Who you going to vote for between Trump and Hillary?

Trump or Hillary?

  • Trump

    Votes: 72 53.3%
  • Hillary

    Votes: 63 46.7%

  • Total voters
    135

pixeljunkie

Whilst Drunk., I Found God., Booze = Bad.,
20 Year Member
You, and most liberals conveniently miss the point. It's not where she sent the emails from, it's WHY she chose to send emails from a private server.

She's covering up a ton of shady shit. There's rumors that she's been selling state secrets, there's the Benghazi thing, the email thing, and God knows what else.

I'd rather have an idiot (that can be guided by people in the cabinet) than a fucking pathological lying, sneaking, stealing, killing whackjob like Hillary. Just look up how many people that were affiliated with the Clintons died mysteriously over the years, the body count is around 50 last I looked. Scary shit. Pretty sure Ambassador Stevens was one of them. He probably knew too much about something.

Then again, I don't like Trump either, but he's definitely less evil. He's small time compared to her.

No matter who wins, we lose. But how bad do you want to lose?

another +1 sadly - she's like knowingly voting for the mob. [pours Bernie 40oz on curb]
 

LWK

Earl of Sexyheim
20 Year Member
I wish we had a third candidate though. The Islam shit is a disaster, and he may win on the fact he'll block that. Every time a terrorist attack happens in Europe, his numbers probably go up.
 
Last edited:

Tanooki

War Room Troll
And then again, trump's foreign policy advisers have been taking money from Putin's government.

Yeah he's a piece of crap, but really? The Clintons have been taking it from the Chinese since the 90s.

ki_atsushi laid it out pretty well earlier -- the emails, not that they exist which is bad enough but what was going on that needed to be covered up, then benghazi and the rest. I mean we're talking about a woman so crooked they had to throw her off the case to bust Nixon for Watergate because she even out sleazed the lawyers and Nixon on that one which is fairly epic.

LWK: I'm starting to wonder that one myself. He's trying to be the law and order candidate willing to call shit out. She though wants to talk everything out and coddle whoever she sees fit while halfassed double talking stuff to sound like she gives a shit. They both suck and scarily for a lot of similar reasons as much as the others they aren't.
 

mjmjr25

went home to be a family man
10 Year Member
To be clear - i'm not happy with either candidate. It seems no one is ecstatic and only 35% are willing to support either or. Certainly not in my lifetime has a 3rd party candidate been so viable. Not even the Perot steam before he dropped out and then came back in was there this kind of yearning for 3rd party. I think if "Potato" was listed as a 3rd option it would win. We would seriously elect a potato given the chance (and I'd def vote for a potato myself before Jill Stein).

It would be nice to see a 3rd party with both economic and security bonafides. I don't love Bloomberg, Romney or Giuliani, but i'd be giddy if any of them were choices over this garbage.
 

ki_atsushi

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
I'm a registered republican, and even I would have voted for Bernie.

Seriously, he was the most sane choice even with the fact that he's a huge socialist.

The republican party is full of spineless ass clowns who take their orders from big business, and the democrats are insane whackjobs who take their orders from special interests.

We need a viable alternative. We need a party that doesn't act like a party, i.e. self-serving career politicians. We need people that actually care about people.
 

mjmjr25

went home to be a family man
10 Year Member
Same here, Ki. I've followed Bernie's politics for about 15 years when he first started playing resident nutjob on Fox News. I recall many times looking at my wife and saying, "This guy is in our elected government. This guy. This crazy crazy socialist has people who willfully voted for him."

Cut to 15 years later and he hasn't changed a whole lot - and yet I seriously found myself in conversations advocating for people to throw their support behind him.

I don't loathe Trump for a lot of the reasons others do, but I do find him morally corrupt and while "straight talk" is appreciated, the hard truth is politics and political relationships DO require finesse and forward thinking. None of his actual policy comments have bothered me too much...until this week. The NATO comment is not something you use as a political wow factor talking point. That isn't something you even half-kid about. That single comment shows me, and I hope others, that he just isn't fit for this office. Love or hate our allies, they are our allies and to suggest we may not defend them, the core of this relationship, is one million percent unacceptable. I can't vote for him.

#potato4prez2016
 

LWK

Earl of Sexyheim
20 Year Member
I voted for Bernie in the California primaries. Mainly because he's not a bad person. People are giving him shit for the Hillary endorsement, and I agree, it does feel like a total 180 from campaign rhetoric, but Bernie realizes it's gonna end up being her vs him, and he did what he could to prevent a Trump presidency. Dude gave up his entire run because he'd knew it'd just split the vote and make Trump elected more easily. I won't be voting for Jill Stein. She's my next choice, but I'm gonna be a part of reality and not wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
I voted for Bernie in the California primaries. Mainly because he's not a bad person. People are giving him shit for the Hillary endorsement, and I agree, it does feel like a total 180 from campaign rhetoric

Policy wise, I'd say that it is more like a 30 degree turn.

As far as campaign rhetoric goes, he has always said he would endorse and support the democratic nominee. So I don't get why people are surprised.
 

ki_atsushi

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Same here, Ki. I've followed Bernie's politics for about 15 years when he first started playing resident nutjob on Fox News. I recall many times looking at my wife and saying, "This guy is in our elected government. This guy. This crazy crazy socialist has people who willfully voted for him."

Cut to 15 years later and he hasn't changed a whole lot - and yet I seriously found myself in conversations advocating for people to throw their support behind him.

I don't loathe Trump for a lot of the reasons others do, but I do find him morally corrupt and while "straight talk" is appreciated, the hard truth is politics and political relationships DO require finesse and forward thinking. None of his actual policy comments have bothered me too much...until this week. The NATO comment is not something you use as a political wow factor talking point. That isn't something you even half-kid about. That single comment shows me, and I hope others, that he just isn't fit for this office. Love or hate our allies, they are our allies and to suggest we may not defend them, the core of this relationship, is one million percent unacceptable. I can't vote for him.

#potato4prez2016

Exactly. At least you know precisely where Bernie stands. He has a firm ideology and even though he's been in politics for a long time, he doesn't strike me as one of the good ol' boys. And I may not agree with a lot of his stances on things, but he does have the house and the senate to contend with, so I can deal with that.

You do have a good point, trump's position on NATO is fucking unbelievable. From the beginning the agreement has been if you attack a NATO ally, everyone defends that ally. That's just how it works. He's seriously fucking crazy if he thinks he's somehow going to hold "obligations" over their heads. I don't know who he's taking advice from, but they're not well versed in foreign affairs, it seems. Not good.

Potato it is. Or at least anyone but Trump and especially Hillary.
 
Last edited:

GohanX

Horrible Goose
20 Year Member
After watching the speeches last night, I think I want to vote for Ivanka instead.
 

DNSDies

I LOVE HILLARY CLINTON!
I don't disagree with the idea behind Trump's NATO policy.

That alliance means nothing if the allies in it do not meet requirements for defense spending or keeping their own military able to defend themselves to some level. It just becomes the United States playing police for everyone.

It's not an alliance if nobody except America contributes even the minimum militarily.
Even OBAMA has said as much, when he called out European nations not contributing as "Free Riders":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

There are even NATO documents that show that many members fail to meet the minimum guidelines for their defense spending:
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160129_160128-pr-2016-11-eng.pdf
The volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents 73 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole

So, the way I see it, we entered a contract with these other countries for mutual defense, and they're failing to hold up their end of the contract.

Trump isn't saying he wouldn't defend a country that needed help and couldn't meet their minimum 2% GDP defense spending obligations, but countries that are "doing very well" like Germany (1.2%), Norway (1.5%), Italy (1.3%), Canada (1.0%), or FUCKING BELGIUM (0.9%, SERIOUSLY??) can rightfully go fuck themselves for welshing on their agreement.

Meanwhile, France (2.1%) is meeting their requirements like a good ally. Good on you. Fuck, even Greece is doing their part (2.6%)
 

Pasky

Fug:DDDDD,
I don't disagree with the idea behind Trump's NATO policy.

That alliance means nothing if the allies in it do not meet requirements for defense spending or keeping their own military able to defend themselves to some level. It just becomes the United States playing police for everyone.

It's not an alliance if nobody except America contributes even the minimum militarily.
Even OBAMA has said as much, when he called out European nations not contributing as "Free Riders":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

There are even NATO documents that show that many members fail to meet the minimum guidelines for their defense spending:
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160129_160128-pr-2016-11-eng.pdf


So, the way I see it, we entered a contract with these other countries for mutual defense, and they're failing to hold up their end of the contract.

Trump isn't saying he wouldn't defend a country that needed help and couldn't meet their minimum 2% GDP defense spending obligations, but countries that are "doing very well" like Germany (1.2%), Norway (1.5%), Italy (1.3%), Canada (1.0%), or FUCKING BELGIUM (0.9%, SERIOUSLY??) can rightfully go fuck themselves for welshing on their agreement.

Meanwhile, France (2.1%) is meeting their requirements like a good ally. Good on you. Fuck, even Greece is doing their part (2.6%)

zQh72Lh.jpg
 
Last edited:

mjmjr25

went home to be a family man
10 Year Member
NATO #'s snip

You're missing the point. This is where finesse comes in. I don't disagree the amount of funding other nations provide is inadequate. There are ways to have those conversations and start processes to ensure it happens, or put a motion to amend the charter. Instead, a person who is not the president yet, has suggested if he is, it is plausible for Russia to invade the Baltic states and there is a chance we would not defend them, because they have not fulfilled their "obligations".

We aren't talking about kicking someone out of their apartment because they've not paid rent for 6 months. We are talking about PUBLICLY stating we may not do anything if an ally is invaded by Russia. Let's not pretend this isn't plausible given Ukraine...and Georgia, and pushing influence in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in recent years. If you think for a second Russia has accepted their fall as an equal military and world power to the US - you are gravely misinformed. Their are fervent ultra-nationalists and expansionists within the Russian Federation and they have a stranglehold on government and military positions. There is a reason they are actively and publicly supportive of a Trump presidency.

The comments are dangerous and completely unpresidential. That is something you suggest behind closed doors with your allies. Not in the media and not for perceived political gain. He's embarrassing, but moreso dangerous.
 

DNSDies

I LOVE HILLARY CLINTON!
Obama has been trying to finesse the situation for almost 8 years, while European nations have been thumbing their noses at us.

There comes a point when we have to put one's foot down. You can't negotiate forever.

Obama threatened to rethink Britain's "Special Status" with the US while speaking to Cameron unless they increased their military funding to meet the minimum.
 
Last edited:

mjmjr25

went home to be a family man
10 Year Member
Agreed. Again, behind closed doors. Any suggestion we may not abide our obligations because another member isn't abiding theirs is a conversation behind closed doors. The only thing we (the public) need to here is a formal announcement, "Nation X will be leaving NATO due to a failure to meet minimum financial obigations." Or, "Article 5 of the NATO charter has been amended to read...".

He has repeatedly said he will run America like a business. I'm supportive of that in most respects. This isn't business like. Do businesses send global emails to all staff, "Hey, we might fire Betty. She's been coming in late, reeking of booze, and might be sleeping with Don." No. Not close. Again - dangerous, embarrassing, and not the type of leader I respect or would suggest my kids look up to.
 

Takumaji

Master Enabler
Staff member
We don't need a global police force but able politicians and leaders who take their oath seriously.
 

StevenK

ng.com SFII tournament winner 2002-2023
10 Year Member
Whilst I agree with it being unfair for some countries to live under the umbrella of other countries spending, there is a lot more to it than first meets the eye. For instance how is that money spent? Take the nuclear powers on the list of nato countries and you can carve that out of the % of gdp straight away. I'm not anti - nuclear, I do believe in it as an effective deterrent, but under the nato system it's useless, no one's going to use it once an invasion has taken place, so ots dead money after the fact. Well, I certainly hope they won't use it anyway.

How much of France's, the UK's or the US's budget that makes up I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it would drop France and the uk below the 2%.

The US's spending is ropey too, I remember reading that each year of the Iraq war the US spent 50 billion (equivalent to the entire UK's defence spending) on air conditioning.

You can bet that every penny of Chinese and Russia spending goes straight on training and equipping in the most brutal, health and safety free environment you could imagine.

I'll bet half of the uk's military expenditure goes on compensation for soldiers who've come back mentally fucked from war. That's not happening in any commie countries that's for sure.
 

DNSDies

I LOVE HILLARY CLINTON!
The US spends more than the rest of the world COMBINED on "defense". Of course you're the biggest spenders in Nato.

It's not about raw numbers, it's about percent of GDP. When these nations signed up for NATO membership, they agreed to meet a minimum of 2% GDP defense budget, in order to have a functional military that could contribute to the combined defense of any other NATO nation.

This is not a huge burden. It's a bare minimum. You don't have to go full USA and spend 4.5% of your GDP on defense.

If you cannot meet these requirements, your country is being a leech on the rest of the countries that make that effort, and worse, you're failing to live by your word.
 
Top