The Second Presidential Debate

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
142

[quote=“Sloth, post:116, topic:222340, full:true”]

When you’re pretending to be an advocate for women, specifically the women associated with Bill, you don’t get to get caught bragging about how you jump right in grabbing genitals, getting away with it because you’re a celebrity. [/quote]

I gave you my explanation as to what he meant by grabbing pussy and I’m really not interested in taking this discussion off topic

I’ve said it before - I believe all candidates are allowed to change their opinions (within reason). If his opinion now is different than what it was over a decade ago, I see no issue with that. I doubt anyone here hasn’t changed some of their opinions from what they were 10 years ago.

143

Yeah,. that is horseshit.

Women should be punished for abortions, no, the question was, if it was illegal, should women be punished for abortions and he was like, I guess so.

Because that is what illegal means.

What I find much more interesting is that a lot of republicans are all for punishing doctors who perform abortions but the women who walk into an abortion clinic, demand it and pay for it, NEVER!!!

What nonsense is this?

I am all aware that we live in a gynolatric shitshow of a society, but either women are adults and equal or they are not.

DECIDE.

Either punish them when they break the law or revoke their right to vote, making their closest male relative responsible for their actions, BUT to claim they are equal while at the same time issue pussy passes and rain it down on them like confetti, HELL NO.

1 Like
144

MATTHEWS: The churches make their moral judgments, but you’re running for President of the United States to become Chief Executive of the United States. Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

Then he clarified his statement saying IF it were made illegal, he would punish the doctors.

But the original question was: IN PRINCIPLE should there be punishment? and he is in favor of it. Still is, Apparently for the doctors.

145

Lonnie, I found the Op Ed relevant because
A. Much of this can be seen as a Win for Bill, and for the Clintons. If Hillary wins, he gets to go the the White House again. If Trump wins (despite saying despicable things about women) then Bill is vindicated in a way. All along, Bill’s been telling us that his behavior really didn’t matter. And Hillary is getting the opportunity to look like she’s ashamed of Trump over his treatment of women. It’s beyond absurd.

B. The old quote from the feminist reporter is relevant because there’s a lot of outrage right now about how Trump talks, by people who pick and choose what to be outraged over. But when you look at the real values of so many of these women who seem outraged, they are hypocrites because they will say some pretty offensive and disgusting things themselves. Even with regard to dismissing similar behavior, if it comes from a man who’s politics they favor. Tell me more about how Trump’s words have given you the vapors. It’s a joke.

I’m not defending Trump. Do not mistake my post with some “well, everybody’s doing it” morality.

1 Like
146

you guys can keep complaining about Trump but he and Sanders are the only politicians in a long time representing a different path.

All other candidates will push for more war across the middle east. Isn’t $0.60 for every income tax dollar collected go to paying for the military/war?

All other candidates will continue mass immigration even though 1 in 5 prime age men are not working

All other candidates grow the national debt

All other candidates will continue to fail to make the connection that invading muslim countries while concurrently allowing muslim immigration will lead domestic terror attacks.

Trump has taken extremely low amounts of donations and funnelled much of his own money into his campaign.

If he doesn’t win, it will be more proof voting in this country is a sham. The rest are all bought and paid for.

147

I get that.

I am not really pro Trump but I am anti-Hillary and VERY, VERY much anti-anti Trump.

This whole BS trying to discredit him is such inane nonsense, I am disgusted.

Hey, I am a libertarian, torture, which he actually endorsed, HELL NO, killing the families of terrorists, which he actually endorsed, HELL NO, but all of this lame ass, hyped up tripe…

3 Likes
148

A “different” path is not necessarily a “better” path, raj.

What, precisely, is Trump’s plan for the Middle East?

So we now use “extreme vetting” to stop this? What form, precisely, will that take? Is there going to be a raffle?

Have you read anything, anything at all, about Trump’s tax proposals?

149

Me too! I said at the very beginning that I wouldn’t vote for either of them. I’ve been in the NeverHillary and NeverTrump camp since the primaries. I supported Kasich, mostly because he seems like a more moderate and reasonable person who could have actually WON. I think many moderate Dems would have crossed over for him, and at least we wouldn’t be in this cesspool we’re in now. Republicans didn’t seem to care about winning.

I’m ideologically more Libertarian myself, Orion. For me, the fundamental, core value in all of this has to be the preservation of liberty and personal freedom.

I saw a quote by someone saying, “I could never tell my daughter that I voted for Trump.” Well, I can’t tell my children that I voted for Hillary either. She’s smart. She’s more experienced. She’s less likely to spout off ill conceived tweets at 3 am, or to say completely wacky stuff. He’s unfit in so many ways. BUT I can never get over all the corruption on the Clinton side. It’s Gary Johnson for me. My state will go Hillary anyway, so I might as well vote for someone that doesn’t trigger my gag reflex.

2 Likes
150

Laffer curve.

Tax less, get more in tax revenue, worked quite a few times in US history and then there is this whole wars are quite expensive thing.

Now, compare that to Obama who stated explicitly that he would tax the “rich” more even if tax revenues were to go down because it would be more “fair”.

Don´t challenge me on this, it´s on Youtube.

151

@orion - “Tax Less Get More” is not the Laffer Curve. Its a hypothetical point at which tax revenue is optimized, but it doesnt say where that point is and doesnt say that its less than current levels.

And to @therajraj I would just say your candidate losing isnt “proof” that voting is a sham. It happens to 50% of the public every election essentially because of the two party, first past the post, winner take all system.

I think many of us are in agreement on this thread though. Wars need to stop, personal liberty and freedom need to increase.

152

Well technically of course you are right, however, that worked quite often in the treasuries favor in the last century.

While we may not know where the goldilocks zone is in terms of tax revenue, I tend to err on the side of less taxes, because ideology, and can we at least agree on the judgement that Obama´s statement that he would raise taxes on the rich even if it meant less revenue, thereby hurting the poor the most was asinine?

153

Is it a fact that it would hurt the poor? They would technically have more money in their own pocket, but the government would be able to do less with less revenue… I dont know the answer to that.

If that would be the outcome, or at least the outcome he was operating on the assumption of, that was an odd thing to say, perhaps even asinine.

154

Yeah, that is a fact because they pay no federal tax whatsover while receiving benefits.

So yes, it would hurt the poor if tax revenues went down.

155

Sure.

The word “racism” (correctly) includes the bigotries of idiots who in the fever-swamps of their minds blend race, ethnicity, and nationality into a vague, incoherent mess. So for example the attitudes toward blacks you find on Stormfront are essentially indistinguishable from the ones you find toward Mexicans, Muslims, and Jews. The reality of Mexicanism as a mere nationality is irrelevant because Stormfronters treat it as a race and address themselves to it under the same fundamental white-supremacist worldview from which their views of blacks proceed. They treat Mexicanism as an immutable racial characteristic – they might say that someone is Mexican even if that someone is from Indiana, because what they really mean is that he looks brown and has a Spanish-sounding name, and Mexicanism is in some essential way a genetically transmissible identity…just like race.

Or another example: that Islam is a religion is unimportant to the Stormfronters, because they address themselves to Islam under the fiction that it has something to do with easily-identifiable, rag-headed brown people. Thus they might propose something like, oh, I don’t know, a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims” attempting to come to the United States, which ludicrously stupid policy would only be even somewhat enforceable if Muslims were identifiable by way of physical, inherited characteristics. After all, such a ban takes as its fundamental premise the notion that Muslims are not trustworthy, so we know with utter certainty that its proposer must have in mind some set of criteria by which immigration officers would be able to discover Islamicness without asking.

Incidentally, Stormfront was one of the first venues electrified by Donald Trump’s inaugural babbling session – the one during which he lied about Mexican immigrants in order to denigrate them. Do you believe that this is a coincidence, or do you believe that regular Stormfront posters, if they are good at anything, are probably good at identifying their own toxic ideology?

As an aside, if the very loud rumors around NYC media are true, we won’t have to wait too much longer to learn much more about whether or not Donald Trump is a racist.

1 Like
156

Look, your whole post, to me, sounds like this:

Some people are idiots, therefore Trump is a racist.

BUT, just because the bottom of the barrel developes some sort of confirmation bias, does their perception suddenly become the accepted norm?

Hardly.

157

Because I’m off today and looking to educate myself on Trump, here are his Foreign Policy statements with my thoughts:

DONALD J. TRUMP’S VISION

Peace through strength will be at the center of our foreign policy. We will achieve a stable, peaceful world with less conflict and more common ground.

  • This is a totally vacuous statement. “Peace through strength” … okay.

Advance America’s core national interests, promote regional stability, and produce an easing of tensions in the world. Work with Congress to fully repeal the defense sequester and submit a new budget to rebuild our depleted military.

Rebuild our military, enhance and improve intelligence and cyber capabilities.

  • Another empty statement, although it at least mentions something he might actually do. Although what he does plan to do is spend more and “rebuild” the military. Is he under the impression we dont spend enough on the Military? Its currently 54% of discretionary budget, or as has been noted as much as the next 10 countries combined. No thanks.

End the current strategy of nation-building and regime change.

  • I am Absolutely on board here

Ensure our security procedures and refugee policy takes into account the security of the American people.

  • Completely meaningless statement with no actual position.

Work with our Arab allies and friends in the Middle East in the fight against ISIS.

  • Already doing that

Pursue aggressive joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cutoff their funding, expand intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.

  • All of this is already happening. [ISIS has lost major ground this year](http://The Islamic State has lost 45 percent of the territory it once held in Iraq and 20 percent of areas it controlled in Syria)

Defeat the ideology of radical Islamic terrorism just as we won the Cold War.

  • Uhhh, okay. Again, there is no mention of any specific action.

Establish new screening procedures and enforce our immigration laws to keep terrorists out of the United States.
Suspend, on a temporary basis, immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.

  • Okay, at least there is a position here, but we already screen immigrants and essentially no outside actors have come into the country and committed a terrorist act… so it must be working pretty good, no?

Establish a Commission on Radical Islam to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.

  • Hmmm, not really sure about this one. It smacks of scare mongering. There is no single, codified religion called “Radical Islam” that you can educate people about, so the idea itself is very shaky to me, and sounds likely to develop an “us versus them” mentality which never goes well in my opinion.
158

You’re a smart guy, you know the examples I used come from Trump himself. My point is that HE avails himself of these same bottom-of-the-barrel perceptions and fantasies that animate Stormfront, and we know this with certainty because he has entered it explicitly into the public record multiple times.

As an aside, it feels odd to argue about any of it, doesn’t it, with Trump essentially giving up today? Attacking GOP leadership, talking about voter fraud. It seems clear to me he’s given up and is now planning on ensnaring the eventual Trump TV audience.

159

Trump Tax Plan:

Reduce taxes across-the-board, especially for working and middle-income Americans who will receive a massive tax reduction.

Brackets & Rates for Married-Joint filers:
Less than $75,000: 12%
More than $75,000 but less than $225,000: 25%
More than $225,000: 33%
*Brackets for single filers are ½ of these amounts

Ensure the rich will pay their fair share, but no one will pay so much that it destroys jobs or undermines our ability to compete.

Eliminate special interest loopholes, make our business tax rate more competitive to keep jobs in America, create new opportunities and revitalize our economy.

Reduce the cost of childcare by allowing families to fully deduct the average cost of childcare from their taxes, including stay-at-home parents.

  • Based on his website it certainly seems taxes will decrease for most Americans. You can form your own opinion on whether that would be a good or bad thing based on your own values.

I’m not sure how he plans to pay for his military budget with that, but that is another discussion.

160

No it’s not guaranteed Trump will be good but we know the current path is terrible

161

I’m saying if it were two establishment candidates as usual they would lead things in the exact same direction. The directions their donors want to go