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

No, it's bad. He's a sellout to Wall St (would make Goldman Sachs his Treasury Secretary) and his tax plan is horrible. He can also appoint a SCOTUS judge and he wants the next Antonin Scalia - a far, FAR, right wing judge who believed blacks are not equal.

They are all sell outs to Wall Street. But you are right about the Supreme court. The biggest problem this country has is the court reversing controls on political contributions. If this is not changed the wealthy and large corporations will totally control the political process in this country. And control the government. And if anyone doesn't know - that's a bad thing.

Probably should consider the source when an opinion is presented in such a simplistic manner. e.g. "Here is what X think, let's all hate on them now." That's not to say that this viewpoint is rare, more to say that I would question the motives of an interviewer that selects it as representative of Trump supporters.

I wouldn't say ALL, but a very big majority of them are.

Very well put I'm legitimately terrified for the aftermath of this election, no matter who wins, 45% of the population is going to be outraged... And wearing purple explains the community manager nametag color

Like Soul said, almost everything that Trump claims that he'll do is unconstitutional, thus making said actions impossible. I disagree with almost everything Trump says, but Hillary should be in prison for all of her lies and reckless actions. Most people that vote for Hillary do so because of the garbage that Trump spews out of his mouth. However some argue that it is good that Trump is uncensored, however if you're going to run for POTUS, you might as well learn to watch your mouth as there are children, sensitive people, minorities, etc. that are watching.

I agree that this election has been particularly divisive. But I do think a lot of the divisiveness in current politics is more due to the problems in the congress being able to work together and this new phenomenon started in 2002 with the division in the republican party (the introduction to the national stage of the tea party). I do remember an election in 1980 that elected Ronald Reagan sending home the incumbent Jimmy Carter. For many that was a very divisive election. The country was just ending an era of great upheaval. For the progressives and the democrats it was unthinkable that there could be a new conservative president. I remember the fear related to Ronny even to the degree that he was the antichrist. Yes, many were afraid of that. There was talk that because the total letters of his names each added up to 6, being 666 he would end the world. The world didn't end. American society evolved, not because of Reagan, but because it is constantly evolving as is the world. No matter who wins it will be politics as usual. The world won't end. The president, apart from starting wars, has less control over national events than people like to give them credit for.

What he says is unconstitutional now. What's preventing him from pushing Congress to add amendments making it legal?

I agree Hillary should be in prison, but not for her lies. Jail time for lying is censoring free speech. She should be in jail for her corruption, negligence with classified informations.

No. This PC outrage campaign Clinton has been running is the exact reason why Trump can win right now. Politics are for adults. It's not like we haven't heard the words he's using. Awww, Trumpy used a naughty word. Do you need a safe space? /s Attack Trump on his corruption, his foreign policy, his plans to bring back torture, his disregard on climate change, ANYTHING except his anti-PC rhetoric.

That's not how an Amendment is passed. 3/4 of the states have to agree, 2/3 of both of the houses have to agree, or it can be ratified by a Constitutional convention, though this has never happened.

My point is that what an adult says, especially the POTUS, can change children, whether it be in a positive or a negative way, it really depends on who said child is looking at.

Yes, and Republicans currently control Congress. He can work in some of his populist rhetoric, get his popularity up, and then tell the Republicans in there to vote for a certain bill otherwise he will campaign for their opponent in the next election ending their career in public office. He can and will be able to pass amendments that way.

Fair enough.

Why would the Republicans do something like that for him when they don't even want him as the nominee?

It's because they'd have no choice. It's essentially blackmail. He'd do some of the populist rhetoric he's talked about, getting his popularity up. While it's up, he'd ask Republican Congress to pass a bill. He'd call the Republicans into his office say "Vote for this. My popularity is high and if you don't I'll campaign for your opponent and guarantee you never hold office again." They'd have no choice. This was fairly common in politics - I wish Obama did it to get single payer healthcare.

Let's say that did happen. It'd have to go on to the Supreme Court. The court wouldn't care about what happened. They'd only care if it's constitutional or not.

It's amending the constitution. The point of it is to add it to the constitution.

You do realize that there have only been 27 Amendments that have been added to the Constitution since 1791 right? It's not an easy process.

I'm aware, but it's 100% possible. With the "blackmail" I explained before, he could pass pretty much any legislation he desires.

Now I'm not one to say much of why you're voting for Hillary or Trump as Canadians have even less choice in choosing a leader, but it seems lots of people are doing "I don't like Trump so I'm voting Hillary even though she's almost as bad" and vice versa. Now why don't those people vote for an independent party? Like I said before your political system is a lot different from ours, but that would seem like a simple solution if you ask me.

If not why not may I ask?

You are throwing your vote away and basically denying one vote to one of the two candidates you support more than the other.

Have you ever played Town of Salem? If you haven't, there is a lynching system where you put somebody up for trial and vote Guilty, Innocent, or you Abstain.

If you believe the person is innocent, you can vote innocent. If you believe the person is guilty, you vote guilty.

HOWEVER, if you abstain when you think the person is innocent and they are found guilty and die from a vote of 8 to 7, the blood is on your hands. It works for vice-versa.

So, voting for a third party (abstaining) only hurts the person you support more over the other.

You don't vote independent because the independent isn't going to win. Yes yes, I know, if enough people voted for - no. Face it, we are either going to have Trump or Hillary for president. So when you vote for the lesser of two evils you are taking your vote away from the evil you don't want and putting it towards the lesser evil that you do want. If you vote independent you might as well not vote; your vote is only making a statement, not actually electing anyone.