2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Egon]

The hell you talking about?

Edit:

Trumps business is all about his own wealth.

Hillary's business is ( should be) all about her constituents. Which she has helped. I don't like her, but false equivalencies seems to be your forte.

You are forgetting that a successful business hires a ton of people. My boss's first goal was to make a butt load of money. He did, but he needed more help to continue, so he hired some help. It's the exact same as constituents. You want to do something, but you have to get elected, so your constituents want "something" and you deliver. This is politics at its simplest form. My boss wins, I win. Hillary passes a thing, her constituents win and she already won because she was in office to do so.

[myreality]

Trump may be 100% focused on wealth, but i'd say Hillary's focus is 70/30 Power/wealth with voters/constituents falling under the "tool" category.

Not gonna argue that, just saying that Clinton is better than Trump in this category.

[6souls]

jesus christ that's a lot of sexting

actually, is it still sexting if it's e-mail? Would it be e-male in this case? SeX-mail? What would you call it?

Edit:
Upon further reflection, I've decided -
Male sender: e-male
Female sender: fe-mail

Sexmail.com uses to be an email server.

[thetruepandagod]

Not gonna argue that, just saying that Clinton is better than Trump in this category.

I mean, i'm not really arguing anything tbh. I hate Hillary, I hate Trump, I hated Bernie, but i'm not registered to vote so feel free to ignore all the things I say. I just want to constantly remind myself that everyone for the most part thinks both candidates are awful.

If I was arguing anything it would be that Hillary is a tad worse than people give her credit for solely because of the fact that Trump cannot be entertained due to sheer levels of incompetence. I'm hoping people will be more openly critical of her post election day once Trump is no longer in the picture.

[myreality]

You are forgetting that a successful business hires a ton of people. My boss's first goal was to make a butt load of money. He did, but he needed more help to continue, so he hired some help. It's the exact same as constituents. You want to do something, but you have to get elected, so your constituents want "something" and you deliver. This is politics at its simplest form. My boss wins, I win. Hillary passes a thing, her constituents win and she already won because she was in office to do so.

Except Trump has proven in the past to not pay his employees and contractors. Also fail multiple businesses the guy is a con artist, not hard to find the trail of destruction in his wake.

[Egon]

I mean, i'm not really arguing anything tbh. I hate Hillary, I hate Trump, I hated Bernie, but i'm not registered to vote so feel free to ignore all the things I say. I just want to constantly remind myself that everyone for the most part thinks both candidates are awful.

If I was arguing anything it would be that Hillary is a tad worse than people give her credit for solely because of the fact that Trump cannot be entertained due to sheer levels of incompetence. I'm hoping people will be more openly critical of her post election day once Trump is no longer in the picture.

Just curious, who would be your top choice?

[thetruepandagod]

Just curious, who would be your top choice?

Romney, but then again last time me and AG talked about it he seemed skeptical that romney could have actually passed much in regards to his economic platform considering the environment Obama found himself in.

[Zealot]

Your "logic" is a leap that defies reason, Egon.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Dimmauk]

No, anyone who thinks that Clinton is somehow just as sleazy as Trump is delusional. The very idea is laughable because even if you want to work under the assumption that 100% of everything Hillary has ever done has been all about self-advancement, she still chose the route of trying to serve the country whereas Trump has done nothing but served himself to the detriment of others.

It's far too late in this game and there's too much information out there to pretend there's some kind of equivalency between the two.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Yeah but Trump hasn't murdered anyone yet, and Killery has more confirmed kills than Chris Kyle.

[Quicklet]

Yeah I should have linked the full article. It's long but definitely worth a read: http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-m...er-1477854957/

Jesus, this does not make the FBI look good. It sounds like a bunch of people who wanted to go on a fishing expedition over the Clinton Foundation got pissed when they were told no by FBI leadership and DOJ.

Welp, now that all the Clinton dirty laundry is being aired, I guess it's only a matter of time for the FBI investigation into Trump's Russian connections to start leaking.

[Aerin]

Aerin you just feel for the Trump strategy. They point out a Clinton flaw. You point out how Trump is just as bad. And then they just go 'So vote Trump anyway gg'

Haha, nah. I just feel that I could be happy with them just admitting that Trump is only out for himself, or I could try and defend that I think that while Clinton may play politics, she does it because she actually cares and wants to get stuff done. But that would unleash a ton of stuff I'd feel the need to fact check and there's only so many hours in the day, bunch of other stuff I'd like to do.

[kisada]

No, anyone who thinks that Clinton is somehow just as sleazy as Trump is delusional. The very idea is laughable because even if you want to work under the assumption that 100% of everything Hillary has ever done has been all about self-advancement, she still chose the route of trying to serve the country whereas Trump has done nothing but served himself to the detriment of others.

It's far too late in this game and there's too much information out there to pretend there's some kind of equivalency between the two.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

pretty much this. anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking clueless.

[Day]

Jesus, this does not make the FBI look good. It sounds like a bunch of people who wanted to go on a fishing expedition over the Clinton Foundation got pissed when they were told no by FBI leadership and DOJ.

Welp, now that all the Clinton dirty laundry is being aired, I guess it's only a matter of time for the FBI investigation into Trump's Russian connections to start leaking.

I personally think the Foundation is a lot messier than anyone would be led to believe. I don't have massive evidence, just a gut feeling and some of the things read in the leaks (teneo memo). I could be way off base admittedly, and will stand corrected if so. Your view is they wanted to go on a fishing trip, another is that they wanted to investigate what they had already and wanted to confirm but were cock blocked. Time will tell I guess.

[Quicklet]

I personally think the Foundation is a lot messier than anyone would be led to believe. I don't have massive evidence, just a gut feeling and some of the things read in the leaks (teneo memo). I could be way off base admittedly, and will stand corrected if so. Your view is they wanted to go on a fishing trip, another is that they wanted to investigate what they had already and wanted to confirm but were cock blocked. Time will tell I guess.

The problem is that even if you have a "gut feeling" that there's wrongdoing that exists in the Clinton Foundation, you can't just search and search and search until you think you find something. It reads like there were agents who were looking into this possibility, but the evidence they produced and presented to FBI leadership did not warrant more aggressive investigation measures. Given that anything that originates from Wikileaks would almost certainly be tainted evidence and not admissible in court, this is all coming off as being (a) very partisan against a presidential nominee right before an election and (b) potential overstepping of authority by agents within the FBI. It's really problematic and the FBI element of this story could very well last longer than any Hillary connection insinuated, particularly if Congress decides to perform oversight regarding this.

There are even questions about whether or not the search of these emails by a completely unrelated investigation is a violation of the 4th Amendment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...intons-emails/

[thetruepandagod]

History channel demographic on lock.

[Tyche]

Trump foundation dirty as fuck, shown to illegally use funds, and people still talk about shit with zero to questionable evidence of misappropriation with the Clinton Foundation.

[Gredival]

No, anyone who thinks that Clinton is somehow just as sleazy as Trump is delusional. The very idea is laughable because even if you want to work under the assumption that 100% of everything Hillary has ever done has been all about self-advancement, she still chose the route of trying to serve the country whereas Trump has done nothing but served himself to the detriment of others.

It's far too late in this game and there's too much information out there to pretend there's some kind of equivalency between the two.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

I disagree with everything you said based solely off of how haiti was dealt with post disaster. Politics is her business no different than Trumps business is hotels and name branding. Just because politics happens to line up with a potential to help people more-so than real estate does not automatically mean that she is the more interested of the two in helping people.

Actually I've brought up this argument before.

Let's assume that Hillary's motivations are completely egoistic and self-serving. She's only in it for herself. To Hillary, helping people is merely means to an end. But what end?

It's clearly not just money; if all she wanted was money, there were a lot easier and more direct routes than politics. Power is more likely, insofar as the Presidency is power. But after her re-election campaign, what then? If she's only out for Hillary Clinton, what would Hillary Clinton who has just won re-election in 2020 want?

I think the only logical answer is to be remembered as a great President. In that respect she will likely be measuring herself against Obama and Bill, and she will ultimately measured by the good she does. She has a vested interest in leaving a legacy; I'm dead certain that she doesn't want the only thing remember about her as a President was being the first female President.

So does it matter if she's doing it for herself, or for the people she helps, so long as she helps them?

[thetruepandagod]

what would Hillary Clinton who has just won re-election in 2020 want?

To re-murder Scalia and bribe/threaten people to put her on the supreme court obvi.

[Gredival]

You are forgetting that a successful business hires a ton of people. My boss's first goal was to make a butt load of money. He did, but he needed more help to continue, so he hired some help. It's the exact same as constituents. You want to do something, but you have to get elected, so your constituents want "something" and you deliver. This is politics at its simplest form. My boss wins, I win. Hillary passes a thing, her constituents win and she already won because she was in office to do so.

The thing is that a business' success does not always translate to increased success for the people that work for that business. Record profits doesn't mean better wages or benefits for the employees. Sometimes it does, but more often it doesn't. And Trump's businesses are definitely part of the latter group. Now of course a large business could expand with the money it makes, translating into "success" for more people. But in the end, expansion is about creating more profit for the business. Making jobs is just a side effect.

Politics is different. Politicians are supposedly fighting for the good of their constituents. Success in government is defined solely in terms of benefits for the citizenry. It's the goal, not a happy side-effect. This is one of the fundamental arguments for why government is better at handling certain things than businesses -- you remove the reliance on an unreliable "trickle down" effect since the government is actually invested in doing good rather than being out for itself. And it's why you can't run government like a business. The methodology of business is completely different because it has different goals.

[Egon]

The thing is that a business' success does not always translate to increased success for the people that work for that business. Record profits doesn't mean better wages or benefits for the employees. Sometimes it does, but more often it doesn't. And Trump's businesses are definitely part of the latter group. Now of course a large business could expand with the money it makes, translating into "success" for more people. But in the end, expansion is about creating more profit for the business. Making jobs is just a side effect.

Politics is different. Politicians are supposedly fighting for the good of their constituents. Success in government is defined solely in terms of benefits for the citizenry. It's the goal, not a happy side-effect. This is one of the fundamental arguments for why government is better at handling certain things than businesses -- you remove the reliance on an unreliable "trickle down" effect since the government is actually invested in doing good rather than being out for itself. And it's why you can't run government like a business. The methodology of business is completely different because it has different goals.

You are correct, but the problem is that Hillary has a made a business from politics. This is why so many compare Trump and Hillary, but what Hillary has done, pay to play, is illegal.