Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
When your entire campaign is built around disputing the legitimacy of the election process ("rigged system"), other candidates and politicians (Ted Cruz and Obama are not real Americans), political parties (both yours and your opponents), and the government itself —unless you win, in which case you don't care— yes, it's a really bad joke to make.
Last edited:
What does "refuse to accept his presidency" mean?
We in the government don't have a sense of humor that we are aware of.
Probably lawsuits.
Perhaps we should recall which of the two candidates said they would accept the results of the election, whatever they may be, and which one promised to "keep you in suspense."
Suing everyone is Trump's thing.
I'm generally not one to correct spelling errors, because I've made plenty myself, and it's usually a petty tactic when it's something minor, but it seems to me that if you want to pretend to be well-informed in your criticism of a candidate, and to go so far as to call her a "dictator", which shows that you don't have the first clue what that word actually means (especially to people who have had to live under them), then maybe you should learn to spell her name correctly, don't you think?
You spelled her name Hilary with one "L" in your sig twice even though the video you linked to spells her name correctly. How much research could you possibly have done into her record and policies if you have not learned how to spell her name correctly? This isn't some minor typo or solitary mistake on your part, since you've done it before as well, and it indicates an overall ignorance of the situation and the candidate that doesn't match up to your level of anger and distrust of her and makes it look like you're blindly parroting rhetoric without any independent research or thought on your part.
Oh, ok. I couldn't possibly have messed that up due to spellcheck. I think you are reading too much in to my intentions, but perhaps you understand my mind better than I.Suing everyone is Trump's thing.
I'm generally not one to correct spelling errors, because I've made plenty myself, and it's usually a petty tactic when it's something minor, but it seems to me that if you want to pretend to be well-informed in your criticism of a candidate, and to go so far as to call her a "dictator", which shows that you don't have the first clue what that word actually means (especially to people who have had to live under them), then maybe you should learn to spell her name correctly, don't you think?
You spelled her name Hilary with one "L" in your sig twice even though the video you linked to spells her name correctly. How much research could you possibly have done into her record and policies if you have not learned how to spell her name correctly? This isn't some minor typo or solitary mistake on your part, since you've done it before as well, and it indicates an overall ignorance of the situation and the candidate that doesn't match up to your level of anger and distrust of her and makes it look like you're blindly parroting rhetoric without any independent research or thought on your part.
Thank you, though. I will correct my mistake for certain and appreciate it being brought to my attention.
Also, lawsuits are an American thing, not just a Trump thing.
ETA: SInce I apparently need to clarify my position let give my long winded basis for not trust Secretary Clinton. First of all, I have a great deal of respect for the rule of law and believe that up holding it is incredibly important part of a political leader's life.
Now, all of the information that has come out about Secretary Clinton may not be true, but the emails paint a story of someone who gives the impression as being above the law, of engaging in pay to play as far as access to her office.
For some, this may not come as news. It may be part of political business as usual. If so, I can respect that. However, I am frustrated by the fact that rule of law is ignored and rewarded in this new political system. I have two daughters that I want to raise to be honest, moral, and intelligent people. How do I raise them to be honest when the highest level of political power in their country is a reward for people who lie to further their own ends? I don't have a good answer for that and it frustrates me.
It frustrates me even more that wanting limited government and fiscal responsibility is an anathema within the current discourse. Advocating personal responsibility is even more unpopular. But, that's what I am-I am pro responsibility. And I make my political decisions, to the best of my ability, on that.
Last edited:
I edited my post. Sorry I didn't get it done before you replied.
I hate to break it to you, but "limited government," "fiscal responsibility," and "personal responsibility" have for decades been code words for "privilege white men over everyone else." There's even a good amount of data to back this up. The second we talk about, say, helping black people out of poverty, admonishments for "limited government" and "fiscal responsibility" ramp up. In other words: support for those ideas tracks very closely with racial resentment.
Then what words should I use for wanting a balanced budget? What words are appropriate for this discussion? Because, that's what I want. I want responsible leaders to stop lying to me and to actually do what they are going to say.
I've been in the business world for over ten years, working in a retail chain. I work closely with my boss to supervise sales, payroll and controlling costs. I only see a fraction, but I know that we have to operate within our limits.
The problem with helping people out of poverty is that it gets mired in corruption. The "War on Poverty" unfortunately, has done little to change. Black people are being harmed by the current economy, but I can't talk about that because I'm white?
I want personal responsibility-period.
Why do you want a balanced budget? What is your reasoning for why a balanced national budget is superior to one that runs occasional (or even frequent) deficits?
What is your proof of this?
The War on Poverty was lost because the government changed sides. Poverty was on the decline until the government decided reducing it wasn't a priority anymore.
This demand is meaningless without specifics.
Trump winning and selecting Supreme Court Justices? Maybe someone with 2nd Amendment rights could do something about that. I dunno. I mean some people say...
NBC News report said:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-re-open-investigation-clinton-email-server-n674631?cid=sm_tw
It might be pertinent to the thread topic.
Because I want accountability to know where the dollars are going.
In other words, you can spend yourself out of debt. Finances 101.
Personal experience.
Evaluation of statistics and reports (brief though it was) indicates that the statistics may not be accurate, as there was also an increase between 1969-1989. According to some articles, poverty was already falling after WW2. Several Bureau of Labor Statistics counter that poverty actually increased while wages increased as well.
So, it's not that simple as "government changed sides" though there is an argument to be made that government's role may have exacerbated an existing problem.
Oh, ok.
I want leaders to be honest, ethical and keep their word, and be held to account for what they say and do.
Because, they are public servants and employees of the people, entrusted with political power by the people, and should be held to account. Like I have been expected to be my entire life.
I have no doubt that this will increase regardless of the winner.
That's not how macroeconomics works.
Personal experience is a pretty dangerous thing to base national policy on.
When the government actively worked to reduce poverty, it went down. When the government stopped making this a priority, it crept up. Not too complicated when you get down to it, even though poverty is itself a complex phenomenon.
Good thing we have elections in which we can do just that!
The Atlantic has posted an article that might be of interest.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
The Atlantic said:
Oh, great.
Another e-mail witch hunt about a server that's already been investigated and said search turned up nothing with which to formally charge Hillary Clinton with any violations of federal law. Welcome, everybody, to the next chapter in the continuing melodrama of The Douchebag Archipelago.
Another e-mail witch hunt about a server that's already been investigated and said search turned up nothing with which to formally charge Hillary Clinton with any violations of federal law. Welcome, everybody, to the next chapter in the continuing melodrama of The Douchebag Archipelago.
- Status
