2016 US Election

[MessengerOfDreams]

He was the best candidate but he had problems. But really all the third party candidates SUCK ♥♥♥♥. Strip their views away, I see no difference between them and Hillary except somehow Hillary- HILLARY- is more progressive

[Harmless]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

Just going to leave that link there just in case we somehow screw up with presidency.

and tbh I don't see much progress happening with Hillary - Yes the Legislative branch can override Presidential vetos but remember Hillary isn't nearly as careless as Trump - Despite recent events uncovering some of the most hideous things she has tried to cover up, I guarantee you she'll find a way to stop all legislative progress.

I do agree Trump is worse though. Hell, he endorses hate AND murder of certain religious folks/ethnicity (though knowing him he'd think the two are the same thing). That's the most inhumane thing I've ever seen period.

[Raz]

EDIT: nobody felt like reading this clearly
With the election in a month, most people have basically locked in their answers. There's no reason to act as if you can sway people in the other side to make the right choice, they've already made up their mind. So with that said, if you are one of those people, currently at this time, in support of trump: you are disgusting. I honestly can't believe that (as of the last poll i saw about a week or two ago before the recent debacle) 41ish% of the country supports his man. It makes me disgusted to live here, with people full of such hatred. And you know what, maybe I am a hypocrite, but I feel pretty justified when these people are okay with sexism, racism, and every other kind of -ism in the list. These are the times where I question my trust in people, but also the times I feel glad we have the other part of the country full of actual acceptance. I can't find myself to act as if these views should even be seen as debatable or acceptable, even in this country. I know, the country prides itself on the fact of being able to discuss these things freely, but I feel there's some extent to where these debates are acceptable. It should be a no brainer that racism and sexism is not okay at this point, or if global warming is real or not. Nor can I act as if people with these views are people I ever want to be friends with. If they're this full of hate I don't think I can find myself enjoying being in their presence.

It's probably clear that I like Hillary. It confuses me a lot why I like her so much, but I genuinely think she's a good person. I've read a lot about her lately ever since Bernie has been gone (RIP) and everything I've read about her has made me like her more and more. There are two notable interviews that really changed my mind: The short quote from her by Humans of New York (awesome site, read it all the time.) and Vox's interview with her. The video too, while I'm at it. (a biased site, yes, but it's clearly well researched and should not be dismissed whatsoever.) It made me realize that I'm a lot like her, and the video really puts it in a way that it can explain better than I can. Maybe I've somehow managed to look at every single possible Hillary propaganda there is, or maybe I've done the right amount of research and realized that maybe she isn't so bad after all. Obviously there's some bad moments, and the videos and articles address those too. Since the beginning though, they've never really been anything that have struck me as too major for me to hate her. Especially so more recently with the publicized leaks of her wallstreet speeches that were a hot topic during the primaries. Now that they've been released, people have realized how nothing major was really in those articles, and in fact, there were some great things in them. Her acknowledging the facts, advocating for things we've all wanted, and much more. I think her and her campaign's main problem is being too worried by Hillary's gender problems to know what to make public and what not to, to the point of hurting her. Her pneumonia debacle, for example, or like I just said, the wall street speeches. Both were inconsequential, but they chose not to release them and hurt more because of it. I feel bad that her years of being attacked causing people to have this stigma against her caused her to almost lose this election to a brute.

In conclusion, I don't like people who hate other people, and I like Hillary and I don't think I'm insane. This was a weird post but I kinda feel like ranting about it cause I am surprised by how much I've grown to like her after hating her so hard when Bernie was still in the race.
One last thing though: If you're one of those people who get disgusted at the mere sight of politics, grow up. It's your future. If you don't like politics, great, no one cares. Don't ruin other people's discussions because you are too self absorbed to resist the urge to tell everyone how much you hate politics. It's important, and that's annoying.

[Harmless]

I'd never support Trump, that much is obvious.

But I have a hard time supporting Hillary. That's fine, she's at least humane as far as you're telling me, and probably a thousand times better than Trump (really who isn't aside from Ted Cruz, who's probably only a hundred times better). But she's lied so many times.

I'm currently at a terrible mental block and I have a hard time even recounting what she lied about, I'm terribly sorry (some of it does have to do with regards to 2008 events, however, and how she denied some of the things she said in 2008). I'll do what I can to actually find the things I have in mind, though. (And no, I'm not going to bring up the emails.)

A lot of her speeches, as far as I'm aware, have relied a lot on audience's short term memory to not realize whether or not she is lying about a specific topic. But that's probably just me. Either way, she's not as bad as Trump, which is a relief.

[Raz]

A lot of her speeches, as far as I'm aware, have relied a lot on audience's short term memory to not realize whether or not she is lying about a specific topic. But that's probably just me. Either way, she's not as bad as Trump, which is a relief.

That's a pretty bold claim, and I know you said you can't recall any specific examples, but considering I've watched a large portion of her speeches, I'd really like a source on this one. I will say her 2008 campaign had a few scummy moments, and that's one of the only things that makes me not completely proud of. But there are other instances which I'm sure people have a problem with, like her Gay Marriage flip-flop, which I was initially bothered by. The video I linked explains that side of her pretty well.

[NanTheDark]

Both candidates seem to suck though.

Also I have absolutely nothing for Programming IV and I have to deliver this project now. And no one else has anything. I don't know what's gonna happen.

[Megar]

both candidates are arse, really
trump is a dude who specializes more in having sick insults rather than what a president should be doing and has multiple showings of whatever ism comes to mind
clinton is a criminal and i really needn't say much more

of course i have my own uk politics to worry about, but the sheer insanity of the candidates in the US make things far more interesting

[Oranjui]

Everyone knows it's a ♥♥♥♥ at this point; I don't like any of the three leading candidates for various reasons, both policy and history, and I know there's zero chance for anyone else to win this year anyway (though I was definitely drinking the Jill kool-aid for a while). My concern is less about what's on the table, and more about being willing to work with what's on the table, instead of flat-out refusing to participate. The latter is just irresponsible and immature.

I took my first proper midterm ever today and it was ok.

[Harmless]

She has mentioned in multiple public interviews in 2014 that she is "fully in support for gay marriage", yet at the same time she has also completely lied and told us that she does not support gay marriage at all. And yes, she has done this multiple times. She keeps flip-flopping back and forth between her answers, what exactly she supports and doesn't support, and I really think she just wants to provide the "best answer" at the time, not necessarily telling the truth about her beliefs. Even later in the interview with Terry Gross on NPR (first link I provided), she gets called out for this kind of thing at 5 min 22 seconds in.

"I said that I am an American, so of course we all evolved! And I think that's a fair conclusion. [...] You know, somebody is ALWAYS first, Terry. Somebody is always out front, and thank goodness they are! But that doesn't mean that those who join later, uh, in being publicly supportive, or even privately accepting that 'there needs to be change' are any less committed. You could not be having this sweep of marriage equality if nobody has changed their mind, and thank goodness so many people have." ~Hillary Clinton

Original question asked: Are you supportive of gay marriage?

When you read this out in full text and not just hear it, you really start to see how she tries to just avoid the questions being given to her. I know just about every politician does this on record, but this sentence doesn't even make sense to begin with once you see the context of the question she's responding to. Even then, she still tries to converse with it to try and avoid the question further. She keeps talking about how people have "changed their minds" on the subject, but hasn't actually answered whether she has supported it or not.

And likewise, in 2008 she also had scummy moments like you've already mentioned, especially with regards to her speech on the Iraqi war decision.

In general, there's been a lot of things that has dropped her credibility for me. Clinton Cash, her emails and bleachbit, foreign policy drops when she was in cabinet positions (which, by the way, she didn't really accomplish much during her time in those positions, not even as secretary of state), the Russian Uranium incident with Uranium One, and more.

[Bogdan]

She keeps flip-flopping back and forth between her answers, what exactly she supports and doesn't support, and I really think she just wants to provide the "best answer" at the time, not necessarily telling the truth about her beliefs.

[...]

When you read this out in full text and not just hear it, you really start to see how she tries to just avoid the questions being given to her. I know just about every politician does this on record, but this sentence doesn't even make sense to begin with once you see the context of the question she's responding to. Even then, she still tries to converse with it to try and avoid the question further. She keeps talking about how people have "changed their minds" on the subject, but hasn't actually answered whether she has supported it or not.

Is it something new that politicians may oscilate their views or opinions based on what is popular among the citizens nowadays? A part of being a politician is requiring you to have the diplomacy skill, the ability to adapt your speeches and "opinions" based on your audience. Let's imagine we would be in the 60s right now, where the main concerns are the space race, cold war, where the vast majority of people are still faithful christians and you bring the gay marriage issue. Given that audience, it is less likely for people to sympathise with you on that issue and thus less likely to vote for you if you don't meet their views. This is all it is about, voting for someone who shares or represents your views. The other way around, try to look at a 2016 candidate that openly says he doesn't support same sex marriage (after it became legal one year or so ago). In this case, he would also not be representing the view of the majority of citizens and thus largely losing voters.

Reffering to "people who changed minds". Personally, I think when she said that, she actually answered (maybe indirectly) the "Did you support it?" question. The answer is no, she didn't, but after so many people supported it then she might have changed her mind and views on it. Or, honestly, maybe she didn't change her mind, but accepted the status quo and realsied she can't do much about it. This applies to many people, but for some reason, the citizens think politicians aren't allowed to change views or opinions and thus making them believe that a politician is tied to a view for the rest of their lives. It is not the case, true past affirmations and opinions might carry some weight and raise questions among the population, but let's not forget politicians are human aswell, despite how the media wants to show them.

Back to diplomacy, I highly doubt you will find a clean, scandal-less politician that stuck with his opinions to the end. Because truth to be said, the bare truth and not being flexible enough to adapt yourself to the audience (voters) isn't going to get you anywhere. We had Bernie for a while and truth to be said, I haven't followed much on him, although I could cleary see that it appealed to a lot of people, especially among newer generations. From the limited parts I could catch, I can't say he appealed to me and analogue, to other voters. Probably what he did was to hold that grasp of voters he had so far, ultimately facing the inevitable. I think I read somewhere that he openly claimed he was a socialist and thus "many people fearing him because of the word", my view on it is, if he maybe tried to be more subtle or diplomatic on it so it could appeal to even more voters then his chances might have been bigger. This is an opinion based on things I read from the internet, don't take it for granted.
On a final note, Hillary seems to possess and master the skill of diplomacy, while in contrast Trump has attempts at diplomacy. An actual example would be the Mexican Immigrants issue, where he openly says he does not want (illegal) imigrants crossing the border. I get that and I salute his initiative, but the issue is not his view on it, but the way of saying it and thus many people assuming he just hates mexicans altogether, which shows a clear lack of speech and diplomacy skills. Further proof are his excuses, mostly read tweets saying "but I actually love latinos! Viva Mexico!", which again is poorly worded and generally skill-less.
Now you might say "okay, but then how the hell Trump has so many supporters?". Like any other politicians, his voters are mainly divided between people who take his views for granted and it maches their views or people who might have actually seen the meaning behind (his attempts at) diplomacy. I've heard people saying "I don't like Trump, but Hillary's views are cleary against by beliefs and interests", which is a good point.

God damn, Make The Discussion Corner Great Again.