Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The clearly partisan agenda being carried out through this thread is heartbreaking.

Hillary defenders: are you truly so geopolitically uneducated that you really believe the lies? Hillary doesn't care about anyone but herself!! Do you really believe the rhetoric of the Democratic Party that much?? Do you really think Hillary gives a damn about equality or helping the poor? Do you know what her cabal has done to Haiti over the past couple decades?

Trump is a dangerous man. He is literally unpredictable, however his business sense does give him a clear advantage here. If anyone can get USA out of debt it would be him. I'm afraid if he acquires the power he is running for then he will do a complete 180 and say screw the people like almost every single politician since JFK. I can't support the man with a vote because he seems like the type of person that would definitely let the power go to their head. This is a lose-lose situation.

I don't have any answer but maybe my observations will help someone see more clearly.
I would just like to clarify things up here about this whole national debt thing, because I don't think most people actually understand how it works, or understand that it is not a bad thing. First of all, our "debt" to nations such as china is not like a loan where they can just go "hey give us all the money you owe us". It is, in essence, an investment in our economy and a belief that it will continue to grow. These investments most commonly take the form of treasury bonds. In exchange for their investments in our nation, we pay out a small fraction of it in interest back to the nations who have invested in us, similar to if you were to invest your money in any long term growth accounts. About 60% of that big scary "national debt" is actually owned by the united states itself (that's what happens to all the money that doesn't get paid out in social security because people die). So, to sum up a bit, "national debt" has a really negative connotation, but it doesn't actually mean anything that bad. You should not be looking at our national debt, but instead look at our national debt compared to the growth in our GDP (government debt as a percent of GDP is used by investors to measure a country ability to make future payments on its debt, thus affecting the country borrowing costs and government bond yields). If you look at that, you will find that we, as a nation, are doing just fine. Yes, it is good to not be reliant on other nations' investments to continue economic growth, but it is something that most certainly can be sustained and is not in need of severe change.

So, the next time you hear a politician say "I'm going to reduce our national debt" just know that it's a lot more complicated than he/she is leading you to believe, and there isn't some big bully in china telling us to fork over some cash or else. Over time we will need to reduce the debt by paying it back in larger portions with either government cut backs or tax increases, but this is not some looming cloud of death as the media portrays it to be.
 

OLD GREGG (im back baby)

old gregg for life
I have a grasp of how debt is created and it's nearly impossible to be out of debt because the fed loans out debt with interest rates.

Here's a simple example: let's say there is only 1,000 dollars in existence. Let's say the fed loans out that 1,000 dollars with an interest rate of 1%, well now the loanee is perpetually in debt. Simply, because more money is owed than what is in existence. This is how central banks work. Back before 1913 USA didn't work under the federal reserve. Lincoln and JFK both opposed Rothchilds' central banks, let that sink in.

The money created by the fed is done so out of thin air, the same with banks. Debt is loaned out via promissary notes and it basically gives money brokers control over foreign entities; since not only do they control the flow of funds, but the supply as well.

That's besides the point. I was saying Drumpf has more business sense than Hillary. He didn't make his fortune with shady deals and taking "donations" being a mouthpiece for a global cabal.
 
Last edited:
I have a grasp of how debt is created and it's nearly impossible to be out of debt because the fed loans out debt with interest rates.

Here's a simple example: let's say there is only 1,000 dollars in existence. Let's say the fed loans out that 1,000 dollars with an interest rate of 1%, well now the loanee is perpetually in debt. Simply, because more money is owed than what is in existence. This is how central banks work. Back before 1913 USA didn't work under the federal reserve. Lincoln and JFK both opposed Rothchilds' central banks, let that sink in.

The money created by the fed is done so out of thin air, the same with banks. Debt is loaned out via promissary notes and it basically gives money brokers control over foreign entities; since not only do they control the flow of funds, but the supply as well.

That's besides the point. I was saying Drumpf has more business sense than Hillary. He didn't make his fortune with shady deals and taking "donations" being a mouthpiece for a global cabal.
Okay for everyone saying that "Donald Trump is a great business man", what do you actually know about his business dealings? Yes, he has had a successful real estate career, but it's not like he hasn't had serious issues with his business and the people he's supposed to be paying. There have been dozens of lawsuits against Trump accusing him of simply not paying workers, contractors, or companies which he hired to work on his company's developments. He has also filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy 4 different times for his resorts and casinos. Entirely coincidentally I'm sure, the person who he owed the most money to in his first bankruptcy filing (Carl Icahn) is also Trump's choice for Treasury Secretary if he wins the presidency. Tell me that's not a "shady deal".

On another note, since when does "being a great business man" even make you qualified whatsoever to hold the office of the presidency. Historically, "business men" and men with a background in business have done far worse for our country economically than those without.
Don't get me wrong, Hillary is an absolute bitch and is quite possibly the least likable person I've ever seen in my whole life, and she certainly hasn't had a clean record in the past when it comes to dealing with sensitive information.

But seriously people, look into things. Do your research. Don't just look at things and form an opinion and then sit on it forever. Actually put in the time to understand what economic policies that each party supports would mean, what you really want for our nation moving forward, and what the implications of each politicians' statements could mean. Form your own opinions. Think about things as more than just us vs. them. And please, for the love of god, do not vote based on whether you like a person or not. Your feelings mean nothing, policies and history mean everything.





I encourage everyone to read through each of these, taking into consideration not only what is being said, but what is being implied with each concept.
 
If there exists a single person who underwent as many business ventures as Trump and actually succeeded in all of them, he would probably hold the title for most successful businessman in history. Seriously, it's inevitable to have a few failures if you're spinning the number of risks Trump took (ffs apparently he even had is own steak brand?!?).

Also as a side note (I hear this topic quite a lot at work), if some of you guys are voting Hilary just because woman and first woman president etc, know that precedent serves as a double edged sword. In my case I always hope there will be an asian president one day, but fuck him if he's mediocre. The last thing I need is having that first ____ president and then have him/her ruin it for everyone else down the line because of their poor performance. Shallow way of judging but there will always be nontrivial voting representations that will judge this way.
 
But being a good business man would imply that your ventures resulted in a majority positive gain, or at least a majority not being total failures. His airline failed, his casinos failed, his steaks failed, his "university" failed. Essentially every single thing except for real estate. Making risky moves and having none of it pay off doesn't say good things for your judgement at all.

He also took over an already well built and highly respected company from his father, he didn't make it from his own hard work. Yes, he expanded upon his father's work with properties like the infamous trump tower and several other large scale estates throughout the U.S., but does that really make him a good business man? Investing in what is essentially prime real estate in new york city and similar areas around the world seems like a pretty standard business model to me.

Edit: Yes he has his name on over 200 companies, but a good number of them he doesn't actually own or run, he simply licenses his name out to other companies as a symbol.

Edit 2: Having done some actual research into a list of all companies he owns, a large amount of these are just smaller subsidiaries of his larger real estate company in different cities and companies which do the same exact things, just in different places.

For example,
  • Trump Panama Condominium Management LLC
  • Trump Panama Condominium Member Corp
  • Trump Panama Hotel Management LLC
  • Trump Panama Hotel Management Member Corp LLC
Literally just different names for management of buildings. Not actual companies, nor anything he has to run or take care of personally. There are lots more like this in the list.
 
Last edited:
Gonna piggyback off what jeb04 said. I really think this whole "four bankruptcies" thing is seriously stupid. 268 companies bear his name alone, and he owns/has started hundreds more. When you are Trump and have hundreds of successful ventures a few failures is hardly a dent.

I guess people look at that figure and think, "look, x failures, I have zero." But then again it's easy to think that when one has never attempted any sort of business venture in their life.

Like I thought our public school system was supposed to drill into us the fact that "true success only comes after multiple failures". People are acting like if you make four missteps, maybe ten or twenty missteps if you count non-bankruptcy ones - among hundreds of correct steps - then you're incompetent. I guess that way, people can feel better about not walking in the first place.
 
Last edited:
"Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary Clinton.

Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department was actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.

Clinton as repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate."


Source: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...s-isis-drops-another-bombshell-breaking-news/
 

gali

boing boom tschak
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
who cares about trump's business record when he literally doesn't understand why using nuclear weapons is a bad idea?

transcript fron an nbc town hall in march. emphasis mine.
MATTHEWS: OK.

Your most controversial suggestion was don't take nuclear weapons -- I mean, you may have been hooked into this by (inaudible).

TRUMP: Don't take what?

MATTHEWS: Nuclear weapons off the table.

I have been trying to think of how we could conceivably use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East or in Europe in fighting ISIS. Where can you -- and why put it on the table or leave it on the table if you can't imagine where to use it?

TRUMP: Well, I didn't say, "Don't take it." I said I would be very, very slow and hesitant to pull that trigger.

MATTHEWS: Well, why would you -- why wouldn't you just say, "I don't want to talk about it. I don't want to talk about nuclear weapons. Presidents don't talk about use of nuclear weapons"?

TRUMP: The question was asked -- we were talking about NATO -- which, by the way, I say is obsolete and we pay a dispropor...

MATTHEWS: But you got hooked into something you shouldn't've talked about.

TRUMP: I don't think I -- well, someday, maybe.

MATTHEWS: When? Maybe?

TRUMP: Of course. If somebody...

MATTHEWS: Where would we drop -- where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?

TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain.

Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn't fight back with a nuke?

MATTHEWS: No. To drop a nuclear weapon on a community of people that are...

TRUMP: No, no, but you can't say -- first of all, you don't want to say, "Take everything off the table..."

MATTHEWS: No, just nuclear.

TRUMP: ... because you'd be a bad negotiator if you do that.

MATTHEWS: Just nuclear.

TRUMP: Look, nuclear should be off the table. But would there be a time when it could be used, possibly, possibly?

MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in '45, heard it. They're hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them? We had (inaudible).

MATTHEWS: Because of the old mutual assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.

TRUMP: (inaudible) I was against Iraq. I'd be the last one to use the nuclear weapon.

MATTHEWS: So can you take it off the table now?

TRUMP: Because that's sort of like the end of the ball game.

MATTHEWS: Can you tell the Middle East we're not using a nuclear weapon on anybody?

TRUMP: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.

MATTHEWS: How about Europe? We won't use it in Europe?

TRUMP: I -- I'm not going to take it off the table.


MATTHEWS: You might use it in Europe?

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: No, I don't think so. But I'm not taking...

MATTHEWS: Well, just say it. "I will never use a nuclear weapon in Europe."

TRUMP: I am not -- I am not taking cards off the table.

MATTHEWS: OK.

TRUMP: I'm not going to use nuclear, but I'm not taking any cards off the table.

MATTHEWS: OK.

The trouble is, the sane people hear you and the insane people are not affected by your threats. That's the trouble. The real fanatics say, "Good. Keep it up.
 
I have a grasp of how debt is created and it's nearly impossible to be out of debt because the fed loans out debt with interest rates.

Here's a simple example: let's say there is only 1,000 dollars in existence. Let's say the fed loans out that 1,000 dollars with an interest rate of 1%, well now the loanee is perpetually in debt. Simply, because more money is owed than what is in existence. This is how central banks work. Back before 1913 USA didn't work under the federal reserve. Lincoln and JFK both opposed Rothchilds' central banks, let that sink in.

The money created by the fed is done so out of thin air, the same with banks. Debt is loaned out via promissary notes and it basically gives money brokers control over foreign entities; since not only do they control the flow of funds, but the supply as well.

That's besides the point. I was saying Drumpf has more business sense than Hillary. He didn't make his fortune with shady deals and taking "donations" being a mouthpiece for a global cabal.
Maybe next time, to silence the critics, you should leave a source that Lincoln and JFK was opposed to the Federal Reserve, AND is owned/run by the Rothchilds.

Prove that, and there is no doubt the Federal Reserve is more trouble than it's worth, at least as so long as it is privately owned.

Honestly, I'm tired of people calling conspiracy theorists kooks, but you also can't just drop these theories without evidence to back it up. It's very hard to accept the fact that our government and leaders is pretty much owned by wealthy individual, after all, and it's a very big puzzle with all of these connection. I still haven't been able to figure out how they could run the different major media outlets (though I have a few guesses).
 
Because a good fraction of the US considers Trump to be an even worse candidate. I am not saying that Hillary is a good candidate, I am just giving you an answer to your question.
Pretty much. I often joke that if/when either one of the main candidates wins, it will be the one who the majority of voters see as the less worst of the two.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I'm sorry but I fail to see the issue here... He defected and leaked information, then later demanded to be sent home even though he was safe in the US, and then was killed by his home country. Shocking. We kill US citizens who spy against our country too.
 

Ununhexium

I closed my eyes and I slipped away...
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Pretty much. I often joke that if/when either one of the main candidates wins, it will be the one who the majority of voters see as the less worst of the two.
Obviously not because they managed to win primaries so a good amount of people clearly like them

Well Hillary didn't really win fairly but still
 
Obviously not because they managed to win primaries so a good amount of people clearly like them

Well Hillary didn't really win fairly but still
Trump was unsurprising, since the other candidates were uninspiring.

But Hillary did not win fair and square, and that is at the very least. Not only was the training of poll workers inadequate, and not only did the Democratic establishment did everything they could to make sure Hillary would win the primary, but there is also evidence that they or another party that wants Hillary to become President rigged the primaries so that Sanders would loose, which is so serious, it is being brought to court.

If anyone wants to research, debunk, and allay my fears, feel free (you'll be doing me a massive favor), but otherwise never say that Hillary won the election fair and square. For all we know, Sanders could have won by a wide margin (if not for the election fraud of course), and we will never know!
 
I don't think I've ever heard the phrase "so serious, it is being brought to court" said seriously. Frivolous litigation is the backbone of American society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung
Okay, then research their talking points, and reassure me that I have nothing to worry about. Otherwise, don't deflect by pointing to a case where some greedy idiot demanded $67 million for a lost set of trousers (I'm not counting the "mental anguish" and "inconvenience", because that is just something someone like Trump would say: a whiny little bitch).

This is about our democracy, so I expect everyone to start taking it with utmost seriousness, because if (in the unlikely event, for arguments sake for those who are on that side of the fence) this is real, then we don't have a democracy.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
No sorry, but I'm not going to research the so called "talking points" of a youtube channel called the humanist report that began the video with uncited talk of electoral fraud that "the media" apparently doesn't cover. I'm not even going to watch more than those two seconds. Any time anyone in this thread has ever explained to you that some point you have tried to make is bunk, you disagree and post more bs the next day.

I too expect you to take our democracy seriously, but apparently you prefer to listen to unfounded conspiracy theories.

The only people who would ever believe there is widespread electoral fraud are absolutely paranoid and/or bitter morons or someone who has never voted. The people who run a local precinct polling place are regular people. There's something like 300,000 of these precincts in the US, roughly one for every thousand-ish people. Multiple people help organize and run the election process at each of these precincts. Do you really think there are over 500,000 or heck over a million soccer moms and dads with an agenda to rig an election without getting caught? Really? C'mon.

And as to my point about frivolous lawsuits... any lawsuit with literally zero evidence, which is what there is... literally nothing, is frivolous.
 
No sorry, but I'm not going to research the so called "talking points" of a youtube channel called the humanist report that began the video with uncited talk of electoral fraud that "the media" apparently doesn't cover. I'm not even going to watch more than those two seconds. Any time anyone in this thread has ever explained to you that some point you have tried to make is bunk, you disagree and post more bs the next day.

I too expect you to take our democracy seriously, but apparently you prefer to listen to unfounded conspiracy theories.

The only people who would ever believe there is widespread electoral fraud are absolutely paranoid and/or bitter morons or someone who has never voted. The people who run a local precinct polling place are regular people. There's something like 300,000 of these precincts in the US, roughly one for every thousand-ish people. Multiple people help organize and run the election process at each of these precincts. Do you really think there are over 500,000 or heck over a million soccer moms and dads with an agenda to rig an election without getting caught? Really? C'mon.

And as to my point about frivolous lawsuits... any lawsuit with literally zero evidence, which is what there is... literally nothing, is frivolous.
And you refuse to even research the possibility. I cannot believe you!!! Your faith in the mainstream media to cover something as important as this is misplaced, my friend.

And you're wrong about poll workers having any willing role in this conspiracy you refuse to debunk, which you might know if you did your homework! The problem is that digital voting machines can be hacked. That is why any electronic machines used in many countries in the EU can only be used if readily and transparently ready for examination to make sure that there is no foul play! That isn't case in the states! They are privately and opaquely run. And you'd know that if you watched the video I posted above! And that isn't getting into the exit poll error margins, which is also explained in this video.

Of course ordinary volunteering poll workers wouldn't sabotage the whole procedure! That isn't the problem! Speaking which, you should also watch this. Unfortunately, our poll workers are also undertrained, acerbating the problem further.

I only disagree because nobody seems to want to take the time to watch/read, then post evidence that debunks my claims. Instead, you call the very notion crazy, without even looking into it, and call it a day! That, my friend, is not taking things seriously! Either watch the videos, do your homework, and debunk the whole thing (and reassure me I have nothing to worry about. I'd rather that Hillary won fair and square for the record!) or don't say anything more on the matter. But be forewarned: not taking this seriously might have consequences if you're wrong. You keep that in mind.


I can't believe that more people would vote for Hillary over Bernie so it must've been rigged /sarcasm
I am really loosing my patience. I'm trying real hard to remain civilized, and somewhat respectful, but if you cannot take this seriously, then just leave, before I get really angry. Same goes for you Bughouse. I've given you all a chance to disprove it, logic point by logic point. I don't even understand it. Rather than criticizing me, you should be thinking "I wonder if there is actually something behind this?" Aren't you even the least bit curious?

And it isn't that I don't believe that people wouldn't vote for Hillary over Bernie. That comment really makes me mad, you have no idea. You have no idea how I'd prefer it if the whole thing wasn't rigged. That would also give less credibility to other conspiracy theories. And believe me, there are far scarier conspiracy theories. If there wasn't any indications that it was rigged, then I'd be like "okay, I don't agree with America's choice for the Democratic nominee, but that is the populace's decision, and I have to abide by it".

It is the fact these guys have brought up what are valid points IMO, such as similar digital voting machines being banned in Europe, or heavily regulated! I don't know about you, but I think logic dictates the appropriate action is to watch, analyze, investigate if there is any chance of validity, then come to a conclusion!

I'm sorry guys, but making these criticizing remarks is just making you come off as frustratingly stupid. I have faith you're far better, smarter than this! I'm trying to warn you guys about this, and offering you to kindly prove there is nothing to worry about. Instead, your responses are lack either any good debunking points, or just lame sarcastic remarks and insults. I do not appreciate these attacks, so...Cut. It. Out!!!

Bane. did the same thing with Old Gregg earlier on Friday (unfortunately, I was working on Friday, so... Okay, so the Federal Reserve and Rothchilds is going down the rabbit hole, and off topic, and he should have posted evidence to back up his claims, but still...). You guys really need to stop dismissing the very notion of conspiracy theories, and use your critical thinking skills.

P.S.: sorry if this came off as a rant everybody. But this is me trying to keep from becoming too insulting. I've had other conspiracy theorists attack me for my own skepticism, and I'm trying to avoid that, while conveying my disgust and anger.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Sorry but fears over voting machines themselves are just overrated and sad.

1) The majority of precincts in the US do not vote electronically.
2) The majority of precincts in the US that do vote "electronically" don't actually do so by clicking on a voting machine. They use "optical scan" machines that read in a paper ballots, whose hard copies are stored and can be cross-referenced in a vote count (note - I vote this way in mine)
3) The small minority of precincts that do actually vote electronically, in the sense that you fear, use a wide range of voting machines, only a few of which have ever had any issues, and all of which, as far as I know, have been replaced once issues have been found. In some cases the local government entity even sued the company that made them.

Really, the documented list of elections with voting machine errors (and really, voting machines have been under massive scrutiny ever since 2000 in Florida) is like 6? In 16 years of focused attention, across all levels of US government. I'm including like a 2003 case in Virginia for a school board election. That's one of the best known cases... a school board election. This has never been a problem in any election ever.


This is all putting aside the fact that literally any method of voting can be subject to cheating. Do you really think counting every vote by hand is less subject to fraud? Have you never seen the seminal movie "Election?" I mean what do you even propose? Or do you just want to be negative because you can?
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Meanwhile, I don't know where your claim about europe not doing electronic voting comes from lmao. Many countries allow straight up Internet voting, which is waaaaaaay more hackable than thousands of individual voting machines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top