If Clinton Does Win

[Paranormal Panther]

1 hour ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

That Quigg guy doesn't seems very credible. Anyway, Trump's proposals are a lot more in line with the views of white supremacists and fringe neo-nazi groups than Clinton's. I guess that's why he got the not-so-glamorous support from those people.

That being said, I wouldn't even vote for Clinton or Trump. They are awful candidates the both of them.

I'd probably cast a protest vote for Gary Johnson.

Name one racist thing that Trump has said. Please show where he slurred all Black people or all Asian people. I want a specific example. I don't want a spin on something. I want a real and true illustration. Hillary's views are more in line with communists. So what? She happens to hate ordinary White Americans, so she has more in common with the New Black Panther Party, as well as the homicidal House of Yahweh cult. 

[Paranormal Panther]

3 hours ago, -ZZ- said:

And Trump also has support from some very respectable people as well.

Medal of honor winners, border patrol, police unions, ICE, evangelicals, etc.

Clinton calls them "deplorables". Of course, one photo of a drunken cop in blackface ruins the whole basket in the minds of leftists.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Paranormal Panther

[Arbenol]

5 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Clinton calls them "deplorables". Of course, one photo of a drunken cop in blackface ruins the whole basket in the minds of leftists.

Hang on. Only half of them, apparently.

Although she didn't say which half.

[Likely Guy]

39 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

...Also, Trump isn't anti-Muslim, so that dog won't hunt.

WTF? How so?

[Likely Guy]

46 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Name one racist thing that Trump has said. Please show where he slurred all Black people or all Asian people. I want a specific example. I don't want a spin on something. I want a real and true illustration. Hillary's views are more in line with communists. So what? She happens to hate ordinary White Americans, so she has more in common with the New Black Panther Party, as well as the homicidal House of Yahweh cult. 

Oh he's not a racist unless he slurred all Black people or all Asians, or all Latinos?

Edited November 6, 2016 by Likely Guy

[Only_]

43 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Name one racist thing that Trump has said. Please show where he slurred all Black people or all Asian people. I want a specific example. I don't want a spin on something. I want a real and true illustration. Hillary's views are more in line with communists. So what? She happens to hate ordinary White Americans, so she has more in common with the New Black Panther Party, as well as the homicidal House of Yahweh cult. 

Did I say Trump was a racist? Show me where.

I said he's got the support of hate groups, dictators and so on. That's different.

There must be a reason for that. You gotta have to look at some of the ideas he threw out there.

Edited November 6, 2016 by TruthSeeker_

[HandsomeGorilla]

It's true that Trump has received support from the likes of David Duke and white supremacists. It doesn't make sense to me, really. Those groups are, by and large, anti Jewish, and Trump's adult kids are married to Jews. You'd think they'd hate him for that, but white supremacists aren't often accused of being smart. 

Funny thing, Ron Paul was also largely endorsed by these same groups; he had overwhelming support from the largely defunct KKK, etc. Was Ron Paul a racist, too? 

[+and-then]

On 11/2/2016 at 0:45 PM, Black Red Devil said:

Oh I get it.  Initially the way I read it I got the impression you were suggesting only the privileged had a Right to vote.  Now that wouldn't be something you would ever suggest would it?

I grew up in one of the poorest states in the US, went to public school and the education was good.  Not as impressive as a private school education, but sufficient to function in society.  I think RH's points are dead-on.  Any politician or political party that is against an educated electorate should be anathema to this nation - or any other, don't you think?  Understanding the basics of government is NOT that difficult and could easily be taught, even to an illiterate individual.  Back in the 70's, ABC (American Broadcasting Network) used what could be considered the predecessor to modern "Rap" music to teach school kids the basics of different topics.  It was called school house rock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoolhouse_Rock!)  Citizens that cannot be bothered to learn the basic roles of the three branches of government, the numbers of House and Senate members or the process of creating law don't NEED to be voting like the cattle they'd be.  A simple test of a couple of random questions about the basics of government should be required before the person can access the ballot.  I mean really basic questions.  What is a veto?  Who uses it?  There are 100 senators (Tor F)  Lack of that kind of knowledge should be enough to disqualify any citizen from voting.  IF such a law were passed, (never happen) the Democrats would scream bloody murder, initially, but they would meet the challenge within one four- year presidential term.  They'd pass laws for Federal funding to create exactly the kinds of videos - rap, mnemonics, etc.  that would get their constituents up to speed quickly.  Those who couldn't be bothered to study even THAT little, do not deserve the Franchise. 

[+and-then]

On 11/4/2016 at 5:00 AM, preacherman76 said:

WOW

 

Unbelievable.... I would NEVER have thought he'd ever leave the Reservation.  This might well be a sign of the Poxyclypse...

[+and-then]

On 11/4/2016 at 6:23 PM, ninjadude said:

This is not mysterious at all. No one in their right mind would vote for Trump. A man who spews lies every minute, who wants to actually use nuclear weapons, who hates women and minorities, who clearly has no idea how government works, who is in bed with the Russians, who rejects a woman's right to choose, who is a cheat, broke and unstable.

 

You underestimate the electorate's absolute revulsion for this hag.  IF everything you just spewed about Trump was true, I'd STILL vote for him over the smelly, corrupt, Hildebeast.  

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Soros also supports her. Epstein's madam, who pimped minor girls, went to her daughter's wedding. The fact that there is next to no coverage or reporting of these two facts shows that the media is a lost cause. It's like I'm in a bad dream.

 

If Americans have become so dull as to be led by the nose by the media then we are about to truly become a single Party State.  The media are openly ideologues for the Left now.  When about half the population has its voice taken away at election time, the only other recourse will be non-peaceful.  

[Kurzweil]

3 hours ago, Merc14 said:

 Thank God you have the intellect of a 14 year old with learning probems.

Whoa whoa there. That's way too much credit.

[+and-then]

No one else seems to think it important and I don't see a need to begin another thread for it, but Trump was rushed off stage in Nevada today by the Secret Service.  They then jumped into the crowd and arrested some guy who'd threatened Trump.  For Trump supporters to be cast as militant and violent, isn't it odd that HE'D be the one threatened?  He came back on stage and finished his rally!  Good on'em 

[HandsomeGorilla]

Yep, mentioned it in another thread. His handlers did a great job. 

[Why not]

3 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Oh he's not a racist unless he slurred all Black people or all Asians, or all Latinos?

EXACTLY !  Dammit you labeling left love to label anyone with the racist mark. Can you not read what you just posted and see what the problem is. Now your definition of racists is anyone who criticizes a (or some) Blacks, Asians, Latinios, or anyone. 

I or anyone have the right to criticize or dislike anyone without being labeled a racist if it is not the whole race, gender, or whatever they are referring to. 

The way you liberals throw race label around is pathetic.     

[Lilly]

I have to admit, if one is criticizing Mexican people who are crossing the US border illegally to sell drugs, Muslim people who have embraced the beliefs of Radical Extreme Jihadism, African American or White Americans who advocate racial hatred/violence...etc. This type of criticism doesn't mean one is a 'racist' as it's the behavior (not the entire racial/ethnic group) that one is taking issue with.

Edited November 6, 2016 by Lilly
typo

[skliss]

2 hours ago, Lilly said:

I have to admit, if one is criticizing Mexican people who are crossing the US border illegally to sell drugs, Muslim people who have embraced the beliefs of Radical Extreme Jihadism, African American or White Americans who advocate racial hatred/violence...etc. This type of criticism doesn't mean one is a 'racist' as it's the behavior (not the entire racial/ethnic group) that one is taking issue with.

The problem is that if they admit they actually know this then they lose their biggest talking point. Therefore, despite all evidence to the contrary, as long as the gullible will fall for it, they'll scream it as loud and as long as they can. Frankly its...... deplorable behaviour.

[Lilly]

3 minutes ago, skliss said:

The problem is that if they admit they actually know this then they lose their biggest talking point. Therefore, despite all evidence to the contrary, as long as the gullible will fall for it, they'll scream it as loud and as long as they can. Frankly its...... deplorable behaviour.

Yeah, it's not only "deplorable" but "disingenuous" behavior (aka "lying").

I recently saw where President Obama was clearly implying that Mr Trump was a racist due to some members of the KKK endorsing him. However, he failed to mention that some other members of the KKK have actually endorsed Mrs Clinton! Seriously, neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton has control over who endorses them.

[Why not]

30 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Yeah, it's not only "deplorable" but "disingenuous" behavior (aka "lying").

I recently saw where President Obama was clearly implying that Mr Trump was a racist due to some members of the KKK endorsing him. However, he failed to mention that some other members of the KKK have actually endorsed Mrs Clinton! Seriously, neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton has control over who endorses them.

Lilly, I saw Obama referring Trump as a racist for the Klan endorsing him and then saw Obama sitting with Al (racist, race baiting, instigator) Sharpton for an interview. Double standard to say the least. 

Obama's latest is telling us men we are sexist for not supporting Hillary. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with her policy, lying, or corruption could it.

[Farmer77]

21 minutes ago, Why not said:

 

Obama's latest is telling us men we are sexist for not supporting Hillary. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with her policy, lying, or corruption could it.

Some of us men voted for a woman and still didnt vote for Hilary. Screw you Obama! 

[Why not]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Some of us men voted for a woman and still didnt vote for Hilary. Screw you Obama! 

If just about any other woman on the planet was running ( that really had a shot of winning) I would vote for her if she was NOT far, far left and had good policies.

All Hillary's legal problems and her constant lying aside, her extreme far left views and bad policy make me a NEVER HILLARY person. 

 

[skliss]

They don't realize how many men they are actually alienating by saying that kind of stuff. I believe them trying to gender shame men into voting for her will have the opposite effect.

[Merc14]

43 minutes ago, Why not said:

Lilly, I saw Obama referring Trump as a racist for the Klan endorsing him and then saw Obama sitting with Al (racist, race baiting, instigator) Sharpton for an interview. Double standard to say the least. 

Obama's latest is telling us men we are sexist for not supporting Hillary. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with her policy, lying, or corruption could it.

 In his mind if you didn't vote for him you or disagree with his ;policies you are a racist so makes sense he spews this crap re.Hillary.

4 minutes ago, skliss said:

They don't realize how many men they are actually alienating by saying that kind of stuff. I believe them trying to gender shame men into voting for her will have the opposite effect.

His base loves it and it makes them feel superior.

[ninjadude]

On 11/5/2016 at 2:06 PM, Lilly said:

I'm not a Republican.

But you'll vote for trump. That makes you support republican policies. one and the same.

16 hours ago, Merc14 said:

How humorous that you make it so easy to illustrate how little moral certitude you have, how small of a man you are.  You railed against Clinton here during the primaries and now you kneel at her altar.

Having to resort to personal attacks means that you've lost any credibility. Yes, I wanted Sanders to win the Democratic primary. As I have repeatedly said, Hillary is a far, FAR better candidate than trump. I don't "kneel at her alter" nor am I unaware of her war hawk proclivities. Being a US citizen, much like governing, means making choices and compromises. Hillary is a better choice. Period.

[ninjadude]

On 11/5/2016 at 0:52 PM, Farmer77 said:

Honest question here, how so? I mean sure theres a difference between the hyperbole but in terms of actual stated policy whats the big difference? 

Here are 10 huge differences in the party platforms: 

1. ABORTION

Democrats: "We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion."

Republicans: Abortion should be illegal in all cases and the Constitution should ve amended to ban the procedure.

"We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed," the platform said.

The GOP argued that supporting the constitutional right to abortion was the "extreme" position. 

2. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 

Democrats: Applauded the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage.

Republicans: Condemned the court decision.

"Five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," the platform said.

3. IMMIGRATION

Democrats:  Called for fixing the "broken immigration system," including a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Republicans: Embraced Trump's call for a wall along the U.S-Mexican border though was silent on whether to back their nominee's demand to deport all 11 million.

4. CLIMATE CHANGE

Democrats: "Climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children's health and futures."

Republicans: Cast doubts on whether the climate is changing, rejecting the findings of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as "a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution" with "intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy."

5. MEDICARE

Democrats: They would not only would "fight any attempts by Republicans in Congress to privatize, voucherize, or 'phase out' Medicare," but would allow Americans older than 55 to enroll.

Republicans: They would end the health care program for the elderly as we know it, requiring seniors to either enroll in a private insurance plan or face limits on how much the government will pay.

6. WALL STREET 

Democrats: The party promised to "vigorously implement, enforce, and build on" banking regulations enacted to curb risky practices by financial institutions and "will stop dead in its tracks every Republican effort to weaken it."

Republicans: Blamed the Great Recession on "the government's own housing policies," not Wall Street actions and called the banking regulations "an excuse to establish unprecedented government control over the nation's financial markets."

 7. IRAN

Democrats: President Barack Obama's agreement to relax economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program "verifiably cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb without resorting to war."

Republicans: The deal "gravely threatens our security, our interests, and the survival of our friends." The Republican platform called it "a personal agreement between the president and his negotiating partners and non-binding on the next president."

8. ISRAEL

Democrats: The platform backed a "secure and democratic Jewish state" of Israel and a chance for Palestinians to "govern themselves in their own viable state, in peace and dignity."

Republicans: While both parties support Israel, the Republicans said nothing about the two-state solution that has been the bipartisan cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for decades.

9. MONEY IN POLITICS 

Democrats: They want to overturn the Citizens United decision, which eased restrictions on corporate and union campaign spending.

"We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency — by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders," the platform said. 

Republicans: "I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves,"  Trump said in accepting the Republican presidential nomination. 

The GOP platform would make things much easier for the powerful. It would repeal or raise contribution limits and allow outside groups spending millions on campaigns to hide their donors.

10. VOTING RIGHTS 

Democrats: The party said it would fight laws requiring certain forms of voter identification "to preserve the fundamental right to vote."

A leader of the 1963 landmark Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), helped nominate Clinton for president on Tuesday.

Republicans: The GOP platform endorsed state efforts to impose voter identification requirements that the U.S. Justice Department and several federal and state courts have said discriminate against minority and poor voters. The platform called Justice's actions "bullying."

Cases of in-person voter fraud, which such voter-ID laws are supposed to prevent, are "nearly non-existent," according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.

 

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/dnc_2016_10_big_ways_the_democratic_platform_diffe.html