Republican Primary Debates

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No she's not the odd one out, she's just the one who thinks she can get away with out without really covering her tracks because she knows everyone, like you will just use the excuse you just made for her. "oh everyone does it."

I'm sorry, two wrongs don't make a right. Enlighten me which person in politics has had as much public shaming besides her Husband who happened to get impeached, another thing that gets swept under the rug.

Like I said, I don't think there's evidence that she is doing anything illegal. You are probably right that Hillary Clinton is the politician that has endured the most "public shaming" but that is mostly to do with her having a very long, very successful career. She's been a major public figure and has therefore received a lot of right wing media opposing her for decades. The important thing seems to be that, while there are constant accusations, there's never any proof of her wrongdoing (whether that is because she didn't do anything wrong or because she's somehow better at hiding it aside), so she doesn't have to take drastic consequences.

Her husband did get acquitted through the impeachment btw

There has been plenty of proof but it's all ignored. Her successes step on the backs of others like the poor. I like to hear how she is going to appeal to the minimum wage workers and Latino vote. She's never worked a real day in her life besides politics and has always had a silver spoon in her mouth. At least with Trump he warned his wealth. I know as a socialist you take earring million off the government side honest work and earning off capitalism. But that's why you don't live here and will never understand our system.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Like I said, I don't think there's evidence that she is doing anything illegal. You are probably right that Hillary Clinton is the politician that has endured the most "public shaming" but that is mostly to do with her having a very long, very successful career. She's been a major public figure and has therefore received a lot of right wing media opposing her for decades. The important thing seems to be that, while there are constant accusations, there's never any proof of her wrongdoing (whether that is because she didn't do anything wrong or because she's somehow better at hiding it aside), so she doesn't have to take drastic consequences.

Her husband did get acquitted through the impeachment btw

I'm not sure where you get "successful career" from, and her sole claim to fame is being Bill's wife. She's made a mess of foreign policy and couldn't be less qualified for the job as president. Having said that, she's no different than any other politician regarding funding.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not sure where you get "successful career" from, and her sole claim to fame is being Bill's wife. She's made a mess of foreign policy and couldn't be less qualified for the job as president. Having said that, she's no different than any other politician regarding funding.

You can disagree but facts say otherwise. You disagreed with Michael Brown shooting but facts proved otherwise.

There are some facts known, but the evaluation of them is up for debate. It's not clear cut like you make it out to be, many people think the Obama administration has been doing a good job foreign policy wise (particularly when compared to the previous administration) others think they've done a horrible job.

Regarding Michael Brown there aren't all facts clearly laid out, and while Darren Wilson was cleared by a grand jury that does not mean that he didn't do anything wrong. A legal acquittal does not mean that the person was innocent of a crime (take your OJ example from earlier)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bullsh*t!

They tax to make themselves and the rich, richer. I see it all the time.

Remember I used to be a Demarcate, and then I woke up to what is really going on.

Sorry to wake you, just go back to sleep.

Except the easiest way to make the rich richer is to give them big tax breaks, and that's a Republican thing.

Social security, health care, food stamps, none of this makes the rich richer, unless the rich happen to own the grocery stores and hospitals. But it also definitely without a doubt helps those who use said services.

Programs that assist small businesses, another Democrat thing, done a lot in the stimulus, help the middle class.

And unions have been successful in reducing economic disparity by increasing pay, and they're a democrat thing too... heck, minimum wage raising.

A lot of people are cynical about both parties, but there really is a major difference in how much each party helps the lower and middle class. The Republican's 'hands off' approach and assuming 'rich job creators' will fix things (which data shows, they don't) really does translate into not doing anything to help.

Originally posted by Digi
Remember when I said Trump's main goal was to not screw up?
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-dumped-from-conservative-gathering-over-remarks-about-megyn-kelly-124628606.html#

...it's starting. For clarity, I don't think this torpedoes his chances, and I do think we're too politically correct at times. But he's only going to be able to burn so many bridges before the GOP turns against him entirely, and/or he loses too many groups of people (Latinos, women, etc.) that he has no chance in the general election.

Yep. Sexist comments at a *Fox* moderator.

We'll see how it plays out long run.

Programs that assist small businesses, another Democrat thing, done a lot in the stimulus, help the middle class.

And unions have been successful in reducing economic disparity by increasing pay, and they're a democrat thing too... heck, minimum wage raising.

A lot of people are cynical about both parties, but there really is a major difference in how much each party helps the lower and middle class. The Republican's 'hands off' approach and assuming 'rich job creators' will fix things (which data shows, they don't) really does translate into not doing anything to help.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/

http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/p/Reaganomics.htm

Just an example of the Republicans' "hands off" approach. Although the second article is correct in saying it's unclear if Reaganomics would work in today's society. It was great in the 80s.

One of my Fb posts during the primary:

Hmm. So let's see. Corporations and banks screwed over the American economy, so rather than replenish the economy by raising our horribly low corporate tax rate (which are profiting extravagantly via outsourcing jobs and taking away employment from Americans so that CEOs can afford bigger mansions), let's instead essentially steal the retirements that people have been working for their entire lives and social programs that otherwise helpless people need to survive. Ernst Blofeld is proud.

To quote Maury, "You say you care about working class American citizens, but your policies determined that was lie."

Originally posted by Lestov16
One of my Fb posts during the primary:

Hmm. So let's see. Corporations and banks screwed over the American economy, so rather than replenish the economy by raising our horribly low corporate tax rate (which are profiting extravagantly via outsourcing jobs and taking away employment from Americans so that CEOs can afford bigger mansions), let's instead essentially steal the retirements that people have been working for their entire lives and social programs that otherwise helpless people need to survive. Ernst Blofeld is proud.

To quote Maury, "You say you care about working class American citizens, but your policies determined that was lie."

👆

Originally posted by Digi
Remember when I said Trump's main goal was to not screw up?
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-dumped-from-conservative-gathering-over-remarks-about-megyn-kelly-124628606.html#

...it's starting. For clarity, I don't think this torpedoes his chances, and I do think we're too politically correct at times. But he's only going to be able to burn so many bridges before the GOP turns against him entirely, and/or he loses too many groups of people (Latinos, women, etc.) that he has no chance in the general election.

I'll cosign his statement.

All the instances where being PC is a "bad" thing are actually when it manifests as an overweaning sensitivity to anything potentially controversial, not when it's actually doing what it's supposed to do, which is to ensure other people are respected.

I agree. I view that rather than a political correctness problem western society has a assholes saying shitty things problem...

Trump has more or less hinted that if he doesn't get picked he will just go independent. I tend to believe him when he says that, I think he has invested far too much of his ego into this. To him this must be like closing the ultimate business deal.

I hope he does for two reasons.

1) It will ensure the Democrats win. For every Democratic vote he could steal he'd steal 3 or 4 Republican votes.
2) Trump would make the election interesting. I could see him getting 10% of the vote as a 3rd party candidate, maybe even as much as %15.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree. I view that rather than a political correctness problem western society has a assholes saying shitty things problem...

See that's ignoring the fact that people ARE incredibly sensitive. You can't just discount one extreme (claims of political correctness), and then claim it's the opposite (people are just mean to each other).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I hope he does for two reasons.

1) It will ensure the Democrats win. For every Democratic vote he could steal he'd steal 3 or 4 Republican votes.
2) Trump would make the election interesting. I could see him getting 10% of the vote as a 3rd party candidate, maybe even as much as %15.

The democrats don't have a chance in hell this year. You really think people are going to vote for Hill if she gets nominated?If its Trump vs Hill, Trump will be elected.

Originally posted by psmith81992
See that's ignoring the fact that people ARE incredibly sensitive. You can't just discount one extreme (claims of political correctness), and then claim it's the opposite (people are just mean to each other).

That's not how reality works. Just because one extreme isn't true, doesn't mean the other extreme is also not true.

Perhaps some people are overly sensitive, but imo almost every time when someone claims that some group is overly sensitive they discount a lot of valid grievances, often out of ignorance.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not how reality works. Just because one extreme isn't true, doesn't mean the other extreme is also not true. Perhaps some people are overly sensitive, but imo almost every time when someone claims that some group is overly sensitive they discount a lot of valid grievances, often out of ignorance.

I didn't say that's how reality works but I am saying this is how this reality works. People DO say stupid, outrageous shit. At the same time, people ARE incredibly sensitive. You don't get to claim that one group is being mean, without some sort of proof. I mean that's your right and all but it makes for a rather flimsy claim. And since this particular topic is incredibly subjective, it's even harder to make the claim you're making.

The democrats don't have a chance in hell this year. You really think people are going to vote for Hill if she gets nominated?If its Trump vs Hill, Trump will be elected.

So people will willfully ignore all the red flags and stick to party lines with Hilary? If thats true, they are stupider then I thought.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I didn't say that's how reality works but I am saying this is how this reality works. People DO say stupid, outrageous shit. At the same time, people ARE incredibly sensitive. You don't get to claim that one group is being mean, without some sort of proof. I mean that's your right and all but it makes for a rather flimsy claim. And since this particular topic is incredibly subjective, it's even harder to make the claim you're making.

You can't say they don't have a chance because they have a 50/50 chance. With that said, I'm like the Republicans' chances.

Like you said, this is an incredibly subjective topic, so obviously I get to state my opinion on the matter.

In your opinion, what kind of proof would I have to provide for the claim I made? (i.e. that from my experience people are generally not too sensitive, but instead the people crying about political correctness say outrageous and horrible things that I don't think they should say)