I seldom hear substance from either side.
So that's not a fault which sways me one way or the other.
It's only about what the candidate would likely effect in office.
We should all hold our noses & go where that leads us.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
America: you're already great
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
So that's not a fault which sways me one way or the other.
It's only about what the candidate would likely effect in office.
We should all hold our noses & go where that leads us.
It isn't.
But everyone is exceptional now.
Shouldn't that be plural?
Exceptionalism maybe but not to the point of thinking the US is the worst place in the world.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Clinton and Trump aside, America is hardly the worst place in the world.
Aye, there's always Revoltistan.
"Hope and Change" - perfectly okay, along with "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
"Make America Great Again" - needs to be scrutinized and determined to be saying America is horrible right now. Any other interpretation is false.
IOW, the things non-incumbents come up with as campaign slogan to try and get incumbents removed from office, along with LW media bias.
"Make America Great Again" - needs to be scrutinized and determined to be saying America is horrible right now. Any other interpretation is false.
IOW, the things non-incumbents come up with as campaign slogan to try and get incumbents removed from office, along with LW media bias.
Yes and the republicans supporting Trump seem to want to cling to constant misinformation coming from RW bias. Trumps spouting about cities being in war zones and the American Dream being dead just a few of the scare tactics that seem to work on quite a few of the uninformed. I watched a Republican supporting trump for example arguing that there is Poverty, well no kidding, while ignoring the fact that poverty is at an all time low. Sure improving is always possible regardless of the country.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwinship/2016/09/01/after-welfare-child-poverty-down/
You're entirely correct.
One can only hope....
No more freedom than in many other countries, and -- especially since the 9/11 Klein moment -- America seems to be turning into a police state. It's already an oligarchy, as the Princeton study pointed out.
I see no reason to jump to that conclusion. I read it as saying America was once great, but is deteriorating.
Why is no-one asking when this period of greatness was and what policies generated it? That, to me, seems the $64,000 question.
LW media bias --
Kartari
Active Member
Hi Revoltingest,
Trump has made numerous statements that make it all too clear how ignorant, reckless, and damaging he'd be, however. If some of his supporters don't see it this way, they are clearly not paying much attention. His earlier statement that he intended to ban all Muslims from entering the country for example reveals that Trump regards all 1.6 billion of the world's Muslims as terrorists, only 100,000 of whom are actually a part of ISIS (much less than 1/100th of a percent of the world's Muslim population). I have personally met a few Trump supporters who have very frankly admitted they equate Islam with terrorism, as if ISIS = Islam. This not only highlights how blatantly ignorant Trump is of the facts of the world, but I'd argue it reveals a deep-seated bigotry on the part of a very significant part of his supporters whether they recognize it or not about themselves.
Or more recently, his statement that he'd "blow out of the water" Iranians on a boat if they merely made obscene gestures at Americans. Clearly, he sees nothing wrong with murdering and starting a war with another nation for no greater reason than they made him feel bad, as only a 5 year old would.
Well I was rooting for Bernie, but that ship has sailed. I'm not a fan of Clinton. But at this point, the far more urgent need imo is to ensure that Trump does not get into the White House. If we get Clinton, a major horror show will have been thankfully averted.
Trump has made numerous statements that make it all too clear how ignorant, reckless, and damaging he'd be, however. If some of his supporters don't see it this way, they are clearly not paying much attention. His earlier statement that he intended to ban all Muslims from entering the country for example reveals that Trump regards all 1.6 billion of the world's Muslims as terrorists, only 100,000 of whom are actually a part of ISIS (much less than 1/100th of a percent of the world's Muslim population). I have personally met a few Trump supporters who have very frankly admitted they equate Islam with terrorism, as if ISIS = Islam. This not only highlights how blatantly ignorant Trump is of the facts of the world, but I'd argue it reveals a deep-seated bigotry on the part of a very significant part of his supporters whether they recognize it or not about themselves.
Or more recently, his statement that he'd "blow out of the water" Iranians on a boat if they merely made obscene gestures at Americans. Clearly, he sees nothing wrong with murdering and starting a war with another nation for no greater reason than they made him feel bad, as only a 5 year old would.
Well I was rooting for Bernie, but that ship has sailed. I'm not a fan of Clinton. But at this point, the far more urgent need imo is to ensure that Trump does not get into the White House. If we get Clinton, a major horror show will have been thankfully averted.
I agree.
But even these statements are often misrepresented in the media & elsewhere.
And of course this problem doesn't exist in a vacuum, since he must be compared
with Hillary's record & proffered agenda, eg, war, higher taxes, war, bigger government.
I see a whole lotta inattention to candidates' faults on both sides.
I recall him addressing the risk that some of them are terrorists, but not that all of them are.
Evidence for your claim?
Don't forget that Hillary was even more inflammatory, threatening to "obliterate Iran".
No wonder they want nuclear weapons, given our repeated attacks on them, &
threats to continue. This sabotages Obama's disarmament agreement, raising the
question of her plan if she becomes president. The prospect of war looms.
I see great potential for a horror show no matter which wins.
It's Obamas fault, how dare him lower violent crime and poverty!
Kartari
Active Member
Hi Revoltingest,
I do not see much misrepresentation of Trump's statements in the media. Honestly, his own statements speak for themselves to show how terribly unfit for the presidency he is. There's no need to misrepresent him. I'd say he digs his own political grave quite well all by himself, but there seems to be a large number of people who watch Fox News, buy into their conspiracy theories about Clinton (making her appear far worse than she actually is), and get an entirely different idea of the "facts..."
The whole charade of being against the Iraq war from the beginning, for instance. He was clearly for the war as per his interview with Howard Stern. I was told by a Trump supporter that I should listen to the whole interview instead of the sound bite the media is using to "misrepresent" Trump. I did exactly that, I listened to his full statement in that interview. And you know what I discovered? Yes, he clearly supported the war! Saying "Yeah, I guess" does not mean "No, I do not support the war." "Yeah, I guess" means "Yes, I do support the war." Nowhere in that interview did he even remotely contradict a position of "Yes, I support the war." This has not stopped him from blatantly lying about his position though, claiming he's been against the Iraq war from the beginning.
Speaking of war... Trump recently stated he'd "shoot out of the water" some Iranians in a boat simply if they made obscene gestures at Americans. In other words, he'd react like a five-year-old child and lash out, murdering and starting a war with Iran... because his feelings were hurt? With Trump as president, I would expect the United States to start wars with numerous nations in short time due to his thin-skinned and ill-conceived emotional reactions, even nations we'd never have gone to war with. Will he war with Mexico if the Mexican president tells him to F off concerning his wall? Will he "shoot out of the water" some Canadian sailors if they politely razz some Americans? In all seriousness, I am not really joking here. He's a volatile lunatic who clearly exhibits a lack of self control, I would not put these and other horrors past him.
This lunatic is a superior alternative to Clinton? Am I in Opposite World?!
And don't get me started on Trump and taxes, or government management. A man who not only pays no federal taxes and is clearly PROUD of avoiding them does not belong in the White House: he belongs in prison for tax evasion, or would if the tax loopholes he'd abused were remedied. We're supposed to trust this crook to fix a tax code he is so proud of cheating throughout his lifetime?
I also doubt Trump's competence in business. How many bankruptcies has he filed in his lifetime? From what I understand, Trump would be worth significantly more money today had he taken the money his father gave him decades ago and invested it all into stable funds. In other words, he's lost a lot more money than made in his lifetime... and we should put him in charge of the federal government's budget?!
Granted Clinton is not without fault either. But comparing the two candidates, I fail to see how Trump should even be considered anywhere near an equal to Clinton. Clinton may be a corrupt politician with financial ties to special interests. But Clinton has a few clear advantages over Trump: (a) she has an intelligent mind, capable of thinking clearly and reasonably, (b) has actual experience in government, and (c) has a record which while significantly marred is clearly far superior by comparison to the horrifying disasters threatening to await us in Trump.
He stated he wanted to ban "all" Muslims from entering the United States, not only some of them. He also wanted to create a national database of "all" Muslims already living in the United States, not just some. And he wants to establish surveillance on "all" mosques throughout the States, not just some. All of this... because less than 1/100th of the entire Muslim population is in ISIS?
This would be the logical equivalent to monitoring and limiting the activities of all Christians entering or already living inside the United States if the Westboro Baptist Church decided to start bombing people. Furthermore, it's a clear violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom... another issue with Trump btw is his lack of regard for the Bill of Rights, as I've counted at least three amendments he'd infringe upon. I have to wonder if he's even read the U.S. Constitution. But I digress...
How is it not obvious that this man equates Islam with terrorism from these statements?
Alright, I'm running out of time here and don't have the time to go into all of this, but ultimately here's the thing. Yes, Clinton is not a great choice. She has a war record I am not happy with. Yet an honest examination of Trump indicates a FAR worse choice, however. I'd rather have a war hawk in the White House than a man with the emotional reactivity of a five-year-old child who will war with the entire world simply because his feelings were hurt. I fear the continuation of some wars with Clinton, but I fear World War 3 and a nuclear holocaust with Trump. Ideally I'd like to see a candidate who takes on the Mideast with genuine policies of mutual understanding, acknowledgement of past wrongs, and genuine promises of cooperation leading to peace and stability in the region. At this point, it may take a lot of enlightened beings to accomplish this goal, but ideally I'd love to see that happen. But given the choice between bad and horror, I'll take bad.
I do not see much misrepresentation of Trump's statements in the media. Honestly, his own statements speak for themselves to show how terribly unfit for the presidency he is. There's no need to misrepresent him. I'd say he digs his own political grave quite well all by himself, but there seems to be a large number of people who watch Fox News, buy into their conspiracy theories about Clinton (making her appear far worse than she actually is), and get an entirely different idea of the "facts..."
The whole charade of being against the Iraq war from the beginning, for instance. He was clearly for the war as per his interview with Howard Stern. I was told by a Trump supporter that I should listen to the whole interview instead of the sound bite the media is using to "misrepresent" Trump. I did exactly that, I listened to his full statement in that interview. And you know what I discovered? Yes, he clearly supported the war! Saying "Yeah, I guess" does not mean "No, I do not support the war." "Yeah, I guess" means "Yes, I do support the war." Nowhere in that interview did he even remotely contradict a position of "Yes, I support the war." This has not stopped him from blatantly lying about his position though, claiming he's been against the Iraq war from the beginning.
Speaking of war... Trump recently stated he'd "shoot out of the water" some Iranians in a boat simply if they made obscene gestures at Americans. In other words, he'd react like a five-year-old child and lash out, murdering and starting a war with Iran... because his feelings were hurt? With Trump as president, I would expect the United States to start wars with numerous nations in short time due to his thin-skinned and ill-conceived emotional reactions, even nations we'd never have gone to war with. Will he war with Mexico if the Mexican president tells him to F off concerning his wall? Will he "shoot out of the water" some Canadian sailors if they politely razz some Americans? In all seriousness, I am not really joking here. He's a volatile lunatic who clearly exhibits a lack of self control, I would not put these and other horrors past him.
This lunatic is a superior alternative to Clinton? Am I in Opposite World?!
And don't get me started on Trump and taxes, or government management. A man who not only pays no federal taxes and is clearly PROUD of avoiding them does not belong in the White House: he belongs in prison for tax evasion, or would if the tax loopholes he'd abused were remedied. We're supposed to trust this crook to fix a tax code he is so proud of cheating throughout his lifetime?
I also doubt Trump's competence in business. How many bankruptcies has he filed in his lifetime? From what I understand, Trump would be worth significantly more money today had he taken the money his father gave him decades ago and invested it all into stable funds. In other words, he's lost a lot more money than made in his lifetime... and we should put him in charge of the federal government's budget?!
Granted Clinton is not without fault either. But comparing the two candidates, I fail to see how Trump should even be considered anywhere near an equal to Clinton. Clinton may be a corrupt politician with financial ties to special interests. But Clinton has a few clear advantages over Trump: (a) she has an intelligent mind, capable of thinking clearly and reasonably, (b) has actual experience in government, and (c) has a record which while significantly marred is clearly far superior by comparison to the horrifying disasters threatening to await us in Trump.
He stated he wanted to ban "all" Muslims from entering the United States, not only some of them. He also wanted to create a national database of "all" Muslims already living in the United States, not just some. And he wants to establish surveillance on "all" mosques throughout the States, not just some. All of this... because less than 1/100th of the entire Muslim population is in ISIS?
This would be the logical equivalent to monitoring and limiting the activities of all Christians entering or already living inside the United States if the Westboro Baptist Church decided to start bombing people. Furthermore, it's a clear violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom... another issue with Trump btw is his lack of regard for the Bill of Rights, as I've counted at least three amendments he'd infringe upon. I have to wonder if he's even read the U.S. Constitution. But I digress...
How is it not obvious that this man equates Islam with terrorism from these statements?
Alright, I'm running out of time here and don't have the time to go into all of this, but ultimately here's the thing. Yes, Clinton is not a great choice. She has a war record I am not happy with. Yet an honest examination of Trump indicates a FAR worse choice, however. I'd rather have a war hawk in the White House than a man with the emotional reactivity of a five-year-old child who will war with the entire world simply because his feelings were hurt. I fear the continuation of some wars with Clinton, but I fear World War 3 and a nuclear holocaust with Trump. Ideally I'd like to see a candidate who takes on the Mideast with genuine policies of mutual understanding, acknowledgement of past wrongs, and genuine promises of cooperation leading to peace and stability in the region. At this point, it may take a lot of enlightened beings to accomplish this goal, but ideally I'd love to see that happen. But given the choice between bad and horror, I'll take bad.
Much depends upon which media we watch/read/listen to.
As an addicted NPR listener, I hear much which I then verify.
They quite often alter his statements to make them appear more bigoted.
Another trick is to then interview pro-Hillary 'experts' who then give
their own interpretations which are further biased against him.
I find this true for both Donald & Hillary.
But we're stuck picking between these 2 candidates
(unless we vote for a 3rd party with no chance to win).
So we must weigh their merits & many faults.
I agree.
Accurate reporting would be damning enuf.
If only Hillary received full & accurate reporting on her record
& statements, a very different picture would emerge.
Fox, NPR, NYT, Wa Po, Huff Po.....all skew campaign coverage to suit their agenda.
Note that Hillary also proffers her own conspiracy theory when useful.
I don't see a whole lotta clear judgement on either side.
That's a lot of text.
I'll address a couple things.....
To say Trump sees all Muslims as terrorists is a leap.
What I read is that Muslims entering the country
pose a risk because of terrorists in their midst.
You make a strong case against Trump.
But a similarly strong case can be made against Hillary. Remember that she voted to
start one, & to continue 2 very bad wars. And her threat to "obliterate Iran" undermines
peaceful nuclear disarmament bargaining with them. Add to this her greater inclination
to big government, higher taxes, secrecy, & the welfare state....all not my cup of tea.
Weighing both of these unfortunate choices, I find her the more dangerous of the two.
Last edited:
Yeah I don't get that at all. They are not equally flawed human beings and only Hillary has the better temperment and experience for presidency which gives her the clear advantage. The only thing Trump has going for him is he is rich and business savy but that's not enough cause everything else about him is a danger to our culture and the world. He has alienated most types of folks and insulted a lot of countries that he doesn't prefer. Even the rest of the world sees Hillary as a better pick even though they are aware of her issues. Hillary has spent her political career showing fruits of her tolerance and advocates a message of hope where as Trump shows the complete opposite.
Would a Hillary fan ever get why I'd support someone else?
This is an example of differences we have in weighing their traits.
I view her as the more flawed of the 2 (with respect to the presidency).
Despite her nominally more even temperament, she makes horrible decisions, eg, regarding war.
But note that behind the scenes, she is very abusive to staff, so I don't trust that her public
persona (which is crafted to win elections) reflects who she truly is.
At least with Trump, it's clear that his boorish behavior is not the tip of an iceberg.
Hillary is tolerant?
Remember that she opposed gay marriage until only recently.
She threatened to obliterate Iran.
We "deplorables" don't see the kind grandmotherly type which you might.