[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

Ok, so, for those of you just tuning in, I have compiled a complete path of the debate on this thread so far.


[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 > Global Warming Climate Change > Problems With the Electoral College > Taxes R Theft! > Canadian Input (Thanks, Equable!) > Memes > Hatin' on 'Murica (Eagle cry) > Trump is Nominated > Quoting the Dictionary > I FORGOT MY SPOON! > Gun Control > Russian Money > PARAGRAPHS of exposition > Global Warming Again.

You're welcome.

thanks papa

A typical debate thread on the internet, nothing new. lol

What you're describing is history and individual nations opinions of things. International diplomacy is the process of conducting negotiations and communicating these opinions i.e. what the United Nations does.

Woah I didn't realize how big this thread blew up.

Well, I think it was the first on the subject... and as stuff related to politics is often quite controversial, it's bound to create discussion.
This thread actually only has a handful of people participating, and just a whole lot of back-and-forth stuff.
But I suppose it isn't turning into a flame war, which is good.

Now that you point that out, you're right; it's not as heated as it could be. (Like people on Youtube are with everything...)

Not much to say in terms of recent news with politics, it's been rather quiet as well...

I should go to America until October, then. The UK won't shut up about our opposition party's leadership election that has caused the party to fracture, leaving the EU, young people having their loans they never have to pay back for university being taken away, the housing crisis, and our PM Theresa May being an authoritarian... I'll stop there before I get nasty

Nah man...you're fine where you are...

Nah. I'm not okay where I am. I want to be anywhere else in the western world right now.

My government is passing an act that lets them spy on me 100x worse than the NSA currently does to American citizens - and if I try to fight against that, they're just going to mark me for increased surveillance. This is also the GCHQ who get to spy on me - those people the NSA are totally in bed with because they're the best in the world at spying on people.

And it sickens me that the people here are fine with that or don't know about it - and even if they did, 'it stopz teh muzlimz'.

So if Hillary Clinton has to give up her Foundation, then Trump has to give up his corporation. Not that I disagree with either, but let us not have double standards. Each create an inherit bias.

Even more climate change horror.

Trump wants to stop teh muzlimz

And now, we await for those science-denying right-wingers... lol

I hate to say this, and I REALLY hate to say this, but I'm very surprised that Trump visited Louisiana before our own president...

I really do have to agree with Trump on that topic; our president, knowing that the southern states have been taking a huge beating by lots of rain and lots of flooding, Louisiana, the one that's been hit and suffering profusely, our president goes and plays golf...

Trump, on the other hand, goes there before him to care for the residents, then a few days later, our president shows up? I'm quite disappointed there, usually Obama's on top of things like this.

--------------------------------

I am aware that Trump's intentions were probably not as pure as "they sound", it's probably just a political stunt to show the public that "he's not all bad"... I'm just surprised that this guy beats our own president down to Louisiana in general, 'cause usually Obama's on top of things like this.

However, I do have to give it to Obama, he made his visit very worthwhile.

From what I've read, Obama was requested to hold off his visit so they wouldn't have to rededicate police from helping people to guarding the President.

That's true. He had wanted to go but was requested not to. Cool, mba2012 we agree on something.

It appears that Hillary is in bit of hot water. There is no doubt in my mind there was an element of 'pay to play' when it came to donations to the Clinton Foundation. But I am not convinced that any of the ill advised meetings let to any impropriety. The issue that perplexes me most is why she would do it. Why would she meet with people that donated to the charity preferentially. That seems completely idiotic. Certainly she would prefer becoming president than the charity getting those donations, so why risk it. Did she think people weren't going to find out how strange it appeared? Did she think that people wouldn't care and it wouldn't affect her bid for the White House? Between that and maintaining a personal email server when she was Secretary of State I can't help but wonder how big a bone head she really is.

I am astounded how many people on this thread have voted for Donald Trump. Primarily young intelligent people. I have a son. How could I vote for Trump?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/14/clinton_ad_features_children_watching_donald_trump_statements.html

That's the exactly wrong way to attack Trump. Don't attack him for using naughty language. Politics isn't for kids, it's for adults. We've all heard this language before, we shouldn't be so shocked. This anti-PC outrage is the reason why Trump has done so well. I'm for free speech; anyone should be allowed to say anything that isn't a direct threat of violence, slander, or libel.

Attack him for so many other things:
- Supporting the Iraq War
- Saying "we have to take out their families" (context of fighting terrorists, his war would be terrorism - killing of innocent civilians for a POLITICAL or religious reason)
- Saying he would bring back torture (against international law)
- Saying the Geneva Conventions are outdated
- Believing climate change is a hoax
- Leaving using nukes as a possibility
- Letting Russia take Crimea

You can go on and on about his flaws. Anti-PC outrage is not a good attack.