Trump or Clinton?

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by BigMass
Hillary is about as dishonest as someone saying "no" to the question, "does this make me look fat". Hillary did nothing wrong,

This thread and the machette thread shows how insanely delusional you are. Worse than msommers

[rx7_turbo2]

Anybody catch Hillary answer questions about her emails during her press conference today? Yikes, she completely lacks a poker face. "Um, ah, oh, I". She tried her best to explain the discrepancies between the FBI's take and her bold face lies on the issue by saying it was more semantics than anything. She was clearly struggling to deal with the question.

Is she the lesser of two evils? Probably, but she's a dirty, shady, creepy little human. Throw your support behind her if you like, but let's not pretend she doesn't have some pretty serious credibility issues.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by speedog
I'm curious, what did any beyond polls say about the last Alberta provincial election?

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.p...hreadid=390454

Liberals the winner, NDP fourth, but Libs/NDP beat out PC/Wildrose.


Compare that to 2012

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.p...hreadid=351382

Almost 80% for Wildrose/PC

And the 2015 and 2011 Federal Elections

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/394636/20...o-gets-your-x/

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/330297/po...-fed-election/

Almost identical CPC strength, but a significant Liberal boost from 2011 to 2015.

[SKR]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
she's a dirty, shady, creepy little human.

This is the best description of her that I've ever read. Unfortunately it's not too far off the mark for her opponent either.

I've never really got the impression that either one actually wants to be president. It feels like they're both greedy pigs looking for power, and this is the way to get it. It's like they're running to be the most powerful person in the world, and being president is the burden that comes with it. It's hard to get excited about a couple of creeps like that.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by SKR

It's like they're running to be the most powerful person in the world, and being president is the burden that comes with it.

Wow, that is the best way it could ever be described.

One of the most disappointing things about this US election is that you'd think someone "good" would be president. Somebody to lead a nation. I think the last person who embodied that was Bush. He was a genuinely good person, if not the brightest. Did he do some stuff I don't agree with? Absolutely. But he did it with good intentions.

I see neither current candidate embodying that, but then again, I don't see Obama in that light either.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1




Wow, that is the best way it could ever be described.

One of the most disappointing things about this US election is that you'd think someone "good" would be president. Somebody to lead a nation. I think the last person who embodied that was Bush. He was a genuinely good person, if not the brightest. Did he do some stuff I don't agree with? Absolutely. But he did it with good intentions.

I see neither current candidate embodying that, but then again, I don't see Obama in that light either.

I agree about Clinton and Trump, but I've got to hear the explanation of how Bush gets a pass but Obama doesn't

[Sugarphreak]

...

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Antonito
I agree about Clinton and Trump, but I've got to hear the explanation of how Bush gets a pass but Obama doesn't

I personally feel Obama embodies everything wrong with the world currently.

Politically correct apologist for XYZ causes, combined with coddling people and telling them its not their fault and there is nothing they can do about it, but the gov can.

So, while I think Obama probably falls under the blanket statement of "good", I find him morally misguided. But with everyone practicing their own versions of moral relativism these days, what does that even mean anymore.

[Antonito]

So do you just disagree with the way he's trying to help things, or do you think he's a bad person and/or has bad intentions? We could delve into an asinine discussion of moral relativism but that won't help anyone, so let's stick to the boundaries you laid out in the first place.

This is kind of the problem with politics these days, everyone thinks that people disagreeing with them makes them bad people, which is ridiculous. I disagree with Sugarfreak on almost everything but I think he's a good guy because he has good intentions, and doesn't try to disguise his agenda. It's when people are trying to pull a fast one or are just generally hateful that I consider them bad people, even if we agree on a lot of things

[403Gemini]

Interesting... for what it's worth

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


This thread and the machette thread shows how insanely delusional you are. Worse than msommers

The machete thread

It doesn't matter, as in the throes of Islam, believe it, or be beheaded.

That goes for you too the infidel 7 year old. We'll slit your throat.

And you too that 12 year old girl that's ready for rape.

[ZenOps]

What I would hate to be is the guy who has to line up the nuke for Trump to fire it.

Seriously, the guy dodged the draft five times. Can you really give a man like that power of nuke for your country?

While many nowadays tend to quote "its the job of the government to run the economy" there have been several instances even in US history where the government only did what it was originally designed to do - make laws (and usually not about economic decisions either)

Depending on how you view it, its not really the job of the current US government to even enforce laws, it just has to make them.

So really, if you want to change the economy for the better - the government may not be the correct answer. Even less so with someone who has had several bankruptcies (America for americans, and declare bankruptcy on the rest of the world?) As far as I'm concerned its not Trumps job to negotiate a better pricing plan for Keystone XL that favours the US and cripples Canada. It wasn't the job of the Harper government to push Keystone XL to start with either.

I would not be surprised at all if Trump decides that US debt was worthless and would not be paid back. Not paying back a few trillion is one of the only things that really would spark a world war (and I don't mean the Pope type of world war)

Oh the times we live in.

[ExtraSlow]

Originally posted by ZenOps
Seriously, the guy dodged the draft five times. Can you really give a man like that power of nuke for your country?

Sounds like the only kind of guy I'd trust with the nukes.

[SKR]

He's got as much experience as anyone else, and a mind that isn't tainted with first hand experience of the horrors of war. Where an old soldier from way back might hesitate, Trump will hit the switch with vigor and enthusiasm. He might not be the best but it's hard to imagine someone who would be better to look after the nukes.

[ZenOps]

I'd rather have someone who understands pain. Trump also condones torture, although I'm pretty sure he has never been subjected to much physical pain, nevermind the new chemical and psychological tortures that are far worse.

You cant give a guy a nailgun until he has at least lifted a hammer for one day. Likewise, can you really give nukes to Trump if he hasn't held an AK-47, or ever had one pointed at him? I can understand Kim Jong, because he always has gun in hand when addressing the public.

Much like bankruptcy and draft dodging, Trump defers pain to those around him and takes none for himself. Anyone who is not fully onside with the US (that includes for sure Mexico and probably Canada) will receive economic pain (Keystone XL in USA favour) and physical pain (nukes up the ass, maybe the middle east)

I mean, its great for Americans for as long as no one nukes them back, or simply stops doing business with them - but I get the feeling *everyone* will stop doing business with the US if Trump gets in. Again, the US produces so much - that Mexico has a 50 billion trade imbalance because the US produces nothing that anyone wants to buy as is today... Other than maybe $1,000 NFL tickets - and gladiator fights only has appeal for so long.

BTW: That's not to say that Hillary is that much better, but at least she will probably kick the can down the road - which is fine by me.

US is pretty much screwed this time around IMO.

[01RedDX]

.

[ZenOps]

If you take the 10,000 mile view of it:

Trump:

Draft dodger
Bankruptcies
Will not divulge tax information
Global inequality is good, America first.

Clinton:

Setup private email server because she didn't trust the ones made by google and yahoo?

That being said, Trump could still easily win. I'd still vote for Trump, if just for the idea that burning a field and purifying the country with fire, is necessary and natural every now and then. One can only hope that if Trump does win, he will Kim Jong the greater US populace and whip them back into shape

[01RedDX]

.

[ZenOps]

I get the feeling that if Trump does get in, it will be like the transition to Morsi.

People in the US will end up regretting it very quickly. I'd go out on a limb and suggest that Trump might recind the entire SNAP food stamp programme.

[01RedDX]

.