|
Trump is a secret liberal and is really to the left of Hillary.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
Either way with Hillary or Trump you'll get nothing but incredibly basic lip service and empty promises to things Americans want, while they hobnob with the grand poobahs and cement their "legacy" as far as preparing to make 50x more money when they leave. Trump is good for the materialists, since he'd venerate mindless consumerism. poo poo, he would probably do paid ads from the Oval Office. Hillary is good if you're a newborn to political realities and have no idea how anything works, and you think just because she says liberal causes are awesome that she's not actually shaking hands with the guys that do the opposite all day long.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
zeal posted:[citation needed] Common sense and every other appointed justice by a Democrat prob.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
gar- bage dick
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:If your question had to do with the first part, it's official Republican dogma that the GBTLs must be stopped at all costs from being full citizens and thus full participants in the economy. Same with all other minorities. A second class citizen cannot fully participate in glorious Capitalism. That the Republicans don't recognize this is just one more reason to make sure they don't gain more power. You are so stupid I'm actually having to defend republicans here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I don't get the impression that Trump cares about LGBTQ at all though. He doesn't, which is one of the reasons why he's the frontrunner and popular among millennials.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Hill-Dawg sounds better than T-Rump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Bill Clinton would be First Bro which would kinda rule
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Trump is a secret liberal and is really to the left of Hillary. Trump can and will pass liberal policy by phrasing it in conservative ways. I believe this to be true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
MrBims posted:List of things Hillary Clinton has done in service of gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans people: being the last democrat in favor of gay marriage was pretty brave
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Vote Vermin Supreme you loving mongo
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
crazy eights posted:I would seriously like to know. Would you rather have Clinton picking supreme court judges or Donald Trump? Actually thinking on it that's a bad question. I'd love to see Snoop Dogg on the supreme court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Immortan posted:You are so stupid I'm actually having to defend republicans here. So LGBT marriage inequality isn't a plank in the official Republican party platform?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Letting LGBT people be regular members of society as opposed to second class (at best!) ones means that money they'd currently spend fighting the government can instead be spent on whatever economic boosting thing. Like, every dollar spent fighting against Republican bullshit is a dollar that'd be worth more spent on something else. Caterers are probably better for the economy than lawyers. this is a hilarious post because hilary clinton supports the oligarchs that would erode the american middle class thereby turning us all into second class citizens
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
i really doubt clinton will ever even acknowledge the existence of transpeople.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
stoutfish posted:i really doubt clinton will ever even acknowledge the existence of transpeople. she will if focus groups say trans is in this season
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
stoutfish posted:this is a hilarious post because hilary clinton supports the oligarchs that would erode the american middle class thereby turning us all into second class citizens Yeah lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
so not one legitimate reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
im gay
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
crazy eights posted:so not one legitimate reason. define legitimate, because i'd consider the threat donald trump poses to the interior decorating of historic federal buildings to be a legitimate enough reason
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
our nation cannot afford that much gold leaf
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
crazy eights posted:so not one legitimate reason. Can you give me even one legitimate reason I should vote anything other than 1 for this thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
crazy eights posted:so not one legitimate reason. It's kind of hard to say since both Clinton and Trump are campaigning on personality rather than issues. If they are the nominees, I'd try to choose the one that would be less likely to start a war with Iran (or anyone else) and would be more likely to address wealth inequality. I can''t say at this point who, between Clinton and Trump, would be a better choice on these issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:It's kind of hard to say since both Clinton and Trump are campaigning on personality rather than issues. lmao Please describe the "personality" that  is campaigning on. She comes off as nothing more than a scripted shill for her donors every time she speaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Immortan posted:lmao Please describe the "personality" that good point. "Personality" is not correct. She is campaigning on "life story" and "experience" and "has a vagina". But I think my main point on how neither Trump nor Clinton are addressing issues is valid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
's vagina is about the only thing she has going for her (this isn't a bad thing).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Just heard trump on the radio talking about reducing taxes on the middle class and increasing them on hedge fund managers. He said the compensation levels of executives are a "disgrace" or something so yeah he's left of Clinton and I will have to vote for him in 2016 if it comes to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
The story of America is getting kind of tedious at this point. I'm voting for Trump just to move the plot along.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:hilldawg's SCOTUS justices will probably be less prone to rule that corporations are people and living human beings aren't, etc. Actually Trump is the one talking about taxing the rich and helping out the middle class. Sephiroth_IRA posted:Trump is a secret liberal and is really to the left of Hillary. this. Peztopiary posted:gently caress you if you'd rather condemn millions to starvation and death than thousands. Exactly, trumps record on the iraq war is much better than hillarity tsa has issued a correction as of 20:02 on Sep 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Trump can and will pass liberal policy by phrasing it in conservative ways. I believe this to be true. Only trump can Deep Hurting posted:Can you give me even one legitimate reason I should vote anything other than 1 for this thread? your cartoons aren't in it so why would you vote 1
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
tsa posted:your cartoons aren't in it so why would you vote 1 Now you've done it. Its only a matter of time before he posts a biting caricature of Donald Trump riding a tricycle, followed by a three page essay on how newspapers are corrupt and fail to recognize his genius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
If the reasons aren't legitimate the election has ways of shutting the whole thing down
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:hilldawg's SCOTUS justices will probably be less prone to rule that corporations are people and living human beings aren't, etc. zeal posted:[citation needed] Well, if you really want to know, justices appointed by democrats are far more likely to vote against deregulation, in both campaign finance and private sector, most notably in landmark cases. The gradual erosion in one direction another may be arguably bipartisan, but the big cases (where entire policy shifts are made) are far more likely to occur along bipartisan lines. In fact, in the very case you're calling ambiguous, two of the 4 justices who voted against CI were Clinton appointees. I fail to see Hillary's appointees having large ideological differences from all precedent. If you want to know more or fact check what I'm saying, http://scotusblog.com.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Also, the economy has always improved under democrats (going back 86 years). There's too many factors to call it causation in a laboratory- but it's a schmactoid republicans ignore and democrats shouldn't. I honestly don't know why debates aren't just the democratic nominee walking out with a t-shirt with this on it, and dropping a mic. The 'explicitly factual' thing would hardly stop Trump from doing it. I've yet to see any meta analysis of economic growth that disputes this. Plus, a war with Iran and loving destroying diplomacy with mexico, going back to blindly supporting Israel... and everything else people have said (human rights, Cuba, healthcare, economy). If you have a kid or know a kid who's 10 years old, imagine him/her dead in Iran in 8 years. If that's not reason enough, you'll most likely have more wealth in the long term with a democratic president, your kids will be able to afford school better, and if you do try to kill yourself, as you probably should- you will have better odds at being covered at your ER visit. Umph has issued a correction as of 02:19 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton will ban videogames and guns. If you don't like those things you should vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
I just think we need to break the monopoly of big political families. I am strongly against Clinton and Bush, for example, because they're from an embedded political dynasty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:I just think we need to break the monopoly of big political families. I am strongly against Clinton and Bush, for example, because they're from an embedded political dynasty. Bush is from a big political dynasty (goes back generations, whole family involved in politics one way or another). Clinton is not. No one in her family except her husband is a politician, and no one in his family is except his wife.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:I just think we need to break the monopoly of big political families. I am strongly against Clinton and Bush, for example, because they're from an embedded political dynasty. Noted established political families strangling America through the monopoly of Political dynasty:
*Family was actually big shits in Vermont/New Hampshire. Discounted for political dynasty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Dynasties can have been founded recently, you know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
Peztopiary posted:If you actually need convincing on this point then your basic principles are so abstruse as to make elucidating the superiority of any Democrat over any Republican a complete waste of time and resources that could be better spent on almost anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2015 16:41
|
|