Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know this is probably hopeless, but I'd like to see a rational, evidence-based discussion of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I'm not a mod, so I can't really enforce any rules in this thread, but for what it's worth I will ask: Please, if you make any claim for or against either candidate, please, please, please include some rational argument, evidence, or at least a reference to some article that clearly offers this rational argumentation/evidence. It is outrageously easy to assert claims and vent one's emotions, but generally a lot harder to back up claims with rational/evidence-based arguments. I'm specifically looking for the BEST arguments/evidence for/against these two candidates.
To get the ball rolling, I think this article favoring Clinton is a good example of someone who is backing up their claims. I'd like to see similarly thoughtful discussions for/against each candidate, if possible.
None of you can blame me for what happens for the next four years because I'm voting for Gary Johnson!
Honestly, this is as bad as the "lesser of two evils" BS has ever gotten us. Two unacceptable choices should guarantee victory for a third party candidate.
I call B.S. on the link posted by the OP as being impartial - especially as it relates to economic policy and taxes. If, as it says, Trumps tax policies will get GDP to 11.5% - we will be rolling in the dough with massive employment. That does not translate into a 9.5 Trillion tax deficit -- sorry. Nor does it adjust for reduced govt. spending by eliminating some govt. jobs. Or additional spending due to lower tax brackets. Both fiscal calculations probably don't use realistic baseline revenue figures anyway.
I was so disappointed in Sanders for endorsing Clinton.
Unfortunately, I'll be skipping the POTUS race on my November ballot.
Silly person! Just pick a third party and vote for them. A non-vote gets interpreted as "I don't care." A vote for a third party = "********* D's and R's, a pox upon both your houses!" I'd prefer to send the latter message. Both parties should be able to produce better candidates than Hitlery and Drumpf.
Don't change the subject. Someone asked a question. Answer it.
Comey and Clinton's story didn't add up. That's the general consensus. The fact that Comey seemed to describe a different scenario than the one Clinton herself gave should be a red flag. As to which one is lying, that's technically a mystery. I think it's a very real possibility that they are both full of it. Either way, the fact that they can't even coordinate their lies (since I seriously doubt Bill's meeting with the AG wasn't about the emails and she had nothing to do with the outcome) is not exactly an endorsement of Clinton's ability to lead.
I really believe Comey purposely did not indict Clinton to help the Republicans. Instead he kept her in the race knowing the information he was giving to the press would doom her run for the presidency. If she had been indicted Bernie would have been the shoe in for the Democrats and since he has very little skeletons in his closet and young Dems & minorities like free stuff, he could have been a formidable opponent.
Trump is an unknown, a probable erratic political neophyte and likely a BS artist.
Hillary is a known sociopath, corrupt, totally self serving and incompetent displaying abysmal leadership skills, poor judgment and may be sliding into senility.
Hillary makes Trump look viable and that is truly sad. But we've absolutely hit rock bottom the last three administrations and the puppet masters don't want someone that might put sand in their shorts. That's why they wanted Jeb Bush or Hillary and why Trump and Sanders were so vehemently opposed. They want to keep their strangle hold on the White House.
Hillary's marriage has always been a sham, her motherhood a sham.
She has obsessed with getting more and more power her entire life, probably because of her father's rejections at an early point in her life.
She is a mentally unbalanced pathological liar. How is she qualified to be president? She failed at every single public service job she's been given. And she has never followed through on anything.
I call B.S. on the link posted by the OP as being impartial - especially as it relates to economic policy and taxes. If, as it says, Trumps tax policies will get GDP to 11.5% - we will be rolling in the dough with massive employment. That does not translate into a 9.5 Trillion tax deficit -- sorry. Nor does it adjust for reduced govt. spending by eliminating some govt. jobs. Or additional spending due to lower tax brackets. Both fiscal calculations probably don't use realistic baseline revenue figures anyway.
Daily KOS is not a particularly unbiased source for information. Have something better? I often look at information like this from both sides, then "average" the results - maybe somewhere in there you will find the truth. There are some unbiased sources out there but you have to hunt for them.
You can directly compare the following. Pretty useful.
Political Party
Date of Birth
Alma Mater
Place of Birth
Website
Current Position
Position on Immigration
Position on Healthcare
Tax Policies
Economic Policies
Position on Minimum Wage
Position on Government Regulation
Position on Global Warming
Position on the Keystone XL Pipeline
Position on Abortion
Position on Gun Rights
Position on Marijuana Legalization
Position on Death Penalty
Position on Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
Position on Syria and ISIS (Daesh)
Position on Iran
Position on Iraq
Position on Afghanistan
Position on TARP (2008 Wall Street bailout)
Age
Religion
Books Authored
Other political affiliations
Spouse(s)
Children
One thing I picked up on here that I never knew, but it is not especially surprising regarding their previous political affiliations:
Silly person! Just pick a third party and vote for them. A non-vote gets interpreted as "I don't care." A vote for a third party = "********* D's and R's, a pox upon both your houses!" I'd prefer to send the latter message. Both parties should be able to produce better candidates than Hitlery and Drumpf.
I was a GJ guy for a bit until he started going a little too far for me on the no borders idea.
Now, IMHO, it's better to send the message that none of the "main stream" POTUS candidates are worth my vote.
If you want to pitch a candidate to me, I'll consider it.
I was a GJ guy for a bit until he started going a little too far for me on the no borders idea.
Now, IMHO, it's better to send the message that none of the "main stream" POTUS candidates are worth my vote.
If you want to pitch a candidate to me, I'll consider it.
Whether you like it or not, in this country you often have to make the "lesser of two evils" choice because our candidates are so poor. In my thinking it is lazy to say "they are both equally bad" and just not vote. Actually study their positions and their backgrounds and their capabilities and vote for the one that has the edge. If there was a viable third party candidate that might be a different story, but we are not there yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
