runouw.com

Okokok. First off, I'm just as mad at Trump for all of his mistreatment of Women's issues, as I am for his mistreatment of immigration and foreign policy. Frankly, he would be a horror show on the level of Dubbya if he made it in. Hillary, for ALL the horror I've seen come out of her, has not actually been making bad decisions because she believes that wrong is right. She's made bad decisions because she's weighed her options and made her decisions, and done the best she could. She's been hit with a lot of stupid and impossible situations from her husband's affair in office to that idiotic email incident. She's a survivor, and survivors know that it will sometimes take something distasteful to survive.

I don't deny that Hillary's a snake, but a snake only bites in self defense, and it gives a warning first. Trump is a honey badger. He doesn't give a damn, and he's just vicious ALL the time. I'll take the snake, if those are my only choices, thank you.

All you've done is say he's mistreating the issues. How is he doing such?

Either way, the fact you can legitimately want to vote for someone like Hillary is horrifying to me. Anyone is better than her, someone who doesn't give a ♥♥♥♥ about anything but getting more money. She can be bought out easily, she flip-flops on her views more than you can flip a pancake and most prominently she's just shouldn't be eligible to run. Seriously, Nixon got booted after deleting 18 minutes of tape while she's actively got an FBI investigation on her and refuses to bring out anything asked of her. That's not someone I see anyone as being able to trust. I'm more invested in Hillary never getting into office than I am anything else when it comes to this.

At first I've figured that "Drumpf" would be just a playful-expressing-antipathy nickname to be used by Raz ... but knowing that, it's not really mature to call him like that ...

Islamic terrorism has constantly been something to worry about, let's not deny this. In fact, I've kept thinking like "if Trump really becomes president, at least he will finish off IS and not only do bad stuff" ... but yeah, that's more like a little consolation if things come to the worst ... his imaginations of not allowing any muslims to immigrate have nothing to do with sanity and reason AT ALL.

In the end it could become Hillary vs. Trump - if you were a pig, it would be "your bad farmer vs. the butcher".

Anyway, drop the unnecessarily aggressive language, you two.

how about we drop going on this forum

Megar wrote:Okay, firstly, I'm still not sure where people get the idea he discriminates from. Yes, you can bring up his issues with Islam, but can you really say that's NOT justified? He's putting caution and the country he's trying to be in charge of first which is all well and good considering the outbreak of Islamic terrorism across the globe. And don't even start with Mexicans, because he has not once stated anything against Mexicans. Only illegal immigrants who just so happen to be coming from Mexico. Any other group of people I can't think of any particular accusations.

Oh, he doesn't discriminate?

---

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people. It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably – probably – from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast."
- His announcement of candidacy for President, literally his very first speech as a candidate..
Why is this not discrimination? First of all, he's implying mexico sends us illegal immigrants, which is completely false. They have enough problems with the corruption and drug cartels in their country, you expect them sending us immigrants will help anything? Also, unsurprisingly, Mexican illegal immigrants are still Mexican, so yes, he's still said numerous derogatory terms against these people. The only citation he has behind this absurd claim is a false interpretation by him on an article he read.

---

"Written by a nice reporter. Now the poor guy - you ought to see the guy: ‘Uhh I don’t know what I said. I don’t remember!’ He’s going, ‘I don’t remember! Maybe that’s what I said.’"
- source
Even disabled people.

---

"But we're fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is with the terrorists. You have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives. Don't kid yourself. But they say they don't care about their lives. You have to take out their families."
- in regards to ISIS terrorists (Fox and Friends, Fox News, 2 December 2015)
Yep, kill innocent civilians, such as children, who happen to have family members who take part in disgusting things such as ISIS.

---

"Must be a pretty picture you dropping to your knees."
The Apprentice, in 2013.
"To Rosie O' Donnell: "fat," "a real loser," "a woman out of control,"
- source He "defended" it back in a debate around super tuesday as well.
To women.

---

On gay marriage.
He has not said anything on gay marriage since the supreme court decision last year, where he condemned the Bushes for appointing the man who let this decision happen. He's previously stated he's for traditional marriage as well.

---

Sorry, I got a little off-topic. I saw too much stuff I wanted to cite.

MegaR wrote:On that note, isn't you calling him 'Drumpf' racist? His family adjusted the family name from its German origins to fit in better when they entered the United States. 'Drumpf' is not, and never was his name, calling him that is pretty racist in regards to his origins. So quit being immature and attacking him for hypocritical and nonsensical reasons. If you're gonna call him out on discrimination, maybe you might want to fix your own jib.

Let me be clear that I installed the extension back in February when John Oliver released a video on Trump. (this video itself is a good source of things trump has done and said) This extension changes trump to drumpf anywhere on pages it loads. I don't type trump often, and I don't read it a lot, so I never really remembered I had it installed. When I went to edit my post it changed all the times I typed Trump in my post to Drumpf, and I tried fixing that but it looks like I missed one of them when I ctrl+f'd all the times it changed trump -> drumpf. I uninstalled the extension, the novelty has worn off and clearly others have problems with what I have on my own personal computer.
But aside from my own personal mistakes, HOW IS IT RACIST? It's his families original name, it's not like it's false. It's just a tease to Trump's original name, no one ever intended it to be an insult. If anything, it just is a tease to the fact that he is indeed a part of an immigrant family like ever other person in this country.

MegaR wrote:Otherwise as it stands this thread has brought up no further points of discussion than discrimination when it comes to Trump. If you have anything else to say on Trump's policies (such as his views on education), I'll be happy to discuss that too along with what I've already said. Alternatively you can just throw out all of your points surrounding Bernie and I might just see what you mean. I don't really have any stake in this, so I'll have no issues changing my mind should it come to that.

Let me be clear that I don't completely disagree with Trump. Of his plentiful amount of views, he has a few that I sort of agree on. On education, I have no idea what he's even saying. But I don't care to talk about his policies if he's shown he can't handle foreign relations or basic manners.

MegaR wrote:EDIT: I might as well add. In the discord you say that I don't know anything about him other than 'what [he] is portrayed as in media". Considering the media has a go at every last word that comes out of his mouth, even to the point of intentionally misinterpreting them to make him sound worse than he is, I hardly see how that means anything.

This is true, and it happens to all the candidates, hillary, bernie, trump, but it's not like he doesn't say terrible things. I'd say the media is pretty fair on him because a lot of stuff they criticize him on are stuff he did indeed say. (I am NOT saying everything the media criticizes him on is true) Also, he's far more of a liar than anyone else this year. Of what politifact has rated in this current election, Bernie has 70 percent true statements, Clinton has 71 percent true statements (she also has double the number of statements reviewed than bernie,) compared to Trump's 75 percent FALSE statements. Let me emphasize that again, these are still not all his statements, nor is it all of clinton or sanders. They're pretty hard on Trump regardless though.
I don't trust hillary either, and if you read through this thread I have generally said the same thing about her. She is, regardless, currently a progressive so she is better overall than Trump.
and shroom,

---

With that said, I'm done arguing about Trump. I'm content with my political views, and I'm content with my knowledge of trump enough to know he is someone I would never consider as my leader. There is absolutely no way you can deny his ignorance and discrimination of large groups of people. I want to focus on the important part of this election, such as Clinton's free ride to presidency and the effects of this entire year on the future. I stand by what I said in my previous post about a loss of respect, and that's just how it is. In a week or two, it probably won't matter much anyways.

i'd already typed up this post when you added the done arguing thing and i'm not letting it go to waste

---

No, what you're saying is absolutely relevant, don't worry about that.

So on the first note with his original speech on the illegal immigration from Mexico. He does word it oddly, I won't lie and if he really means the government is actively sending them I have to disagree. But everything he says about them, I find, tends to be true. He's not specifically targeting Mexicans either, they're just the big example as that's where a lot of immigrants tend to come from. Also, I'd like to clarify, where he says "they're rapists" I'm fairly confident it's meant to be "their" as in Mexico's rapists are the ones coming in, not that every Mexican is a rapist.

The second one, I actually had no idea about. And I won't lie, that's not good at all. But I can't really say much about it because I think what's important is the actual subject behind the discussion, in which it really is the disabled man's duty to remember what he said if he's going to discuss it. (It doesn't say anything about a mental disability, so I assume it really just is him forgetting). But the whole exaggerated movement thing really is bad, and while it's difficult for me to look past it that alone isn't going to sway me.

Third one I've known about for a while, and honestly I disagree with the concept of it and think it's just cruel I feel like its something that has to be done. Not because I hate the families there due to their connections, but I think it's rather likely that if the threat is really going to be removed, collateral damage if you will is inevitable. I don't want it to be, I really don't, but that's just the way I see it.

In response to the women, in the video of The Apprentice you can clearly a little smug grin on her face. Everyone there knows it was just banter, and assuming it was otherwise is just moronic. In response to Rosie, not a single thing he said was in terms of her being a woman. It was all just generic insults, because he doesn't like her as a person, never mind that she's a woman because that's not what he's talking about.

In terms of gay marriage, I do disagree with what we've heard on the views but I don't particularly think he's going to reverse anything. He has his beliefs due to religion, but I am inclined to believe he's for the separation of church and state.

In response to the Drumpf thing, I suppose racist is the wrong word for it. But no matter how you slice it its still having a go at his ancestry. But what I wanted to bring up was the immigration thing. Yes, he came from immigration. Legal immigration. His family didn't waltz in and start wreaking havoc like a fair few illegals tend to do. They just settled in and did their thing. Trump has never been against immigration. He's against it when it's illegal, and that's a very important distinction to make.

---

So yes I suppose you'll find I am denying it, or at least considering it as unimportant if you want. Social issues are, in my opinion, the least important sort of issue. Call me a jerk or whatever, I'm still pretty sure I completely lack morals. I don't think that'll be changing anytime soon either, so I suppose we're both done here.

sorry mega got ninja'd by you, some of this post is in response to your older ones a page ago

---

Megar wrote:Otherwise as it stands this thread has brought up no further points of discussion than discrimination when it comes to Trump. If you have anything else to say on Trump's policies (such as his views on education), I'll be happy to discuss that too along with what I've already said. Alternatively you can just throw out all of your points surrounding Bernie and I might just see what you mean. I don't really have any stake in this, so I'll have no issues changing my mind should it come to that.

nothing personal but I have already stated that his horrendously aggressive attitude is bound to fail in diplomacy and international affairs. I guarantee it. World relations will plummet if he's elected into office.

also, FYI Trump is not justified in bringing up issues with Islam and being horribly racist towards Muslims. ISIS =/= ALL MUSLIMS. To think that all Muslims are terrorists or that Islam is a dangerous, aggressive religion is a horrible line of thinking (not to mention very inaccurate). And even if we are going down that route and saying that ISIS extremists are practicing the religion to an aggressive, extreme state, then we might as well put up caution for Christianity as well and how many Christians have been attacking gays, lesbians, transgenders, queers, athiests, other non-christian religions, etc. Oh, did I forget to mention Trump is a Christian through and through (although in a Protestant sect as far as I am aware, but even then you can't deny that this kind of argument can be used to say we should put a massive check on Donald Trump so he doesn't promote violence OH WAIT!).

Doram wrote:Hillary, for ALL the horror I've seen come out of her, has not actually been making bad decisions because she believes that wrong is right. She's made bad decisions because she's weighed her options and made her decisions, and done the best she could. She's been hit with a lot of stupid and impossible situations from her husband's affair in office to that idiotic email incident. She's a survivor, and survivors know that it will sometimes take something distasteful to survive.

I don't deny that Hillary's a snake, but a snake only bites in self defense, and it gives a warning first. Trump is a honey badger. He doesn't give a damn, and he's just vicious ALL the time. I'll take the snake, if those are my only choices, thank you.

Hillary is not redeemable, she really doesn't have redeeming qualities. This snake doesn't bite in self defense. Remember that time she said "Oh, don't vote for me just because I'm a woman - Vote for me because my policies are better than Obama" in the last campaign of 2008? Well, guess what happens this campaign - "Vote for me because I'm a woman!". Yeah, that hardly qualifies as self defense as it does being so flip floppity that I can't even tell what kind of audience she's trying to cater to anymore. Oh, and let's not forget that when Sanders and Obama allowed protesters to share their peace and keep outbursts and anger to a minimum, Hillary avoids almost all kind of speaking and interaction with protesters. She just has them removed on a whim, instead of actually addressing any issues that may occur.

So on the first note with his original speech on the illegal immigration from Mexico. He does word it oddly, I won't lie and if he really means the government is actively sending them I have to disagree. But everything he says about them, I find, tends to be true. He's not specifically targeting Mexicans either, they're just the big example as that's where a lot of immigrants tend to come from. Also, I'd like to clarify, where he says "they're rapists" I'm fairly confident it's meant to be "their" as in Mexico's rapists are the ones coming in, not that every Mexican is a rapist.

I see what you mean, but a generalization of a large group of people is never right. All the negative parts of Islam and illegal immigrants do not apply to all of them. I believe most illegal immigrants are people desperately trying to live a good life, but there are illegal ones who obviously ruin it for all of them.

Third one I've known about for a while, and honestly I disagree with the concept of it and think it's just cruel I feel like its something that has to be done. Not because I hate the families there due to their connections, but I think it's rather likely that if the threat is really going to be removed, collateral damage if you will is inevitable. I don't want it to be, I really don't, but that's just the way I see it.

The war against ISIS is an ideological conflict, not one over a contested territory or anything. Why should we use the tactics of the ideology we are against, wouldn't this validate it? Regardless, there are still terrorists such as the ones in France and Germany recently. Should we bomb their apartment, or kill their family when we invade their home?

In response to the women, in the video of The Apprentice you can clearly a little smug grin on her face. Everyone there knows it was just banter, and assuming it was otherwise is just moronic. In response to Rosie, not a single thing he said was in terms of her being a woman. It was all just generic insults, because he doesn't like her as a person, never mind that she's a woman because that's not what he's talking about.

I don't think it's something Trump should say to anyone, woman or not. Rosie's insults weren't specifically women-focused insults, but that doesn't bring down the fact that they're super childish, and this is stuff that needs to thought about and considered in terms of foreign relations.

In terms of gay marriage, I do disagree with what we've heard on the views but I don't particularly think he's going to reverse anything. He has his beliefs due to religion, but I am inclined to believe he's for the separation of church and state.

I actually think that too, but regardless, our next president needs to be certain on such a topic.

In response to the Drumpf thing, I suppose racist is the wrong word for it. But no matter how you slice it its still having a go at his ancestry. But what I wanted to bring up was the immigration thing. Yes, he came from immigration. Legal immigration. His family didn't waltz in and start wreaking havoc like a fair few illegals tend to do. They just settled in and did their thing. Trump has never been against immigration. He's against it when it's illegal, and that's a very important distinction to make.

What I said for the other immigrant post still applies. A lot of illegal immigrants, most of them rather, want to just settle in and do their thing. In the current state, it's impossible due to how strict it already is to enter, and he wants to make it even more strict. There are immigrants that cause problems, but I don't know if we should make it even more strict because of it.

---

So yes I suppose you'll find I am denying it, or at least considering it as unimportant if you want. Social issues are, in my opinion, the least important sort of issue. Call me a jerk or whatever, I'm still pretty sure I completely lack morals. I don't think that'll be changing anytime soon either, so I suppose we're both done here.

Social policy might be the least important issue to you, but it's undeniable how important Foreign Policy is, and that's literally the main job of the president. We need to know he can negotiate and not screw us over, even moreso with guys like Kim Jong Un and Putin who already have terrible relations with us. Social Policies and how he interacts with people currently give us a good idea of how he'll be with other people, and currently, it's not looking too good.

Doram wrote:Ultimately, we've been spoiled by Obama into having someone that we WANT to have in the White House to vote for. Every other election I remember has been about choosing the lesser of two evils. This election is just a return to form.

Personally I think that's because the two candidates we must choose from cheat to get votes. They might bribe large groups of people to vote for them,blackmail them,lie to them,etc.
So Trump and Clinton are both terrible,but at the very least Trump is telling the American people his plans. (Or maybe he has secret plans.) At least everyone knows what's gonna happen if Trump becomes president,and at least he's making his beliefs and plans loud and clear and not changing them. That being said,if I had to choose between Trump and Clinton,I would pick Trump,but I still wouldn't be very happy about it. I'm not a great political analyst,so I'll just leave it at that.

Yeah, trump's making his plans clear, which is why I do NOT want to vote for him.

And even then I don't even dare take my chances with Hillary.