• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics 2021: Ignore the Neighslayers

Rubio gets an important endorsement and no one seems to care. He's the Republican's best shot at beating Hillary, yet he is effectively being blocked by Trump and Cruz, and Carson to a degree. Trump isn't going anywhere, and I think the implosion of Perry, Walker, and Bush can be directly attributed to Trump. To me, Rubio is nothing more than a Republican Obama. With the other candidates in the race, I don't see Rubio winning Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina.
 

Mordent99

Banned

Navin

MALDREAD
Unfortunately true, but he isn't the only one. Just look at Hillary, who not long ago thought the TPP was the gold standard, but now says its horrible.

If I had to pick between any GOP candidate and Clinton, I'll easily pick the latter.
 

chalkus

Well-Known Member
So, uhm, you want it to be the ugly fight that the Republican debates have become? You have a problem with the Democrats agreeing with each other and not infighting within their own party?

Trump has just thrown a tantrum because Rubio got an important endorsement instead of him, and yet he remains the frontrunner. It seems the GOP still wants this spoiled brat to be Leader of the Free World, that's the worst thing you can pinpoint about Ms. Clinton? Lack of competition? This isn't some reality show, this is an election for President.
Why would it have to be an ugly fight? I'm asking for more debates, not a slug fest. Especially since the last election cycle for the Dems had over 20 and this one only has six, most of them occurring on nights when no one will watch. Isn't more transparency a good thing. If Hillary was such a good candidate as you all keep claiming, then why is the DNC doing everything in its power to hide it.

And what does Trump have to do with more Dem debates, anyway.



And before they were Vice President? What were they?

Chalkus, every time I see the news report that announces nominee picking his running mate, including the two you mentioned, my first thought is "who in the world is THAT?"P
So only famous people should run for president or be vice president? What sense does that make? You do realize that you are just advocating for Trump right there.

Besides, it's your job to find out who they are and make an informed decision then.



Okay, I have absolutely NO idea what that means.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama's controversial free trade agreement with Asian countries. Hillary helped to engineer it and considered it the gold standard, however, the TPP has become unpopular among Dems and even Dem politicians voted against it earlier in the year. So of course, Hillary now claims to be against what she helped foster and thought was fantastic. Hence, the hypocrisy.



No mention at all of Trump claiming Ms. Clinton was "schlonged", I see. (Boy, that's going to draw women voters to him, I'll bet...)

Not sure what that has to do with religious intolerance, but whatever.

If I had to pick between any GOP candidate and Clinton, I'll easily pick the latter.

Thus far, I think Jeb Bush has been the most honest person. He has stuck to his beliefs throughout the entire campaign and has not once changed his stance on anything, even despite Trump's consistent attacks. I can respect that, unlike certain other people whose opinions change with the wind.
 

Mordent99

Banned
Why would it have to be an ugly fight? I'm asking for more debates, not a slug fest. Especially since the last election cycle for the Dems had over 20 and this one only has six, most of them occurring on nights when no one will watch. Isn't more transparency a good thing. If Hillary was such a good candidate as you all keep claiming, then why is the DNC doing everything in its power to hide it.

Well, the Republican primary is a slugfest. They're too busy fighting each other, how could they hope to challenge the Democrats?

And what does Trump have to do with more Dem debates, anyway.

Trump seems to think so. He's concerned about their bathroom breaks, of all things.




So only famous people should run for president or be vice president? What sense does that make? You do realize that you are just advocating for Trump right there.

You missed my point entirely, which was, nominees never nominate A-list politicians to be running mates, making the idea of a "dream ticket" absurd.




The Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama's controversial free trade agreement with Asian countries. Hillary helped to engineer it and considered it the gold standard, however, the TPP has become unpopular among Dems and even Dem politicians voted against it earlier in the year. So of course, Hillary now claims to be against what she helped foster and thought was fantastic. Hence, the hypocrisy.

I see. You're getting upset about Hillary changing her mind. Again. In the meantime, your frontrunner just changed his views on the minimum wage within the span of a month, much like his views of Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Bush (George W. Bush) seem to have changed 180 degrees since 2007, and barely a mention from you or any other Republicans.





Not sure what that has to do with religious intolerance, but whatever.

Nothing, it has more to do with his chauvinism, which you continually deny. (Or claim is not a bad thing, along with being politically incorrect in general.)



Thus far, I think Jeb Bush has been the most honest person. He has stuck to his beliefs throughout the entire campaign and has not once changed his stance on anything, even despite Trump's consistent attacks. I can respect that, unlike certain other people whose opinions change with the wind.

So not changing your stance, even when your stance is opposed by most Americans and would be detrimental to the country, makes him more electable? Chalkus, by that logic, Nazi leaders could have been forgiven, because despite their horrid intentions, they were honest about it. (Sure, they were an oppressive despotism and had no respect for human life, but at least they were honest about it.)
 

WizardTrubbish

much more beastly
I think the implosion of Perry, Walker, and Bush can be directly attributed to Trump.
Bush, yes, but Perry and Walker were always joke candidates who had nobody to blame for themselves for their campaign's collapses.
To me, Rubio is nothing more than a Republican Obama.
Nah, Obama was charismatic and a good campaigner.
With the other candidates in the race, I don't see Rubio winning Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina.
It doesn't help that he's doing absolutely nothing to campaign in those states.
 

Navin

MALDREAD
There have been numerous fact checks regarding the "Keeping your health plan / Like your doctor/Like your health plan you can keep it" talking points regarding the ACA and there is enough evidence via quotes by the President and his officials post-passage that conflict with the President's pre-passage quotes on the subject that warrant his promise false. Basically, viewing your quote I find that you could've picked a better example to use. But that's just me being nitpicky.

Maybe it's just me, but I have longed believed that a lot of the provisions in the ACA had to be cut or modified in order to get it passed across the aisle until it became less-than-promised, though better than having nothing before. No wonder the Presidents gets so annoyed when the Republicans try to keep repealing it even after those changes.

Thus far, I think Jeb Bush has been the most honest person. He has stuck to his beliefs throughout the entire campaign and has not once changed his stance on anything, even despite Trump's consistent attacks. I can respect that, unlike certain other people whose opinions change with the wind.

Well, NYT/PolitiFact released this chart a few weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0

Thing with O'Malley is that he never really says anything outright false, but never substantiates enough to reveal the extent of truthfulness. Jeb Bush and Rand Paul are probably those guys on the GOP side, although neither of these two have the charisma nor the policies to win the general election IMO.

If it comes down to pick your poison, Hillary is definitely better than Marco.
 

chalkus

Well-Known Member
Well, the Republican primary is a slugfest. They're too busy fighting each other, how could they hope to challenge the Democrats?
What does the Republican debates have to do with the Dem debates? I'm questioning why there are only 6 debates, many of them on weekends when no one will see it, instead of the 20 plus last election cycle. Yet you keep bringing up the Republicans. What they do in their debates has no bearing on the decisions made by the Dems for theirs. To keep bringing them up sounds like deflection.



Trump seems to think so. He's concerned about their bathroom breaks, of all things.
Why bring up Trump? What does his nonsense have to do with the Dem debates? The decision to only have six debates took place before Trump ever said anything so its pointless to bring him up. More deflection.


You missed my point entirely, which was, nominees never nominate A-list politicians to be running mates, making the idea of a "dream ticket" absurd.
And what exactly categorizes an 'A-list' politician? From what you've said, it seems to me to be someone you've heard of. Just because you've heard of someone doesn't make them good, similarly, an unknown isn't necessarily bad. Clinton was definitely an unknown before the 1992 election cycle and look how that turned out.


I see. You're getting upset about Hillary changing her mind. Again. In the meantime, your frontrunner just changed his views on the minimum wage within the span of a month, much like his views of Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Bush (George W. Bush) seem to have changed 180 degrees since 2007, and barely a mention from you or any other Republicans.
Hillary Clinton helped to craft the TPP, what she referred to as the gold standard, yet when her party rejected it, along with Bernie railing against it, she all of a sudden concluded that it was bad. She is just telling people what they want to her opposed to actually telling people how she feels, which I feel is reprehensible.

And you keep doing certain things that I really do not like. First of all, I am not a Repub. I like to listen to what everyone has to say and then make a decision. If your prerogative is to listen to whatever the Dems tell you, that is your right. However, also respect mine.

Also, you keep claiming I am a Trump supporter, which is blatantly false. I have denounced Trump several times in this thread, yet you persist in your erroneous claims. Kindly stop that as well, as I find Trump's behavior to be repulsive and I do not associate myself with it whatsoever.



Nothing, it has more to do with his chauvinism, which you continually deny. (Or claim is not a bad thing, along with being politically incorrect in general.)
More nonsense. When did I deny Trump was chauvinistic? If I did, the post should still be here, so point it out. You can't because it does not exist. You know, for someone who claims to not use strawman or deflection tactics, they sure do pop up a lot in your responses.

Regarding political correctness, I said extreme PC is bad, not the existence of PC itself. Protecting people from slurs, generalizations and stereotypes is good. Putting entire groups of people into a victim class and declaring any criticism of anyone in that victim class to be equal to bigotry is terrible.


So not changing your stance, even when your stance is opposed by most Americans and would be detrimental to the country, makes him more electable? Chalkus, by that logic, Nazi leaders could have been forgiven, because despite their horrid intentions, they were honest about it. (Sure, they were an oppressive despotism and had no respect for human life, but at least they were honest about it.)

Changing your stance for political purposes, just to tell people what they want to hear, is very bad. It makes her disingenuous. If she believes in the TPP like she clearly does, then just say so and explain why. And your Nazi analogy holds no ground. I never said honesty=righteousness. Just that she should be upfront and tell people how she really feels on all the issues so then can come to a proper determination of her. Don't see the problem in that.
 

Mordent99

Banned
Why bring up Trump? What does his nonsense have to do with the Dem debates?

Chalkus, Trump is the frontrunner. He leads the other Republicans overwhelmingly. You can keep avoiding that fact if you want, but all Republican voters are going to own up to it eventually.


You claim what trump says is nonsense? Fine. condemn his words and call him a lunatic unworthy to be President, and then admit he's a bigger liar than Hillary.

Otherwise, he's your candidate.

More nonsense. When did I deny Trump was chauvinistic

Did you admit it? If he is the nominee, would you still vote for him?

chalkus;17882971Regarding political correctness said:
Who does THAT? African-Americans are being murdered, and Trump is condoning the BLM guys being beaten up.


Also, you keep claiming I am a Trump supporter, which is blatantly false. I have denounced Trump several times in this thread, yet you persist in your erroneous claims. Kindly stop that as well, as I find Trump's behavior to be repulsive and I do not associate myself with it whatsoever.

Who do you support? You seem to just come here to level false accusations against Ms. Clinton, in particular, claiming changing your mind is the biggest political sin of all time. That alone is not going to get Democrats to turn against her, my friend.

Changing your stance for political purposes, just to tell people what they want to hear, is very bad.

Why?
 
Last edited:

LePetitMeow

Well-Known Member
Ugh... With the candidates we have running to be the representative, I'm honestly dumbfounded as to who is better suited to run this country. In my honest opinion, NONE of them are...

The Republican party is filled with GOP bigots and ultra-conservatives, while the Democratic party is filled with liberal progressives hell-bent on pushing leftist agendas into everyone's faces like there's no tomorrow!!

I'm trying to lean a little conservative this time around, but only Christie is in favor of Same-Sex Marriage (my only REAL concern tbh...). As for my other opinions on hot topics right now, none of the GOP favor any differently than traditional republicans in the past decade. The liberal side is even worse...
 

Remix2

Well-Known Member
Well the new governor of Kentucky have only been in office for a month, and so far he broke his promise of keeping the restoration of voting rights by reversing it and lower the minimin wage form atleast somewhat decent to 10.10 per hour to a awful 7.25 per hour.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...nor-strips-voting-rights-lowers-minimum-wage/

Good job people of Kentucky For voting the guy who said that same sex marriage will lead to parents marrying there kids.
 
Last edited:

Mordent99

Banned
Remix, are you surprised? This same "phenomenon" (as in, not discovering that the obvious ultra-conservative would enact ultra-conservative policies until he was elected) is what got Scott Walker elected. Republican voters never realize that their candidates are liars and not good for them until it's too late.

And Chalkus, this is another example of a candidate "changing his views for political reasons", but this time it is in direct violation of a campaign promise. Just like Pat McCrory did with that abortion bill he signed.
 

chalkus

Well-Known Member
Chalkus, Trump is the frontrunner. He leads the other Republicans overwhelmingly. You can keep avoiding that fact if you want, but all Republican voters are going to own up to it eventually.


You claim what trump says is nonsense? Fine. condemn his words and call him a lunatic unworthy to be President, and then admit he's a bigger liar than Hillary.

Otherwise, he's your candidate.
I'm not sure what I am saying here that's so difficult to understand. What does Trump being the frontrunner of the Repub party have to do with the scheduling of the Dem debates? What does Trump being the nominee have to do with there only being six debates, many of which taking lace on weekends when no one will see it? What you are arguing makes no sense. The schedule was decided before Trump was the nominee so to continue to do so makes no sense whatsoever. At this point, I am not even seeing a coherent argument. Any criticism of the Dems you do not like or cannot really respond to, your comeback is, 'Well, trump said...' even if Trump has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's really getting old.

What's also getting tiresome are your constant claims that I am a Republican and a Trump supporter. You do realize that not everyone is either a Repub or a Dem right? Independents do exist. Even if I was a Repub, why would I have to be a Trump supporter. Anywhere from 6/10ths to 2/3 of Repubs do not support Trump. I also find your assertions that I support him to be childish and disrespectful by this point. I have never supported him and never will, if that doesn't satisfy you then that's your problem.


Did you admit it? If he is the nominee, would you still vote for him?
What was there to admit to? You only recently brought up chauvinism. Now, do I think he is a chauvinist? Yes, as well as a fear monger and a xenophobe. Would I vote for him? Never. But I have renounced Trump throughout this thread so this line of questioning is pointless.


Who do you support? You seem to just come here to level false accusations against Ms. Clinton, in particular, claiming changing your mind is the biggest political sin of all time. That alone is not going to get Democrats to turn against her, my friend.
What false accusations? Name them.



So you would support a candidate telling you what you want to hear while believing something else entirely? If you do not see the problem in that then there is no point in explaining it to you.
 

Mordent99

Banned
I'm not sure what I am saying here that's so difficult to understand. What does Trump being the frontrunner of the Repub party have to do with the scheduling of the Dem debates? What does Trump being the nominee have to do with there only being six debates, many of which taking lace on weekends when no one will see it?

Why is the scheduling of the debates even an issue, may I ask? Everyone knows that Ms. Clinton will win the nomination anyway, I know it, you know it, the networks know it, and nobody wants to watch the debate, so the networks don't want to waste a time slot.


What's also getting tiresome are your constant claims that I am a Republican and a Trump supporter.

Well, you're certainly a Hillary detractor.


You do realize that not everyone is either a Repub or a Dem right? Independents do exist.

Some would argue.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149402358/just-how-independent-are-independent-voters

http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/7/17/995375/-



Even if I was a Repub, why would I have to be a Trump supporter. Anywhere from 6/10ths to 2/3 of Repubs do not support Trump. I also find your assertions that I support him to be childish and disrespectful by this point. I have never supported him and never will, if that doesn't satisfy you then that's your problem.

Trump is the Republican frontrunner with an overwhelming lead, as this link shows, and they will have to address his views before he causes the destruction of the entire party:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/12/21/Trump-s-Poll-Numbers-Are-Worse-GOP-Feared

And as for said controversies, they're pretty serious:

http://time.com/3988886/donald-trump-controversy/



What was there to admit to? You only recently brought up chauvinism. Now, do I think he is a chauvinist? Yes, as well as a fear monger and a xenophobe. Would I vote for him? Never. But I have renounced Trump throughout this thread so this line of questioning is pointless.

See how easy it is to answer a yes/no question?

What false accusations? Name them.

She has been accused of sl*t shaming a rape victim, commody trading of cattle futures, Whitewater, Travelgate, Troopergate, Pardongate, Chinagate, Filegate, having a Swedish slush fund, overcharging for speech fees, looting the White House, stalking, scaring, and threatening Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, being a ‘Muslim Brotherhood princess’, having something to do with Saul Alinsky's illegal activities, ordering Vince Foster murdered, doing something illegal with her email account, and being personally responsible for the Benghazi mess.

Not a single accusation has ever gone before a judge, or even resulted in an indictment, and yet, when Daniel Issa's charges of car theft and arson are brought up, Republicans scream, "charges were dropped, get over it!"


So you would support a candidate telling you what you want to hear while believing something else entirely?

No, but then, I do not think that is true with Ms. Clinton. I believe she means what she says.

So would you support her likely opponents who support outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, and taking away affordable health care, lowering Social Security, and gutting the food stamp program, letting the poor starve?

Most importantly, do you support hypocrites?

If you do not see the problem in that then there is no point in explaining it to you.
 
Last edited:
Why is the scheduling of the debates even an issue, may I ask? Everyone knows that Ms. Clinton will win the nomination anyway, I know it, you know it, the networks know it, and nobody wants to watch the debate, so the networks don't want to waste a time slot.

Are ****ing kidding me? If everyone knows it, why is the DNC actively shcheduling the debates on Saturdays when no one watches? Do you think that happens by accident, despite being unprecedented? Have you even been paying attention to what the DNC is doing? The networks don't want to waste a time slot? That's nonsense. Presidential debates always do well in terms of viewers. Bernie Sanders has cut Hilary Clinton's national poll numbers in half, exceeded 2008 Obama in terms of fundraising, and has won several prominent union endorsements. No one is saying he isn't a long shot, but I can't stand people who don't care at all about completely undermining the democratic process so Hilary can get in the white house. What in the world do you think the primaries are even for? They're purpose is to vet out the candidates, pit them against eachother, so the one with the best ideas comes out on top in the end. I expected better from you, honestly.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
That's what their go to excuse is because it works and journalists are too scared to actually do anything about it. Any attack from a journalist tends to end up with them out of a job now.
 

Mordent99

Banned
Baba Yaga, I have nothing against Bernie, but he'll never be the nominee.

The Republicans have turned the word "socialist" into political poison due to propaganda (ignoring Nelson Mandela and Golda Meir, it seems) and these days, most voters think that supporting an admitted socialist has the same moral integrity as supporting cannibalism.

He won't be the nominee, trust me.

As for why I think Hillary will be President? (Disclaimer: While I support Hillary Clinton as a candidate, the list below does not, by any means, indicate I support the methods shown on said list. I a stating actual facts about the election and the past ones, along with credible analysis given by a variety of pundits.)

1. She Aligns Herself With Obama’s Current Policies

Ms. Clinton maintains her individuality when it comes to her candidacy for president. However she is still in line with Obama’s current policies on health care, foreign affairs, the environment, and gun control. If Clinton wants to win the White House, maintaining an alliance with Obama is key. Clinton has only offered improvements on his current policies rather than combating them like the Republican candidates.

2. The Media is Behind Her

Republicans say this is a bad thing, but it's Freedom of the Press. And despite the alleged scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton, most of the media (unless you’re Fox News) is behind her and the way she presents herself. In fact, most media outlets and polls continue to claim she has won every debate so far. Overall, Clinton continues to shine and I can’t see the media momentum slowing down any time soon.

3. The Democrats Need a Decisive Win Against the Republicans

The historic re-election pattern in the United States does not favor the Democrats in 2016, so the party needs to make sure they have a solid candidate who can beat whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be. In most polls, Sanders would surely lose if he went up against Bush, Trump, Carson or Rubio. However, the polls all favor Clinton winning when going up against any of those candidates. Therefore, if the Democrats wish to hold the White House for another eight years they need to bring their A-game to the election. (It's plain common sense, something I have always maintained Republicans lack.)

4. Extensive Financial Backers

Trump uses his own money? Big deal, IMOHO. If there’s one thing that Hillary Clinton is known for, it is that she knows how to raise money. Currently her campaign has no troubles in the donations department, whether you like it or not, Clinton has Wall Street and the Labor Unions behind her as well. The fact of the matter is money = power in this country, and Citizens United proves it matters in a presidential election, making Clinton a force to be reckoned with.

5. Social Movement Says “It’s time”

We are once again living in a world where equal rights and pay is front and center for women, so why not finally have the first female President of the United States? Abortion rights are an issue, which Republicans (who claim they want smaller government but have no problem telling a woman she must carry a child to term) on the pro-life warpath again. If anything, the current social movements say it’s time for a woman to take the office and in a world that is primarily dominated by men, Clinton could make a radical change to the political landscape in Washington.

6. Hillary is the Most “Presidential”

No matter what you say about her past, Hillary Clinton has proven to be the most “presidential” in terms of poise, speech and her debate tactics. Not letting her emotions get the best of her, she handled the Benghazi trials with ease and has consistently delivered powerful moments in the debates thus far, revealing a new side of Clinton that is not only impressing the media, but the voters as well. (I shudder to think what might happen if Donald Trump handled Middle Eastern heads of state with his usual rude and course manner, and let's not even get into what might happen if he deals with a female ambassador, dignitary, or prime minister.)

7. The GOP is a mess.

And that is putting it lightly. If there was any election for the Democrats to win its 2016 because the GOP is in a complete state of crisis at the moment. With Congress consistently butting heads with the president and a whopping 12 candidates in the running (at last count) as opposed to the more manageable two on the Democratic side, the Republican party will really have to pull it together to win the election. Plus, all of the polls show Hillary wiping the floor with the GOP candidates in a general election.

8. She’s Learned from the 2008 Election

Republicans love saying "she's never won a contested election", as if that's a bad thing. She has learned a lot since her defeat by Obama in 2008 and has grown considerably over the past eight years. Taking a more grass roots approach and not the huge bombastic show she tried to put on in 2008, Clinton has placed herself on the ground level with voters and the personal touch is really paying off in the polls.

Do you agree with this list? Post comments to show how you feel. Opposing viewpoints are welcome.
 
Last edited:
Top