Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[GannonFan]

Say wat

You want the makeup of Congress to dramatically change so the policies of the person you claim to hate so much will be in the express lane...

Makes sense.

I don't dislike Clinton because she is too liberal.

A Democratic majority would support her positions i agree with and tamper her positions i disagree with (at least better than a Republican majority would).

What positions of Clinton would a Democratic held Senate (the GOP's holding the House) oppose her on?

[Pwns]

I don't dislike Clinton because she is too liberal.

A Democratic majority would support her positions i agree with and tamper her positions i disagree with (at least better than a Republican majority would).

What positions of Clinton would a Democratic held Senate (the GOP's holding the House) oppose her on?

Yeah, wishful thinking congressional donks won't give her whatever she wants as far as foreign policy (which I assume is the problem jelly has with her).

[Skjellyfetti]

Well, aside from foreign policy that Pwns mentioned - she'd have more opposition to TPP in a Democratic-controlled Senate than a Republican controlled Senate.

I know TPP is your wet dream, gannon. But, it ain't everybody's.

[Ivytalk]

Well, aside from foreign policy that Pwns mentioned - she'd have more opposition to TPP in a Democratic-controlled Senate than a Republican controlled Senate.

I know TPP is your wet dream, gannon. But, it ain't everybody's.

Then I guess Liz Warren is your wet dream candidate. Amirite?

[Skjellyfetti]

Don't know that I'd go that far. But, I'd certainly vote for her without any qualms.

Y'all do realize I'm a liberal, right? We do disagree on basic policy.

Why is this surprising to y'all?

[BDKJMU]

Moved to debate thread..

[BDKJMU]

Clinton Spokesman To Trump: ‘Go Fuck Yourself’
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/09/clint ... -yourself/

[GannonFan]

Well, aside from foreign policy that Pwns mentioned - she'd have more opposition to TPP in a Democratic-controlled Senate than a Republican controlled Senate.

I know TPP is your wet dream, gannon. But, it ain't everybody's.

I don't see how foreign policy would be impacted at all with a Democratic Senate. I don't recall the previous Democratic majority Senate getting in the way of a Democratic President when it came to foreign policy, so why would this one be different? And heck, Clinton was the SoS for that President when Congress was held by that party so why would they rebuff her of all people? One of her biggest selling points among Democrats is her foreign policy background so why would they rebuff that once the election is over?

As for the TPP, other than being a fan of free trade, I really don't have a position on TPP yet - I wasn't aware that it was completed and even up for a vote. People seem to have a great deal of angst about it but without knowing anything about it. And for those people that are anti-free trade, I'm always amazed at the lack of alternative ideas they have to fill the void once we kill free trade. Surely they must have some ideas other than just being against something. No?

So again, what would a Democratic Senate stop her from doing that a Republican Senate wouldn't?

[Skjellyfetti]

I really don't have a position on TPP yet - I wasn't aware that it was completed and even up for a vote. People seem to have a great deal of angst about it but without knowing anything about it.

Are you serious?

TPP has already been negotiated. It was drafted a year ago and signed last February.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free- ... -full-text

Here's a good cliff's notes version:
http://www.vox.com/cards/trans-pacific-partnership



It's currently awaiting a vote in both the House and Senate. Both the House and Senate have said they won't vote on it until after the elections.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKCN10F2KJ
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKCN1102CM







The fact that this is news to a pretty well-informed person is shocking to me. This is the kind of shit the election should have been fought over. We should be sick of hearing about TPP by this point. Instead, we've barely even heard about it. In fact, some generally informed people haven't heard about it at all.

Since we have 2 horrible candidates... the election has simply been about which scandal is going to resonate more.

Fuck this election.

[GannonFan]

I really don't have a position on TPP yet - I wasn't aware that it was completed and even up for a vote. People seem to have a great deal of angst about it but without knowing anything about it.

Are you serious?

TPP has already been negotiated. It was drafted a year ago and signed last February.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free- ... -full-text

Here's a good cliff's notes version:
http://www.vox.com/cards/trans-pacific-partnership



It's currently awaiting a vote in both the House and Senate. Both the House and Senate have said they won't vote on it until after the elections.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKCN10F2KJ
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKCN1102CM







The fact that this is news to pretty well-informed person is shocking to me. This is the kind of **** the election should have been fought over. We should be sick of hearing about TPP by this point in the election. Instead, we've barely even heard about it. In fact, some generally informed people haven't heard about it at all.

Since we have 2 horrible candidates... the election has simply been about which scandal is going to resonate more.

**** this election.

Let's see, I said the trade treaty was not finalized (treaties in the US aren't finalized until they are voted on and approved by the Senate) and that they aren't even up for a vote yet.

You respond with sources that agree that there is no set timetable for a vote on TPP and also a news source that includes the quote

But it will still be around. It can be massaged, changed, worked on during the next administration

. Yeah, that sounds so different from what I said. Really finalized there, isn't it.

[Skjellyfetti]

The point is that we have enough information to have an opinion about TPP, Gannon.

If it is renegotiated by the next President... Hillary won't change it all that much. Trump won't even sign it (which is a positive in his book, imo).

[JohnStOnge]

I'm' ashamed to say that until yesterday, in spite of being against Trump, I did not realize that the whole thing about Hillary viciously attacking and having this campaign against Bill's female victims is unsubstantiated allegation. I had heard it so much and hadn't heard it challenged so I just assumed it was true. But it's not known to be true.

My first hint came when Rudi Guilliani took that line of attack yesterday while being interviewed by Jake Tapper. Tapper challenged him on it. He said he'd looked into and he didn't see it as being substantiated. Gulliani then changed the subject. Said something about not wanting to talk about the subject HE BROUGHT UP but wanted to talk about issues affecting the American People.

So I checked it. And so it goes. From Politifact:

"Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight."

Here we’re fact-checking Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton "viciously" attacked women who say they were abused by Bill Clinton.

What we found is that Hillary Clinton has been accused of threatening or shaming accusers of Bill Clinton. But all the accusations remain unproven,

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ly-attack/

I also Googled a fact check on it and saw lots of hits. Here's a quote from one at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 53366.html:

TRUMP on women linked to Bill Clinton sexually: "Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously."

THE FACTS: There is no clear, independent evidence that Hillary Clinton "viciously" attacked women who alleged or confirmed sexual contact with her husband.

So we have a situation in which the big central thing Trump is apparently going to try to use now is unsubstantiated. Surely at some point the media will completely slap him down on this. I sure hope so.

[Skjellyfetti]

Next look up Juanita Broaderick's story, JSO... for an eye opener (even Ken Starr thought her story was bunk).


The Clinton's have legit scandals. These aren't going to gain any traction. Trump did best in the debate hitting Clinton at her emails and corruption. Best to stick to that.

[CID1990]

The point is that we have enough information to have an opinion about TPP, Gannon.

If it is renegotiated by the next President... Hillary won't change it all that much. Trump won't even sign it (which is a positive in his book, imo).

Hillary is very easy to figure out - she's a known quantity -

She'll say what the polls tell her to say in order to triangulate the voting blocs she needs to become President

Then she'll do what she wants to - which is to say she'll talk a Bernie game but she'll walk a Cheney walk

And the world will greet our drones as liberators


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

I'm' ashamed to say that until yesterday, in spite of being against Trump, I did not realize that the whole thing about Hillary viciously attacking and having this campaign against Bill's female victims is unsubstantiated allegation. I had heard it so much and hadn't heard it challenged so I just assumed it was true. But it's not known to be true.

My first hint came when Rudi Guilliani took that line of attack yesterday while being interviewed by Jake Tapper. Tapper challenged him on it. He said he'd looked into and he didn't see it as being substantiated. Gulliani then changed the subject. Said something about not wanting to talk about the subject HE BROUGHT UP but wanted to talk about issues affecting the American People.

So I checked it. And so it goes. From Politifact:

"Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight."

Here we’re fact-checking Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton "viciously" attacked women who say they were abused by Bill Clinton.

What we found is that Hillary Clinton has been accused of threatening or shaming accusers of Bill Clinton. But all the accusations remain unproven,

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ly-attack/

I also Googled a fact check on it and saw lots of hits. Here's a quote from one at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 53366.html:

TRUMP on women linked to Bill Clinton sexually: "Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously."

THE FACTS: There is no clear, independent evidence that Hillary Clinton "viciously" attacked women who alleged or confirmed sexual contact with her husband.

So we have a situation in which the big central thing Trump is apparently going to try to use now is unsubstantiated. Surely at some point the media will completely slap him down on this. I sure hope so.

This again...

You have already been taught that these so-called "fact checkers" are inherently biased. You, like the other low information useful idiots take everything they say as the truth.

One of your "fact checkers" actually put this stupid shit on the internets for everyone to see.
No bias in that "fact check" at all whatsoever.

Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?

"Facts," someone once said, "are stubborn things." If there is one thing that is gnawing the marrow out of political coverage in America today, it's the so-called "fact checkers" whom editors of some of the nation's most prestigious publications have appointed to evaluate the veracity of statements made by candidates for public office.

According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.

The next time you feel the need to share something a "fact checker" has to say, just keep it to yourself please. There is no need to waste the bandwidth.

[kalm]

The point is that we have enough information to have an opinion about TPP, Gannon.

If it is renegotiated by the next President... Hillary won't change it all that much. Trump won't even sign it (which is a positive in his book, imo).

Hillary is very easy to figure out - she's a known quantity -

She'll say what the polls tell her to say in order to triangulate the voting blocs she needs to become President

Then she'll do what she wants to - which is to say she'll talk a Bernie game but she'll walk a Cheney walk

And the world will greet our drones as liberators


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And I'm guessing there will be enough Republicans and corporatist Dems in congress to go along with most of her agenda.

[Baldy]

Hillary is very easy to figure out - she's a known quantity -

She'll say what the polls tell her to say in order to triangulate the voting blocs she needs to become President

Then she'll do what she wants to - which is to say she'll talk a Bernie game but she'll walk a Cheney walk

And the world will greet our drones as liberators


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And I'm guessing there will be enough Republicans and corporatist Dems in congress to go along with most of her agenda.

...and the Progtards will lap it all up like a fine wine.

[kalm]

And I'm guessing there will be enough Republicans and corporatist Dems in congress to go along with most of her agenda.

...and the Progtards will lap it all up like a fine wine.

Sadly might be true....given Bernie's support of Hillary.

[kalm]

But the conktards will still scream "socialist"!

[Ivytalk]

But the conktards will still scream "socialist"!

Because it is...

[Ibanez]

If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice.

If she is elected, the world does not end…. Once elected, Hillary can be fought. Her tactics are blatant and juvenile, and battling her by means of political and procedural maneuvering or through the media , through public marches and online articles, all of that will be moral, worthy of man of principal [sic].

Her nominees can be blocked, her proposed laws voted down.

The alternative does not offer a moral person the same opportunity. If one helps to elect an immoral man to the highest office, then one is merely validating his immorality, lewdness, and depravity.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... al-choice/

[CAA Flagship]

If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice.

If she is elected, the world does not end…. Once elected, Hillary can be fought. Her tactics are blatant and juvenile, and battling her by means of political and procedural maneuvering or through the media , through public marches and online articles, all of that will be moral, worthy of man of principal [sic].

Her nominees can be blocked, her proposed laws voted down.

The alternative does not offer a moral person the same opportunity. If one helps to elect an immoral man to the highest office, then one is merely validating his immorality, lewdness, and depravity.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president ... al-choice/

[CAA Flagship]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUVT63d2P8A[/youtube]

[kalm]

But the conktards will still scream "socialist"!

Because it is...

Yeah...Hillary the socialist...

[Ivytalk]

Because it is...

Yeah...Hillary the socialist...

Whatever gets her elected...