Politics

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Clinton doesn't actually care about current social issues, and trump is actually More liberal than her, just in a different way

I can't say I disagree; I don't think she feels a vested interest in the struggles of some black woman in Timbucktoo.
That said, she isn't going to upset the current trends, and she might throw a bone or two to the LGBT+ community or do something good like mandate body cameras to try and appear more liberal than she is. She certainly wouldn't go against the trend Obama has set up (who is sort of her model for her next presidency at this point).

Don't know why you're so ecstatic about this. Regardless of who wins, we all lose.

Except for the memes

In all seriousness, equating the bad things of Trump and Clinton is sort of like saying that while in a fight, getting a jab to the gut every once in a while is the same as being uppercutted.

[mikey]

It's also important that the supreme court stays conservative leaning.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Why, exactly?

[mikey]

Because I'm conservative and like the constitution the way it is.  Obviously

[FireArrow]

I don't think anyone has any intention of changing the constitution.

[Dudeman]

I don't have the knowledge off the top of my head to back this up, but I'd be willing to bet that some very influential/important constitutional amendments wouldn't have been passed by a "more conservative" supreme court. Also I doubt a "more conservative" supreme court would have repealed the 18th amendment (prohibition).

ninja'd, this was aimed at Noc

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Because I'm conservative and like the constitution the way it is.  Obviously

Aside from the obvious fact that the SCOTUS should remain purely constitutional and not ideological, the constitution doesn't lean conservatively or liberally. It just states how we function. In addition, the majority of the Courts job is not to rewrite or alter the constitution (they cant even do that), it's only to determine if laws and bills are unconstitutional, take appeals, etc.
Congress isn't rewriting the constitution.

[E. Gadd Industries]

If you wanna be technical, the Constitution leans to the federalists and the Bill of Rights to the antifederalists

[mikey]

The supreme court interprets the constitution.  Conservative justices will naturally interpret it more literally.  That's all I mean.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Why do you feel a more literal interpretation is important? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (though I do think that the correlation you propose is incorrect), but I'm curious as to why the literalist view is the one you seem to prefer. If you want to go completely literal 1776 style, then we should be only counting 3 votes for every 5 black voters.

[TheMarioPianist]

Has Donald Trump talking about how he sexually assaults women changed your opinion of him at all?

No, because he stated in the debate that it was all talk, no action. Some off hand comments don't bother me as much as some of the things that have occurred on the Democrat side in the past 6 months or so. I admit that they were wrong and inappropriate, but no, doesn't change my opinion much at all. And in case you haven't noticed, the women that were bothered by those remarks were voting for Clinton anyway; women for Trump weigh those 11 year old private statements against Hillary Clinton and still believe he is the better option.

I think if you actively exploit a loophole in a tax code to avoid repercussions, that says quite a bit about your values...

What, you should be punished for losing $1 billion dollars? I don't understand how following the laws within the tax code says anything negative about his values at all...It's a good thing to follow the law, right?

1) anything Hillary Clinton did with emails was legal but stupid.  She's stupid.

I still question the legality of everything there. I mean, it's very possible that she paid some certain people off to get away with what she did. Plus, government workers know they need her in office to keep their unfair benefits coming in. If Trump gets elected, they may have to do some actual work  .

Even the republican investigators looking into the email scandal concluded that there was no evidence of any serious wrongdoing or enough to warrant serious charges.

As for Donald Trump being worse than us: what we (or at least I) partake in might contain profanity, but it's constitutional profanity. Most of our disagreements (speaking directly to Noc about this) have, I believe, stemmed from how seriously I value and advocate the separation of church and state, and the belief that everyone is entitled to freedom FROM religion just as much as freedom OF religion. If I've said something offensive that's not rooted in logic or constitutional freedoms, I'd really appreciate you pointing it out to me so I can apologize. I try to be logical and fair as much as I can. With Trump, however, it's not the "vulgarities" that anger me. It's the remarks and behaviors that are so blatantly racist or xenophobic (see: literally any comments about Muslims, which directly mirror Hitler's comments about Jews), or more commonly--and currently in more of a spotlight because of the tape from 2005 of a 59-year-old Trump talking about sexually forcing himself on women who can't or won't refuse him because of his wealth and power--incredibly sexist. The way he was circling Clinton during the debate and constantly interrupting her shows a man who not only doesn't respect women, but doesn't respect anyone who opposes him. I legitimately believe he's a dangerous and downright horrible candidate. Clinton is not perfect, of course, and anyone who says she is basically doesn't know what they're talking about. But I trust her infinitely more as a capable leader, and don't believe that the email scandal or her husband's extramarital affairs have anything to do with her ability to lead a country effectively.

There they are. Knew the typical anti-Trump words had to come up eventually. I'll come back to racist in a second because I want to talk about xenophobic first. The definition of xenophobia is an irrational or intense dislike or fear of foreigners. Now you tell me; is it irrational to be afraid of a terrorist group that is decapitating innocent people and bombing cities on a daily basis? I wouldn't care if the group was African-American, Asian, Arab, Mexican, Hispanic, etc. If a group of people is mass murdering other people, it isn't wrong for me to fear them. The problem is that people believe that Trump hates/fears all Muslims because of what happens in the Middle East; this is simply not true. The same could be said about his beliefs about Mexicans. I can be afraid of the drug dealers and rapists that illegally cross the border and steal welfare checks from us without hating everyday Mexican-Americans who are simply trying to better their lives in this country. However, anti-Trump protesters portray him as anti-Mexican, just because he is against the ones who blatantly break the law. If you feel you have a comment or quote that contradicts this, by all means do share. (Actually, racist kind of fits in here, so I don't really need to say it again.)
As for the sexist remark, I covered my basic opinion on the matter earlier when answering shadowkirby; if you want me to go deeper into disproving Trump's sexism in general, just say the word.

Also the most important point.
We aren't running for president.

(Looks like I'll be quoting you a lot.) I'm lost, who was implying that we were?

@TMP

You don't have to be a racist, sexist, or xenophobe to support Trump, but you do have to be okay with those things.

No, you don't. As I've mentioned above, I don't believe that Trump is any of those things. From my standpoint, you can be completely against all three of those things and support Trump (and everyone should be against those things).

I know you were asking Slow, but I'll also take some time to respond since he and I are fairly similar on this (though I'm sure we disagree in certain areas).
Policies/other areas that Clinton is objectively better with:
- Climate Change
- Freedom of (from) Religion
- Gun regulations
- Ending the Drug War- neither of them are likely to end it, I think, but HRC will almost certainly do a better job.
- General international relationships; for all her faults, Hillary can at least act presidential, and has a fair amount of experience as Secretary of State.
- Healthcare
- College tuition + debt
- Police Violence
- All social issues

In addition, consider that Trump wants to appoint the equivalent of Antonin Scalia (who literally said that blacks should go to "slower tracked schools"). While I'm not hugely a fan of Merrick Garland, he's a far better pick.

For climate change, I understand that it is important that we don't intentionally worsen the conditions (that would just be stupid), but at the same time we don't need to be spending billions of dollars on it like we do.
Ah, for religion I assume you're referencing the Roe v. Wade stuff. That one we'll have to disagree on, as I am pro-life (and Catholic, for that matter). No sense arguing that one because we won't get anywhere.
Well...I'm completely for the Second Amendment. My family has never owned a gun, but I don't see why any law abiding citizen should be deterred from having one if they so choose. Gun control doesn't stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
Hmm...I haven't considered the drug war that much (other than obviously we need to stop it). To echo my climate change belief, we shouldn't waste a lot of government money on it.
Hmm, let's see...Secretary of State experience...Benghazi, Iran...good times. In all seriousness, my belief is that no political experience is better than 4 poor ones. Besides, its not like Trump has never negotiated with foreign countries before. I'll agree 100% that Hillary can act presidential...key word ACT. She is not very presidential behind the scenes...Noc mentioned her potty-mouth before.
Seems like I'm repeating myself here...I do not believe that government should be in complete control of healthcare. I am all for the idea of privatizing it and removing the invisible borders between states. I just believe it will be better for us economically.

Now for the Supreme Court Justice. Of course, you pick out one bad instance in this guy's career and apply it to his entire career. That is not what Trump was implying; he just wants to nominate a good, conservative judge that will interpret the Constitution like he or she should.

Not exactly.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/09/fact-checks-second-presidential-debate/

I guess I'll give you that. Still says he was half true on the topic I was referring to (emails).

Possibly. It's also possible that it was because that 25 minutes into the first debate, there were no discussions on policy substance.

Fair enough.


So, you're proud to be a supporter of someone who you admitted earlier is probably a bully, and who was caught on tape talking about how he sexually assaults women?

Probably a bully? That's not how I remember saying it...If that's what you got out of it, what I meant was that I more or less understood where people were coming from with that argument. Still didn't necessarily agree, but I get it.

Preferably by not moving it backwards.

Just depends on who you believe will move it forward. Or perhaps combining the modern system with a few ideas from about 25 years ago wouldn't be such a bad idea. We'll see what happens.

The supreme court interprets the constitution.  Conservative justices will naturally interpret it more literally.  That's all I mean.

Literal Supreme Court Justices. That's something we need.

Why do you feel a more literal interpretation is important? I'm not necessarily disagreeing (though I do think that the correlation you propose is incorrect), but I'm curious as to why the literalist view is the one you seem to prefer. If you want to go completely literal 1776 style, then we should be only counting 3 votes for every 5 black voters.

Ahem, I believe you mean 1787. Anyway, that's kind of extrapolating there. Noc is definitely not implying that we interpret the Constitution exactly how it was written almost two and a half centuries ago. However, when an amendment says citizens have "the right to bear arms," that should be taken as it is written. There's no argument like "That was at a time of war" or "Well handguns are ok but these ones aren't." That's the kind of thing that should be taken literally. And if you take it literally, you will notice that the Three Fifths Compromise is no longer applicable. So it doesn't matter.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

No, because he stated in the debate that it was all talk, no action.

And he was talking about how he had acted in the past..

Some off hand comments don't bother me as much as some of the things that have occurred on the Democrat side in the past 6 months or so.

That's not the argument. The question is solely whether or not what he said was bad, not whether what any democrat did was worse (which, if you're referring to the "basket of deplorables" comment, could be interpreted as an off hand comment far easier than what Trump said can be).

I admit that they were wrong and inappropriate,

Good! Then we agree.
 

but no, doesn't change my opinion much at all.

...Oh. So these statements don't matter enough to you to change your mind?

And in case you haven't noticed, the women that were bothered by those remarks were voting for Clinton anyway; women for Trump weigh those 11 year old private statements against Hillary Clinton and still believe he is the better option.

Citation needed, as you can't speak for EVERY woman who supported Trump. I personally know at least 2 who formerly did support Trump and are now sitting out the election after those comments. No doubt that the statements aren't going to shake up his entire base but a) there are many on the fence voters for whom it could be a deal breaker and b) the discussion is, again, the MORALITY of such statements.

What, you should be punished for losing $1 billion dollars? I don't understand how following the laws within the tax code says anything negative about his values at all...It's a good thing to follow the law, right?

Not exactly. The fact that he turned a horrible business decision which resulted in a billion dollar loss into an excuse to not pay taxes for the next 10 years is my issue with him.

I still question the legality of everything there. I mean, it's very possible that she paid some certain people off to get away with what she did.

And you don't think that after 9 separate investigations, many of them Republican lead, that wouldn't have been uncovered?

Plus, government workers know they need her in office to keep their unfair benefits coming in. If Trump gets elected, they may have to do some actual work  .

Lmao. Stereotyping all government workers right before you complain about being stereotyped.

There they are. Knew the typical anti-Trump words had to come up eventually.

Mostly because they're fairly accurate, at least of Trump if not his supporters.
 

The definition of xenophobia is an irrational or intense dislike or fear of foreigners. Now you tell me; is it irrational to be afraid of a terrorist group that is decapitating innocent people and bombing cities on a daily basis?

Well, just to be devil's advocate, you could then justify people in Iran saying "Death to America" on the grounds of how much carpet bombing and drone operations we do completely extra-judicially (to say nothing of invading a sovereign nation that didn't attack us and killing minimum 200,000 civilians).
And I'm sorry to bring out the "b-word", but that statement is just bigoted. You're equating all Muslims with ISIS. The statement Trump made was as follows:
"Donald Trump is calling for a complete shutdown of all Muslims entering this country until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on"
You can argue the validity of that statement, but you can't deny that he's talking about all Muslims. To equate this irrational statement with something he says about ISIS is a bigoted statement, because you're immediately inferring that when he talks about all Muslims, he's talking about ISIS.

I wouldn't care if the group was African-American, Asian, Arab, Mexican, Hispanic, etc. If a group of people is mass murdering other people, it isn't wrong for me to fear them.

Do you fear the US Military then? We've certainly had our share of mass murder.

The problem is that people believe that Trump hates/fears all Muslims because of what happens in the Middle East; this is simply not true.

If he didn't, he wouldn't say that every Muslim coming into this country (who, by the way, are vetted quite thoroughly) needed to be kept out. We know what the hell is going on; while 1 American death from ISIS is too many, it still isn't nearly the public health crisis that ideological terrorism is (see Planned Parenthood shooting and the like).

The same could be said about his beliefs about Mexicans.

No, it can't, because they aren't NEARLY the threat that he makes them out to be.

 

I can be afraid of the drug dealers and rapists that illegally cross the border and steal welfare checks from us without hating everyday Mexican-Americans who are simply trying to better their lives in this country.

Jesus fuck the stereotyping.
We already have a policy that deports illegal immigrants who commit crimes (which isn't what Trump proposed- he wants to deport ALL 12 million illegals), this idea that people can commit crimes and not get sent back if they're undocumented is purely bullshit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/02/trumps-fuzzy-math-on-undocumented-immigrants-convicted-of-crimes/

According to the most accurate data currently possessed, it's around 850,000 or so undocumented immigrants who are criminals. 7.1% of all 12 million (far less if you think there's more than that). In addition, if you want to talk about the cartels, our drug war is largely to blame for how much they import into the US.

However, anti-Trump protesters portray him as anti-Mexican, just because he is against the ones who blatantly break the law. If you feel you have a comment or quote that contradicts this, by all means do share. (Actually, racist kind of fits in here, so I don't really need to say it again.)

How about "when Mexico sends its people, they aren't sending their best. They're bringing drugs, they're criminals, they're rapists"?

As for the sexist remark, I covered my basic opinion on the matter earlier when answering shadowkirby

And you did anything but "disprove" his sexism; if anything you just said that yeah, it was probably inappropriate but it doesn't bother you enough because "democrats are worse"

if you want me to go deeper into disproving Trump's sexism in general, just say the word.

Please do.
(Looks like I'll be quoting you a lot.) I'm lost, who was implying that we were?

Ahem, I believe you mean 1787.

I was referring to the birth of America's independence (pre war) in 1776, but yeah, it's probably more accurate to give the actual date of writing the Constitution, so fair enough.

Noc is definitely not implying that we interpret the Constitution exactly how it was written almost two and a half centuries ago. However, when an amendment says citizens have "the right to bear arms," that should be taken as it is written. There's no argument like "That was at a time of war" or "Well handguns are ok but these ones aren't."

Except there's such a thing as nuance. Firstly, considering the context in which the amendments were written is extremely important; the founders were not all knowing gods. Secondly, no constitutional right is absolute; Free Speech is a right, but not for libel, slander, or direct threats of violence; protection from self incrimination is a right, but police can still force you to take a breathalyzer test. The list goes on.

That's the kind of thing that should be taken literally. And if you take it literally, you will notice that the Three Fifths Compromise is no longer applicable. So it doesn't matter.

Actually, had we been taking it literally this whole time, many of those "interpretations" that allowed for equal protections for blacks wouldn't be a thing, to say nothing of the 13th amendment.

[E. Gadd Industries]

Wait, when did TMP show up? 

[SlowPokemon]

He came back to make a few pretty bad points.

@ TMP: Basically what PDS said, but I'd like to add: do you not realize that suggesting some Mexicans who cross the border are rapists and drug dealers that's literally racial profiling which is inherently racist and bad

Also, yes I used the "classic Trump insults" for the same reason everyone else does: they're literally proven to be true

[mikey]

Not necessarily completely literally, but whenever a point of ambiguity comes up, err towards knowing that the fou ding fathers were a heck of a lot smarter than any of us