality is the norm, they know what they're in for. Nobody goes to the Netherlands and is mortified by sudden realization of the existance of gay people, just like you wouldn't be suprised to see women wearing a niqab in Dubai.
GUNS -Clinton has never, ever, stated she would take away guns. As a matter of fact, she has repeated over and over again that she supports 2nd amendment rights and that she has no intention of taking away guns. What she wants is stronger gun legislation to alleviate the enormous gun problem America has, such as closing the online and gun show loopholes (the existence of which is baffling to begin with). -Stronger gun regulations are no problem for regular people who want guns to protect themselves. They are a problem for psychopaths who cannot pass a psych evaluation and should never get their hands on a gun. -Addendum: the murder rate in America is far higher than in other western countries, 'despite' the fact that we have no guns to protect ourselves from criminals. But I will concede the situation in the US is different.
WIKILEAKS -Firstly, uranium servers more purposes than just building nukes. One of them is harnessing nuclear power, for which it is so much more commonly used. Your argument is an enormous slippery slope fallacy. Secondly, the sale of Uranium One had to be approved by a representative of the State Department. Not Clinton herself, but a representative of the body of government (as well as representatives of other bodies of government). You jump to the conclusion that "Hillary sold uranium to Russia so they can build nukes" which is so grossly oversimplified and blatantly false that it would be almost hilarious if you hadn't based your vote on it. -Secondly, a Google search on Clinton's Spirit Cooking turns up exclusively conservative sources. Do you have anything that is neutral and not blown out of proportion?
TRUMPS SEXUAL ASSAULT -I find the child rape accusation lacking credibility as well. Point conceded. -There are a thousand-and-one reasons why a woman might not come forward after she has been raped. Examples? Look at the way Donald's supporters treated them. -Even if it was just 'locker room talk', that still doesn't excuse it. This whole 'boys will be boys' attitude to sexual harassment is symptomatic of the misogynistic culture that permeates Western society. Just because 14-year-olds do it in the locker room doesn't make it okay. We should expect senior citizens to have more control over their lusts than pubescent teenagers, and we should certainly hold a candidate for the most powerful office in the world to a higher standard than most. Sidelining his comments as 'just locker room talk' and rewarding him with the presidency of the US only sets an example to the youth of America that objectification of women is somehow acceptable.
Overall, I feel like you based your reasoning largely on information from conservative sources. Oh well. It's too late now anyway.
And you pretty much just fixed every mistake/misinterpretation/misinformation I had in that post and I like your abundance of unbiased information. Respect, bro.
I flubbed on some statements. May go back to edit and correct them soon.
Edited by Narukota, Nov 9 2016, 11:38 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Envy
|
Nov 10 2016, 12:13 AM
Post #22393
|
Would you look at me? I'm setting records.
- Posts:
- 1,611
- Group:
- Trainees
- Member
- #2,299
- Joined:
- Jul 9, 2014
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Male
- Age
- 19
|
- Jannick
- Nov 9 2016, 11:17 PM
- Narukota
- Nov 9 2016, 04:28 PM
huge political explanation and summary w/opinions. don't click if offended easily ok well time to begin a fun rant with opinions, pros and cons, and other butthurt material which i will try to make the least offensive. (but we all know there's that one person who gets totally butthurt)I'm a simple guy. I like to view the logical side of most things. Religion, politics, etc. I'm gonna start with some fun "pros and cons" of the most controversial statements from both sides, Hillary and Donald, and use logical deduction to see which is somewhat better (even if they're both "awful" to everyone). Hillary VS Trump on ECONOMICS:Hillary:So Hillary said a lot of awesome things. I actually agreed with some of them. She's a smart, intelligent woman, one of the most powerful women ever, and heck, the first female presidential nominee. However, some were ok but potentially hazardous. Remember in the 2nd or 3rd presidential debate, she said "people who make less than ($125,000?) will NOT have to pay taxes". Pros: WOAH NO TAXES. THAT'S AWESOME. Cons: ...that's gonna be a heckalot of people not paying taxes. But think about it. What are taxes? It's literally the government taking a portion of your money. But what do they do with the money? They use that money to fund government-funded stuff like hospitals, communities, businesses, financial aid, etc. They won't have the money to fund all that if Hilary cuts off the taxes. No taxes -> No money to the government -> No government-funded stuff -> less businesses -> less jobs -> more homeless/poor people -> huge collapse in the economy. Just that ONE simple thing. No taxes. That will lead to an automatic collapse in the economy. Pros - 0.5points // its actually a really awesome idea Cons - 1point // but it'll crash our economy in an instantaneous chain reaction _______________________ Hillary says "no college debt". Pros:Woah, that's actually really good. College debt is what ruins a person financially. Cons:Actually, there aren't any cons to this that I can think of.. It's actually really good. However, if Hilary launched the "no taxes" thing, then there won't be any college loans. Aren't college loans basically the government or a government-funded foundation loaning you money to pay for your college with our tax money? No taxes -> No college loans -> No college debt -> OH THATS WHAT SHE MEANT BY NO COLLEGE DEBT. HAHAHA. Pros - 0points // both win/lose Cons - 0point // both win/lose_______________________ Trump:Trumped up, trickled down economics! jk about thatLet's take a look at the main idea of it. Trump handling our economy? Even when we're trillions of dollars in debt? If he could start one of the largest businesses in the world with a "small loan of a million dollars", imagine what he can do with US's trillions/billions. It'll be cool to let a successful businessman run our country financially. ok so, Trump on businesses/jobs: Pros:Bro, he's a successful businessman. If it were me to choose, I'd let him handle us financially. He's gonna create more jobs for millions of people, support people with small businesses financially, and basically what he wants is for people to go out there and create their own businesses. More businesses -> more jobs -> more money -> less debt US owes Cons:Unfortunately, it may come at a high cost. He wants to get rid of illegals who are "taking all our resources and jobs". Well, you know, he's not wrong.. They do come in illegally and take up our resources and jobs, and I honestly hate deportation because it breaks apart families and that's pretty tragic. Pros - 1points // both win/lose; we need a boost in jobs and illegals are taking our jobs Cons - 0.5point // both win/lose; increase of jobs and resources in US would require deportation of illegals_______________________ During his speech once he became president, he said that he'll work together with everyone to ally the US with as many countries as we can. Pros:Is that even possible? Because if that's possible, that would be awesome. More supplies, trades, markets, etc Cons:well, it would be triggering if US allied themselves with two+ countries who are enemies with each other... Pros - 1points // more open trade routes, markets, supplies, resources, oil, etc Cons - .5point // possible 3+way war if we ally with the wrong countries_______________________ Hilary: 0.5:1 Trump: 2:1 Trump wins ECONOMICS (imo) Hillary VS Trump on IMMIGRATION/REFUGEES:Hillary:Hillary's stand on immigration is great. Everyone loves it. She wants open borders and let refugees and immigrants stay here and be cared for. Pros:Yo, that's awesome. She's right though, America was founded by people who immigrated to this land, so who are we to block off the immigrants? Cons:Unfortunately, there's always that one bad egg. Literally out of 10 Mexican families who immigrate here, 1 or 2 of them are here to deal drugs and run a huge drug cartel. It's the reason why US is so drugged up. Druggies buy drugs and these Mexicans make mad ca$h by selling drugs. Same with refugees. There's that one guy who's a terrorist and is probably ISIS or whatever and wants to bomb us. I can't argue with a person who wants to bomb us. I mean, so many stuff we do in our society is like taboo to them, but hey, we're a free country. Pros - 1points // It's great to let immigrants and refugees come to the US for safer and better environments Cons - 0.5point // there's always that one drug dealer or terrorist, so that's the bad side of letting immigrants and refugees come in_______________________ Trump:..where do i start The #1 most controversial thing about Trump and the reason why everyone hates him (besides him saying his hair isn't a toupee) is that he wants to BUILD A GIANT HUUUUUGE WALL and get rid of illegals. He also wants to ban muslim refugees. The most unbelievable part about this is how everyone is overreacting. Every Mexican is like "IM GONNA GET DEPORTED IF DOLAND TURMP WINS" and every muslim is like "HE'S GONNA BAN US ALLLLLLL". That's all media bull*$^%. NO, he is not getting rid of every single mexican. NO, he is not getting rid of every single muslim. and NO HE IS NOT BANNING MUSLIMS. He wants to: 1. deport the illegals, whom a majority (NOT ALL) are drug dealers and run the world's largest drug cartel 2. shut off the refugees by closing our borders (and build a giant wall), which will actually make our country more secure. Pros:Deporting illegal immigrants, not allowing refugees, and shutting off the borders will actually increase the security of US. Less immigrants/refugees -> Less potential drug dealers and terrorists -> Safer environment and we wont have repeats of incidents like the Pulse nightclub Cons:Yes, while it has some perks, it's really sad though. Imagine being a muslim refugee, having to evacuate your home because of wars and you want to go to US because it's a free and safe country, but they won't let you in. Or if you're mexican and the mexican economy is so bad that you need to go to US to live a better live financially, but there's a giant wall in your way with a huge poster of an orange guy with a toupee. Pros - 1points // there's always that one drug dealer or terrorist, so that's the bad side of letting immigrants and refugees come in and that's why we (need?) this. Cons - 0.5point // bad for the illegals (or families with illegals) and muslims seeking refuge here but not being allowed in_______________________ Hilary: 1:0.5 Trump: 1:0.5 Hillary and Trump tie on IMMIGRATION/REFUGEES (imo)
//END OF PROS & CONS; BEGIN OPINIONS. Hillary VS Trump on LGBT COMMUNITY:let's make this reaaaaaaaaaaally simple. Hilary: For-LGBT Trump: Neither For/Against-LGBT I don't think he made a statement about it yet, although I heard Pence is against gays or something. It looks like Trump is leaving it up to the states to decide to legalize/ban gay marriage which is best, imo, because each state has their own choices. Now I can see on Twitter that a TON of people are freaked out and panicking about gay marriage once Trump won, but it's just stupid and nonsensical. I mean, what is gay? what is lesbian? what is straight? THEY'RE ALL LOVE PREFERENCES. Who are we to argue with love? Isn't that natural? I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about with "GAYS ARE SPECIAL". If I "came out" saying that I'm straight, no one would bat an eye, but someone comes out saying they're gay, they're "brave" and get all the attention. But seriously, being gay or lesbian is your choice and you shouldn't be discriminated or anything because it's just a love preference. Hillary is pro-gay and supports the LGBT community so i can't really rant about it. She's all good. But I prefer Trump's choice on LGBT rights instead of Hillary's. The states should make their own choices instead of it being legalized nation-wide, because what if some people from other countries come to US for sightseeing and they see a gay couple kissing and are offended because gay rights are "taboo" in their POV? I know a bunch of you are scared that Trump and/or Pence will ban gays or whatever. The fact is? They can't. You can't ban love. There's no possible way to, even if they did. _______________________ Hillary VS Trump on GUNS:oh yes. get triggered. a spanish/asian texan is actually talking about guns. Again, making it simple: Hillary Against-Guns Trump For-Guns ok so as a texan, you'll think im biased about guns, but seriously, im looking at the logic here. hillary is all like "omg guns kill people!" and im here like "yeah hillaroy, and spoons make people obese." trump is all like "omg guns don't kill people!" and im here like "yeah trump, and spoons ma- oh wait i love you" Get it straight. PEOPLE kill people. Not guns. Everyone is like "oh we need to ban guns because guns kill people! if we ban guns, murder will be reduced drastically!!". NOT TRUE. IMO, being shot with a gun is the best way to go. It's quick and painless(iguess). If you ban guns, people will be murdered with knives and sticks and stones and ceramic statues of squirrels and even a piano. ...That's a really painful and awful way to go. But seriously, murder will not be reduced if guns are banned. It'll actually be higher because people won't be able to defend themselves anymore and the only ones who will have access to guns will be the thieves/criminals. I'm with Trump for guns, because 'murica is always depicted with an eagle holding a gun and a flag. _______________________ Hillary on WIKILEAKS:yo, this is huge. she's actually getting ruined because wikileaks leaked all the emails she deleted. Ok, so there are two top discoveries in the emails that WikiLeaks leaked, both to and from Hillary. 1. The Podesta SeriesThis series of over 2,000 out of the 30,000 emails that she deleted is about Hillary and her campaign manager, John Podesta (who is also a former advisor to Bill Clinton and Obama). So there's this company called Uranium One which digs for uranium deposits. Uranium is an element used in the making of nuclear material, such as a nuclear bomb. Turns out, 1/5 of Uranium One was sold to Russia. To sell the portion of the company to Russia, they needed to be approved by a "committee of composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies". Among the agencies that signed off the deal was the State Department, which was then headed by Secretary Clinton. So lemme get this straight. Hillary sold 1/5 of Uranium One to Russia so they can make nuclear weapons, and now she was trying to trigger a war with them???? What? 2. Spirit CookingWOAH. COVER YOUR EYES, KIDS. THIS IS GRAPHIC MATERIAL. SPOILED FOR GRAPHIC MATERIAL Ok, so this is probably the creepiest, trippiest, most exposing thing from Hillary and is the main reason why I didn't vote for her. Hillary was linked to a SATANIC RITUAL? WHAT? In one of the emails that Hillary deleted and WikiLeaks leaked, John Podesta (Hillary's campaign manager) was invited by performance artist Marina Abramovic to "spirit cooking" at her house. People searched up spirit cooking and what came up? A "satanic" ritual. WARNING: GRAPHIC MATERIAL Spirit Cooking is "mixing menstrual blood, breast milk, and sperm in an earthquake night and cutting your middle finger and "eating the pain". For more info and a video of the performance, search "spirit cooking" on Google. If anyone clicked the spoiler, that was creepy and messed up, right? So Marina Abramovic (twitter: AbramovicM666; lmao she even has 666 on her twitter handle) is a performance artist and I watched several of her performances on YouTube. She claims she's "not a satanist", but bro, those are REALLY CREEPY AND RITUALISTIC PERFORMANCES. AND HILLARY WAS LINKED TO THIS?? So yeah, just google that up and read about it if you want more info. That changed so many people's thoughts on Hillary. That's pretty much why I didn't vote for her. I really don't want a satanist (or linked to) to be our president. That would be such maximum hypocrisy, especially since this country was founded on christianity. "God Bless America" will turn into "Lucifer Subscribe To America" _______________________ Trump on S. ASSAULT ALLIGATIONS AND VIDEOS:SPOILED FOR INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT Grab her by the crotch!!
Gosh diggity, Trump got trumped when women started coming out and accusing him of rape.
hey wait a minute... that sounds like bill cos- .....naaaah
Ok so what really happened? In case if some of you were unaware:
- A video of Trump from like 11 years ago emerged, showing him in a locker room and saying "I grab women by the pu***".
- Women are coming out and accusing Trump of raping them; One anonymous person under the name Jane Doe accused him of child rape.
okokokokok lemme get this straight. because trump was running for president, that video emerged JUST NOW? Where on earth has it been for the past 11 years? and do I or anyone else honestly give a damn about what he said in the locker room 11 years ago? Might as well convict a whole bunch of guys in middle school because they're all saying stuff like "send n00ds".
I don't know about you guys, but I'm not offended one bit about Trump's video from 11 years ago.
-"THATS BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A WOMAN"
Even if he, or Hilary said "I grab boys by the d***", I still wouldn't be offended. Why? That was locker room talk. Do you know how many guys talk about women like that in locker rooms? It's probably one of the most typical things ever. Heck it's a locker room stereotype. Now don't get offended and think "if all guys talk like that, all men are pigs". A majority of guys make insensitive and sexist jokes in locker rooms. They do not mean it and they're doing it because guys like to make dirty jokes. it's like fart jokes. :^)
That was some crazy and stupid thing he said 11 years ago. It's 11 years later. Who the hell cares? I certainly don't.
As for the rape accusations, I'm not believing any of them. Why? Because several of the women who accused Trump of raping them came out saying that they were lying and were doing it for the fame.
I mean think about it logically. None of the women came out saying that Trump raped them for YEARS. WHY ARE THEY ACCUSING HIM NOW? IF HE REALLY RAPED THEM, WHY NOT ACCUSE HIM THEN?
It's just so illogical to me, those women are either doing it for fame or were paid to say it.
As for the child rape accusation, no one believes it. Literally everyone is saying it's a lie/hoax. So this anonymous person under the name of Jane Doe accused Trump of child rape. She actually backed out of the first court hearing and her attorney said "she's scared to come out".
In the second court hearing, she backed out AGAIN, with the same excuse.
Honestly, with all the people accusing Trump of this and that, why is she the only one who's "too scared to come out". I guess that's why everyone said it's a fraud.
Ok, so that's about it, i guess. I just wasted the past two hours writing this, so props to you if you made it this far. To save time for anyone who wants to make a quick question, here's a few answers for potential questions/responses • "Where did you get all the numbers and figures?" -i didn't. i just make them up like trump does. • "This seems really biased." -well uhhh.. i liked both. hillary made valid points and so did trump. however, i look at the scale of how each would make impacts to this country and which would be the most logical and reasonable option. trump was the most logical and reasonable option since his goals are realistic and would make a positive impact, however it'll be at a cost, like deporting illegals or shutting down the borders. • "HA YOU RELY ON LOGIC BUT YOUR CHOICES AND FACTS ARE ILLOGICAL." -i don't think you understood the pun.. • "I hate you, therefore I hate your opinions, even if they are valid." -you're free to select your own opinions. i was simply stating my own opinion and not enforcing my opinion on anyone. • "You do realize that opinions are offensive now and I or someone will make a hate-response to you, right?" -yes. here's to hoping that everyone is mature enough to respect my and other's opinions without getting triggered. • "Ugh, this post is so offensive" -then why did you click on it? i spoiled it so easily offended people wont get offended unless they're offended by spoilers and click on the spoilers and get offended because the spoiled content was offensive to them and they were offended that the spoiled content was spoiled which offended them but the content was offensive so they don't know what to do but act all offended for no logical reason. • "I agree with this post!" -thank you and props to you, my fellow american (or non american). let's hope for the best. 
But seriously, thanks if you read it all, guys! Sorry if I misspelled anything or got my facts wrong, but you'll get the general idea of it. We can't work together and make America great if we're divided. Make America great again! God bless America and let's hope we can pull through for the next 4-8 years.
Props to you for voting based on rational thought instead of letting yourself be guided by the high emotions that have dominated this elections, but I'm afraid there are more than a few glaring problems with your reasoning. spoiler because lots of words ECONOMICS Clinton -I can't find anything in her policy proposals that would suggest abolishing taxes for low-income Americans, but if that had genuinely been her plan, I think she would have mentioned it more than once. I'm inclined to believe that this was just a mishap or a soundbyte on her part during the debate rather than a serious policy point. As far as I can tell, her plan is the one she's been advertising: a fairer tax rate where the strongest shoulders carry the heaviest loads. -I can't really say much else about your college debt piece, since it hinges on your (AFAIK misguided) analysis of her tax plan.
Donald -He's a successful businessman. He knows how to run a business (sorta). That's all well and good, but who came up with the patently ridiculous idea that running a business = running a national economy?! Businesses serve to enrich their owners, and national economies serve to enrich their people (effectively, their employees). The two have fundamentally different purposes and as such require fundamentally different approaches. I would not be too excited about my country being run like a corporation, because it would be a perversion the purpose it serves. Looking at how Donald ran his business (underpaying employees, illegal labor, tax evasion) doesn't really inspire me to believe he's a conscientious leader either. Of course, a country is also way more than just an economy to fix, but we'll get to that later. -Donalds tax plan, unfortunately, does not support small businesses. It gives tax breaks to megacorporations so they can drive small businesses out of the market even more easily. If Donald does want to support small businesses (and not large corporations like, oh, say, his own, which he has not yet promised to be placed in a blind trust, mind you) he's going about it completely the wrong way. -Donalds protectionist plan to create jobs by reviving the manufacturing industry has two sides. Firstly, he has to make American manufacturing more competitive by lowering the production cost (i.e. lowering wages). Secondly, he intends to make outsourcing less attractive by suspending free trade agreements like NAFTA, which will make imports more expensive. What this means, effectively, is that prices will increase while minimum wage will be lower. Minimum wage is already hardly enough to get by in the US of A, and this will most likely only get worse. A good example of what I said before - an economy that serves its leaders, not its people. -The reason illegals 'take up all the jobs' is because they have no legal protection and can therefore be exploited (by, for instance, Donald) to work below minimum wage. Want to fix this? Naturalize them. -"He'll work together with everyone to ally the US with as many countries as we can" hardly counts as a 'pro' because this is what every president does. It's at the core of the job description. Your argument is invalid. Clinton would have been much better at it, as well.
REFUGEES Clinton -The amount of terrorist attacks in the US by refugees so far stands at a glorious none. Literally the entire line of thought behind this is "they're from the middle east, and so are the people who did 9/11, coincidence? I think not" and that, my friend, is what xenophobia is. It's exactly what ISIS wants. -Banning all refugees on the off chance one of them is going to be a terrorist is effectively the same as banning everyone in the country from giving birth because one of those kids might grow up to be a terrorist, except that would actually make more sense since the overwhelming majority of US terrorist attacks are committed by home-grown terrorists. -I don't know of any statistics regarding Mexican families, so I can't counter you on that one. However:
Donald -You go on to say that the majority of illegals come to the US to deal drugs, which is a direct contradiction of your previous statement. The majority of illegals come in the hopes of living the American Dream (like it hasn't died ages ago). -The vast majority of illegals enter the country perfectly legally and then simply overstay their visa. Stronger borders can't fix this. -Trump has certainly proposed a ban on all muslims entering the US. That does not mean banning all muslims, but I think you're downplaying what he has actually said. -America already has essentially the strongest border of every first world country (barring perhaps South Korea, but that's a special case) and yet it is still less safe than countries like the Netherlands, Germany, or Denmark, who have very permeable borders. At one point America is going to have to concede that making the borders even tighter is not going to do much to make the country safer and you're going to have to look to certain other issue areas.
LGBT RIGHTS -First things first: Homosexuality is not (nor has it ever been) a choice. -Democracy is more than just 'the will of the people.' Democracy should never be used to impose a tyranny of the many over the few, and that is exactly what allowing states to curb LGBT rights would be. Marriage equality does not and cannot infringe on anyones rights, but repealing it certainly does. -Your argument about tourists coming to the US and being 'offended' by seeing a gay couple kiss is so ridiculous I can hardly put it in words. If someone goes to a country where acceptance of homosexuality is the norm, they know what they're in for. Nobody goes to the Netherlands and is mortified by sudden realization of the existance of gay people, just like you wouldn't be suprised to see women wearing a niqab in Dubai.
GUNS -Clinton has never, ever, stated she would take away guns. As a matter of fact, she has repeated over and over again that she supports 2nd amendment rights and that she has no intention of taking away guns. What she wants is stronger gun legislation to alleviate the enormous gun problem America has, such as closing the online and gun show loopholes (the existence of which is baffling to begin with). -Stronger gun regulations are no problem for regular people who want guns to protect themselves. They are a problem for psychopaths who cannot pass a psych evaluation and should never get their hands on a gun. -Addendum: the murder rate in America is far higher than in other western countries, 'despite' the fact that we have no guns to protect ourselves from criminals. But I will concede the situation in the US is different.
WIKILEAKS -Firstly, uranium servers more purposes than just building nukes. One of them is harnessing nuclear power, for which it is so much more commonly used. Your argument is an enormous slippery slope fallacy. Secondly, the sale of Uranium One had to be approved by a representative of the State Department. Not Clinton herself, but a representative of the body of government (as well as representatives of other bodies of government). You jump to the conclusion that "Hillary sold uranium to Russia so they can build nukes" which is so grossly oversimplified and blatantly false that it would be almost hilarious if you hadn't based your vote on it. -Secondly, a Google search on Clinton's Spirit Cooking turns up exclusively conservative sources. Do you have anything that is neutral and not blown out of proportion?
TRUMPS SEXUAL ASSAULT -I find the child rape accusation lacking credibility as well. Point conceded. -There are a thousand-and-one reasons why a woman might not come forward after she has been raped. Examples? Look at the way Donald's supporters treated them. -Even if it was just 'locker room talk', that still doesn't excuse it. This whole 'boys will be boys' attitude to sexual harassment is symptomatic of the misogynistic culture that permeates Western society. Just because 14-year-olds do it in the locker room doesn't make it okay. We should expect senior citizens to have more control over their lusts than pubescent teenagers, and we should certainly hold a candidate for the most powerful office in the world to a higher standard than most. Sidelining his comments as 'just locker room talk' and rewarding him with the presidency of the US only sets an example to the youth of America that objectification of women is somehow acceptable.
Overall, I feel like you based your reasoning largely on information from conservative sources. Oh well. It's too late now anyway.
EDIT: Response to Envy - Quote:
-
Oh, a perfect example on some muslims turning out to be terrorists is happening right now in Europe. Have you seen all increases in riots? There are Middle-Eastern people, most of them being refugees, attacking cops and raping European citizens. Unfortunately, they are making all muslims seem like this.
Yes, I have seen the increase in riots. They are right-wing nationalists attacking refugee centers and protesting against the acceptance of refugees because they've been fed the same fearmongering that fueled Donalds election. Also, as far as I know, the new years' eve assaults were an isolated situation, blown vastly out of proportion in the US. There certainly has not been some epidemic of rape tearing through the European continent. - Quote:
-
A perfect analogy to this is, if you were offered M&Ms but some of them were poisoned, would you still take them?
Lovely analogy, but M&Ms aren't running from war, famine and other grave human suffering. We don't take in refugees for the heck of it, we take them in because they're human beings in an inhuman situation. Here's my reply to you, Jannick. Spoiler: click to toggle Hmm, let's see what these websites say. - Quote:
-
Sexual violence in Germany has skyrocketed since Angela Merkel allowed more than one million mostly male migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East into the country. The crimes are being downplayed by the authorities, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments
From: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7557/germany-rape-migrants-crisis- Quote:
-
A recent survey published by Aftonbladet on women’s fears in Sweden found that 46 percent of women felt either very or somewhat unsafe when alone after dark compared to just 20 percent for Swedish men.
“They’re scared because of the Muslim invaders,” noted anti-Shariah activist Pamela Geller on her website Monday. “And yet instead of doing anything to stop the invaders, Sweden (and Europe in general) are just bringing in more of them. Europe is committing suicide before our eyes
From: http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/03/swedish-rape-crisis-boils-over-as-media-stays-silent/Now, as I said, there will always be reports of rape and riots whether or not muslim refugees are let in or not. But the riots have ensued even more due to muslim extremists fighting cops, and anti-muslim migration groups stirring shit up with actual refugees that have nothing to do with the situation. Either way, neither side is justified. Muslim extremists cause city destruction and rape as they please, cops try to stop them, more destruction ensues, anti-muslim groups fight back and usually aimed at the entirety of refugees that probably weren't involved with the damage in the first place. Some examples of the type of stuff that is going on. https://youtu.be/p4irqAwzVY8https://youtu.be/KL1O4pUYJ2whttp://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/02/20/france-group-of-muslim-thugs-chase-police-car-out-of-no-go-zone-in-amiens/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390168/Migrant-rape-fears-spread-Europe-Women-told-not-night-assaults-carried-Sweden-Finland-Germany-Austria-Switzerland-amid-warnings-gangs-ordinating-attacks.htmlProof that these attacks have increased as the wave of migrants flooding in have increased. - Quote:
-
Staggering rape and assault rape statistics from Sweden from 1985-89 and 1997-2001. Rape committed by Swedish born rapists (blue) were 22.4%. Foreign rapists represent 77.6% of all figures divided into ‘normal’ representation (pink, red and orange) at 5,070; over representation (red) at 3,752 rape cases; unregistered migrants (orange) at 653 rape cases. Note that the blue bracket of Swedish rapists include foreign born persons with Swedish citizenship as the statistics are only counted on citizenship, and not nationality.
- Quote:
-
-Sweden's population grew from 9 million to 9.5 million in the years 2004-2012, mainly due to immigration from "countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia". 16 percent of all newborns have mothers born in non-Western countries. Employment rate among immigrants: 54 percent....Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent8 of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology...In Stockholm this summer there was an average of 5 rapes a day.9 Stockholm has gone from a Swedish city to a city that is one-third immigrant and is between a fifth and a quarter Muslim." ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/175434/1-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped-sexual-assaults-daniel-greenfield) United Kingdom, "In 2012, it emerged that over a thousand mostly white young girls in the northern England town of Rotherham were systematically groomed, trafficked, beaten and sexually abused by rape gangs consisting of mainly Pakistani Muslim men. A report released earlier this month10confirmed that the local Labour government council and the police covered up this horror because they were afraid of being characterized as racist or politically incorrect." ( http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mute-on-muslim-rape-epidemic-sweeping-europe)
From: https://carm.org/islamic-muslim-statistics-on-violence-rape-terror-sharia-isis-welfareNow, as I said, this doesn't mean that muslims are mad or that the extremists represent the entirety of muslims or that migrants from outside of Europe are all immoral, rapists, and overall evil people. But, via statistics muslims have indeed been involved in the majority of rapes and violence against police in the recent years. Of course, the national born Europeans are also at fault as I explained up above.That's why I said it was an analogy, Jannick, M&Ms are not a literal representation of a human being. It's an example. If a country is going to let migrants in but it knew some of them were terrorists or radical, would one be extra careful in deciding which ones to let in or be blind and let them all in and be surprised at the falling of the country? Trump wants to crack down on the muslim extremists and doesn't want a crisis to occur in the States either. Even though, we all know there already are race riots ensuin between cops and minority groups, but a large influx of radical muslims into the fray would just make things worse.
Edited by Envy, Nov 10 2016, 12:25 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jannick
|
Nov 10 2016, 12:32 AM
Post #22394
|
Papua merdeka!
- Posts:
- 750
- Group:
- Maintenance Workers
- Member
- #391
- Joined:
- Jun 3, 2013
- Country
- Taiwan
- Sex
- Male
- Real Name
- Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard van Oranje-Nassau
- Age
- 22
|
Very good, a lot of information from a lot of mostly unbiased sources. Point conceded. I think it is important to note, however, that much of your sources describe Sweden, which has very loose immigration and asylum policy, and this does not necessarily extrapolate to all of Europe. I misinterpreted your original post, my bad. I don't think it's radical islamists that are commiting the rapes, however. From what I've learned in my own country, a lot of the harassment by refugees stems from different cultural norms towards women and a lack of education and integration on sexual and gender norms directed towards refugees, which is a problem that absolutely requires fixing.
I still think your initial M&Ms analogy was problematic since it seemed to suggest that you believed we should not let any refugees in, but I agree with your more nuanced explanation.
Edited by Jannick, Nov 10 2016, 12:41 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Envy
|
Nov 10 2016, 05:19 AM
Post #22395
|
Would you look at me? I'm setting records.
- Posts:
- 1,611
- Group:
- Trainees
- Member
- #2,299
- Joined:
- Jul 9, 2014
- Country
- United States
- Sex
- Male
- Age
- 19
|
- Jannick
- Nov 10 2016, 12:32 AM
Very good, a lot of information from a lot of mostly unbiased sources. Point conceded. I think it is important to note, however, that much of your sources describe Sweden, which has very loose immigration and asylum policy, and this does not necessarily extrapolate to all of Europe. I misinterpreted your original post, my bad. I don't think it's radical islamists that are commiting the rapes, however. From what I've learned in my own country, a lot of the harassment by refugees stems from different cultural norms towards women and a lack of education and integration on sexual and gender norms directed towards refugees, which is a problem that absolutely requires fixing.
I still think your initial M&Ms analogy was problematic since it seemed to suggest that you believed we should not let any refugees in, but I agree with your more nuanced explanation. Well, that's why I also posted some links to videos and websites describing incidents in Germany and France as well. I know Sweden is generally more f*cked than the majority of the European countries though.
My analogy is basically that the United States should be very careful in them letting in muslim refugees, or from war-torn areas. Because some of those refugees could be radical and of terrorist nature. Or, at least not let any refugees in until the situation has died down more, we have enough riots and police incidents to worry about as it is. There are plenty of places they can go to that are closer and offer them more benefits. Not to mention the screening process to be accepted into the U.S. takes far longer than it does in the majority of Europe.
Now, when I say for the U.S. to not let any refugees in it isn't mainly because of "omgee they r gunma be terurrists". It's because more riots will break out between hate groups or people that are generally scared that what has happened in Europe will occur in the United States as well.
Does that mean the riots or race wars happening here will stop whether or not refugees are let in? No, but it will definitely increase heavily if it occurs.
If they stop refugees in, it would be temporary and not indefinitely. I think they will eventually let refugees in, but under heavy screening and possible surveillance. They are already watching everyone anyways. Honestly, it wouldn't be a good option.
When I was younger, it took like 1 1/2 years before I was able to migrate here, and I wasn't even born in a country that was war or terrorism torn. Imagine how long it would take for a refugee from a terrorist and war-torn country. Just not really a good option if you think about it.
Edited by Envy, Nov 10 2016, 09:48 AM.
|
|
|
| |
| 18 users reading this topic (18 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
|