The debate "Hilarry Clinton is better future country's leader than Donald Trump" was started by
December 14, 2015, 6:56 pm.
87 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 153 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
PsychDave posted 12 arguments, godisjustsomethingwemade posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, TheProudWeirdo posted 1 argument, famouslorie posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 29 arguments to the agreers part.
Alex posted 17 arguments, MrShine posted 1 argument, AstroSpace posted 12 arguments, PsychDave posted 1 argument, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 18 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, Biggns posted 10 arguments, thereal posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Picassota, PsychDave, Sosocratese, smuniza1, pajrc1234, kallistigold23, Wookie, britt9790, omgflyingbannas, wmd, godisjustsomethingwemade, Tommy, Yuki_Amayane, AlertedVision, ssltnv, Regalgeek, jjrocks1738, swp16, rob5998, llemponen, supercat, AhmadDanialBosan, jack_tim_45, Zuhayr, Hi, famouslorie, Nemiroff, Frdsdo17, princess100, dung1998, Yajur_Bhatia, HarveyLightfoot and 55 visitors agree.
Alex, MrShine, Paulno155, AstroSpace, cody121, AngryBlogger, historybuff, DannyknowsItAll, Rebelis12, DB8101, dalton7532, thereal, charlieholmes, Isabel, fadi, Biggns, blakelovesjesus, Hijumi, DrBanner, Bodaciouslady16, R3HAB, Your_dad, smv2005, NPW and 129 visitors disagree.
I agree. they knew what they were doing and they did it intentionally.
red lining was when they intentionally forbid black people from receiving loans they were qualified for. refusing loans equally to both white and black people who should not be able to afford it is not discriminatory. like you said they knew what they were doing. they were pushing these loans on people of all races who could nowhere near afford them. this was a scam.
"the only thing they knew was that the government would likely do it because otherwise the economy would completely collapse and the great recession would have been the great depression 2. there was no guarantee, but either way we the people would lose while they would either make a ton of money and retire, or make a ton of money and continue to make more money."
Yeah. Banks are stupid. They knew what they were doing.
"forced into those loans? how does that argument even work? that sounds like the you are making excuses for the wealthy who made a ton of money while collapsing our economy. Noone forced them to give out subprime loans, this was a calculated cash grab."
They were forced into the loans since refusal was met with accusations of red-lining. And they knew fannie mae and freddie mac had their back.
it's not difficult to give out loans. the work of the hospital is far more important. they are simply middlemen, without them the same amount of money would still exist.
if an independent public entity would be in charge of distributing capital, it would prioritize loans in favor of the public good, demand less interest for usage that benefits the public good, be open to far more public scrutiny and oversight, and be victim to less greed because of that oversight.
"One may argue that the loan industry was forced into those loans"
forced into those loans? how does that argument even work? that sounds like the you are making excuses for the wealthy who made a ton of money while collapsing our economy. Noone forced them to give out subprime loans, this was a calculated cash grab.
"and also knew there was an institution that would protect them from losses."
the only thing they knew was that the government would likely do it because otherwise the economy would completely collapse and the great recession would have been the great depression 2. there was no guarantee, but either way we the people would lose while they would either make a ton of money and retire, or make a ton of money and continue to make more money.
That is the populist individual approach, not the true economic thought. Those bankers allow hospitals to be built. In turn they receive interest.
One may argue that the loan industry was forced into those loans, and also knew there was an institution that would protect them from losses.
they also do a lot of harm. this recession was caused by loans.
every profession does good, but just like bankers do a greater service than fast food workers, they are not life saving doctors, nor are they future creating scientists. they do not deserve to be compensated higher than those professions. our greatest minds are flowing to these middlemen instead of the jobs that would greatly progress our society.
They are the ones who give the loans for hospitals to be made--for every business of all time to be created and improved. Every technological implementation into society is possible because of loans. They do a huge amount of good.
bankers help more people than doctors?
our economic system is broken, and the priorities of the market are all screwed up.
I completely understand what you are trying to say, I knew it from the beginning. what I am trying to say is that it is wrong. that is the problem with capitalism. it is a worship of capital, of money, of greed. it is far better than any system before it, but we need to start fixing it for the future. it can be improved upon.
I dont matter. Our economic interests deem it more expensive labor. Bankers make the economic world go round and help a lot of people.
bankers are middlemen. do you really believe their work is more valuable than doctors?
I'm not saying they have no purpose and should be paid minimum wage. I'm just comparing them to doctors.
If companies are trying to screw their employees, why pay them above minimum wage? Obviously the market is setting prices on labor.
And you hit the nail on the head: economic prosperity is what drives economies. They pay what they need to get employees to make them money. Fast food employees may work hard, but their work isnt valued on an economic scale. I may appreciate their labor, but the economy as a whole doesnt.
I dont understand your qualms wih bankers. It is am economically favorable occupation. It is a critical portion of our economy.
why wouldn't the starting salary at mcdonalds be 10 to 12?
you claim that compensation is based on skill and need, yet how is it that bankers make more than doctors, scientists and leaders?
how is it that teachers, police, and fire fighters make very little while accountants typically make far more?
this myth that the market sets fair wages is bullshit. the work that is rewarded is the work that is more valuable to companies (such as accountants over teachers, etc). not what is most valuable to our society.
and really, fast food work is not that easy either, it is a high stress job especially when employers routinely change schedules last minute and have people who close also open the very next day. instability is a price the employees often have to shoulder and makes finding a second job, going to school, or even planning basic family needs impossible.
Why is a starting salary at McDonalds 10-12?
Thats why you go to another business, gather skills for low wages, or you dont work. You also dont live alone to save money. The vast majority of Americans arent starving to death or in poverty. Also, having to work is a pary of every natural being. If you refuse to work, it is natural to suffer
and if every employer under values labor? then what do you do? you either work for what they are willing to pay or starve. then a billionaire uses that money to buy his 4th mansion while families struggle to pay the bills. that is not a healthy society.
If the value is too low, they can refuse a job and find another. They own their own labor.
which the wealthy always value extremely low, keeping the poor in poverty.
They own their labor.
and these new jobs exploit the workers just as much. this doesn't help workers. it just continues their exploitation.
Just as the employees want as much as possible. They own their labor. And if businesses can invest, they create new jobs to satisfy new capital.
those companies are not going to stop investing. investing is in their best interest. but the idea that the rich getting richer will help the poor is just fundamentally wrong. the rich do create jobs. but those jobs will still pay everyone as little as possible keeping them as poor as ever and trapped in poverty.
They have significant power to set market prices. OPEC is a collective monopoly.
If those companies stop investing and make nothing new, what happens to our economy?
OPEC does not have a monopoly. they just control a large portion of the market. Russia, Canada and even the US produce lots of gas and oil.
what happens when all these banks talk to each other? they are so big that fighting to undercut each other only hurts them. they know that if they cooperate they can squeeze everyone. which is exactly what happens.
the economy of the western world has only gotten more extreme. a small group hold all the wealth. the idea that them getting richer benefits everyone is a lie. they want people to believe that if you work hard you can be rich too. and sometimes you can. but alot of people work hard their whole lives and all the accomplish is helping a billionaire make another billion.
What happens if a bank has enormous interest in comparison to others? Nobody takes their loans.
The first and second claims are separate.
OPEC is a monopoly by the definition that they have he ability to set prices. Its called prive theory, and it is foundational to economics. Bankers making loans is an integral part of society.
@ rogue American. your examples show you have a basic understanding of economics. the idea of competition only works if the rich don't, as a group, control all the money.
the masses do have heavy influence on market prices. but what happens when manufacturers decide to limit production to force up prices. look at OPEC for example. for years they have played with production levels to get the price they wanted.
the example of why bankers make 10 times more than brain surgeons. it isn't because they have more value, or very much value at all. it is because they can control the money and pay themselves whatever they want.
funny how 210 people rated this debate and from those 210 people only 6 or 7 max ever actually engage in a debate.
Yes they are valuable, but the demand is not as high. If you argue against this system, you argue against human nature. The reason teachers dont make as much as doctors or bankers is that you, I, and everyone alive has decided it. You believe the market is corrupt and favors a few; however, we are the ones casting favor. Whenever you buy a product, you are telling a company that I want this. We as consumers decide what is valuable amd what is not.
If everybody quit teaching because there is no reason to do it, wages would have to increase in order to attract employees. That is how economics works: if a company bids too low for work, they will lose workers. If they bid high, they will get too many workers. If they set it just right, they will satisfy work demands and reasonable wages on which to operate.
ah yes, the evolution of debate
I get what your saying. Its so wierd how a day ago we were talking about Hillary and Trump now we are on the debate of Bush and Gore. Funny how a person can go from one thing to another.
yeah, the number of electoral votes granted by the state... that magic 270 number, is the state's vote. these electors can then go against the state, but they never do. the electoral voters voted the same way their states went.
meaning that if a big state like California is close, all 54 votes still go to one party, which is why the popular vote can go the other way. this has nothing to do with the college electors going against the state.
Heres the url:
the electoral college has never, at least in modern history, voted against the states' votes. we chose bush as well. there was some controversy, but it had nothing to do with the electoral college.
I definetely see where your coming from on that. Now im starting to question. Who knows? After all its not us deciding who becomes president its the electoral college ( which chose Bush)
Well look on the bright side this argument proves that at least some people can agree but we still have our own opinions. Im not going to sit here and try to make you believe something that i do (no offense). Its against my moral standards.
and aside from Obama's 6 years of wasted domestic potential (no balls and overly diplomatic to a treasonous congress), I think Obama's last year in office was very positive.
bush was a mismanagement disaster. at least we can agree on that. but trump's views on taxes, regulation, and foreign policy is just like bush but x10. we can't have another president that doesn't understand the details and consequences of most of the policies he is pushing.
actually the thing I am afraid most about trump is that he isn't a (relative to the presidential requirements) idiot like bush, but knows very well what he is doing and who it's going to benefit (mostly him at our expense). Bush was relatively an idiot, but Trump is just playing the part, and I find that terrifying. the only thing worse than a well meaning moron is an evil genius.
I am not buying that he is an idiot (which he plays very well), and I don't believe he's a racist (he's just pandering). I am really terrified of the malice I am certain his is capable of.
Ok im gonna say "DDDDDAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMNNNNNNN!!!!". She might do a better job, hell anyone will do a better job than Obama except for Bush.
I think Hillary will do a good job. she's like obama, but with balls.
not really. Hillary won't do a major fixing, but she will continue course, which despite what I assume you believe, is a good course. especially considering the changes bernie made her adopt during the primary, and her slightly more hawkish approach to foreign policy.
Since when did politics become a comedy club? Is it really that big of a joke to you? How old are you anyways? Anyways America is still screwed either way.
totally. people in comedy clubs are notoriously nervous lol. people laugh in many situations, Hillary did not seem to be nervous.
regardless, Hillary has nothing to do with trumps lie.
in the primary debate he said "it's a hoax" in the general debate he said "I never said that". what the other person is doing has nothing to do with trumps blatant lie. along with his other lies.
When people get nervous they laugh. In all honesty this election is screwed, and so is America.
no, she was mostly just laughing.
also the moderator told him he was lying about not supporting the Iraq war.
she also said "you called it a hoax" he denied it. we all saw him make that claim during the primaries.... he was clearly lying. she mostly ignored him and kept going since it was her time to talk and he repeatedly talked over her.
an excellent attribute for a world leader, most of the more sane leaders will simply get up and leave the room for this type of of behavior. others may declare war over the insult.
Their live debate on every news channel! She did not say he was lying. So anything else?
what exactly ='s high wages?
doctors, and particularly surgeons have very difficult work, that has far more value and is often in short supply as compared to bankers, yet are rewarded far less.
teachers are extremely valuable, require a masters, and in short supply yet are horribly paid.
isn't it funny that the people who control the money, yet are not very valuable nor in demand get paid the most? your market setting of wages is clearly broken. your fantasy that the market will fairly set wages is just a fantasy. why are these useless middlemen the most rewarded people in this economy?
I have not worked there. But hard work doesnt mean high wages. Desirable work does, and those wages are driven up by shortages. McDonalds needs to pay 12 an hour to get people interested. Engineers need to be paid x thousand a year in order to get people interested. If there is no supply to meet a demand, prices will rise.
@rogue American. would you like to finish our minimum wage discussion?
well that's because he is a for profit businessman. which BTW he considers as a "sacrifice" similar to the sacrifice of our troops.
He gave somebody a job
Trump can't keep is story straight about even his words uttered months, weeks, sometimes even days earlier.
during the debate Monday he said claimed he never called global warming a hoax, which was a claim he made proudly during the Republican primary debates broadcasted live to millions of viewers!!!
he says whatever he needs to get what he wants, a practice he has done consistently throughout his career to any idiot willing to believe him, and now he is trying to scam the American people. I agree, we need change. but not all change is good.
the only viable reason to vote for Trump is if you believe that the system must burn to bring about real change and that is in itself a dangerous and shortsighted view in my opinion.
I believe a better description is: a con man who has made a fortune by ripping people off and bribing officials who has always acted solely in his own self interest, or a woman with years and years of experience in public service and isn't a complete racist, lunatic.
a self interested businessman who hasn't done a single selfless thing, is promoting his own inrerests, and represents everything wrong with our system, or not a traitor who spent no government money on her campaign.... where the hell do you get your info?
Lets see, a traitor or a businessman with billions of dollars, person who has no enemies. (if you didnt know, something is wrong when a person has no enemies, like ISIS) Hillary Clinton has made a few ads that say dont vote for Trump, which costs thousands of dollars per ad, or choose a person who wants to save America by not spending Government money on horse shit ads to his own benefit. You decide!
well we have minimum wage laws which you see benefit in repealing, so wages will drop.
and you do realize "burger flippers" are not the only low wage job. have you ever worked as a line cook in an actual kitchen? it's grueling, thankless, rewardless jobs.
Have they earned higher wages?
It wouldnt drop wages. Businesses pay what they must to acquire certain labor. Engineering wont be undervalued if burger flipping is given its market clearing wage (which is above minimum in many locations). But if the producer knows the consumer is making more, he will charge more. Especially if they are losing their profit line. They seek a designated profit level. Not just any profit.
As a follow up. you want to eliminate the current minimum wage that will cause wages to drop. currently people already barely afford the necessities and many have to rely on the welfare state. if you decrease their income even more wouldn't that only increase the welfare state, and perhaps even drive people to crime seeing as work is completely worthless and unvalued?
steel is a silly product to use as an example. most people don't cash in their paycheck and say "I'ma go get me some steel today." especially low wage workers. let's go with something everyone needs, like food.
certainly, you pay the worker 2 more dollars, then the products he buys goes up a proportional amount. however that may have a nice complication. the cost can go up 1 dollar instead of 2 and although the seller will make less per sale, he will make more sales and thus more profit at the end of the day.
also, 50% of low wage earnings go towards rent. rent has very little to do with labor, and more to do with scarcity. so the extra 2 dollars made from the hours of work spent on rent will all be saved and can go to discretionary spending to support local businesses, investing in their children, or something small for themselves to make working worth it and not be just a grind for the basics.
of course rent has maintenance costs that require labor, but a building in new York city has similar maintenance costs to a building in less expensive areas, yet rent is very very much different. these maintenence costs are insignificant compared to the value the land itself costs, and therefore not change in its price.
50% of unchanged cost is not a small amount, that will be a big boom to the economy.
Let me ask you. I want to make 10 dollars by selling this steel. I pay you 8 dollars. That means I have to sell my steel for 18 to maintain that profit. Now you make 10 dollars. In order to maintain that profit, I have to sell the same steel for no economic reason, for 20. Now that you make 2 dollars more, are you able to buy more steel?
We aren't as poor as Zimbabwe. Few make minimum wage. McDonalds employees make 10-12 an hour. They make what the market values them at. I want people to entrepreneur. To get promotions. To be the best. I dont want people living off of an invaluable job. I want them to progress. But hey, you cut taxes which increases room for investment.
Governments don't consume, people do.
you want to make people want to work? make work worth it relative to their costs.
I though the right wants to promote people to work. low wage workers are already barely affording the basics of living costs, forget about discretionary spending to support local businesses or God forbid something extra to take a break or help their kids like a tutor.
drop their wages even more, and it's not worth it. worse than slavery in some senses. slavery usually includes food and housing. your driving people into crime and welfare. it really isn't worth it, I would choose crime or welfare over low wage work, and I'm not lazy, I'm currently in both full time work and school. but they are working long hours for NOTHING at the end of the day. f*** no. this isn't Zimbabwe with insignificant rent and grow your own food.
so you want to eliminate the current minimum wage laws?
Minimum wage laws do nothing. Prices set themselves. We can both agree that some work is worth more than other work. Making some work cost more than it should makes less demand for that work or prices rise to make up for it. If price increases, the quantity demanded decreases.
Yes. So they stay and die because they cannot scrape by with rising upkeep
exactly they can't leave. and they are dependant on the viability of their communities, and their ability to sustain these businesses.
wages can be decreased. they are artificially where they are due to current minimum wage laws. do you think those are hurting us?
Yes. They cant leave so they lose money. They have nowhere else to go.
Wages are not to be decreased. What they are now is at market clearing level.
decreasing wages, in the presence of our housing and medical costs would devastate these businesses as well as the majority of citizens in this nation. we will not recover.
small businesses can't leave... mom and pop shops can't outsource. the vast majority of them at least. and even if they could many likely wouldn't want to uproot their families and bring them to guatemala.
these are the businesses we should be supporting and these businesses are dependant on their communities.
Even if a business can afford new employees, they will raise prices because they can. Adding money artificially into the economy inflates prices and labor costs. In order to compensate for more money in thr lower class, prices rise faster not according to the quality of the good, but the necessity of pacing with inflation.
The source of the money used for consumption are these corporations--these proprietorships. If they are driven out of the country, who is paying people? If businesses make less money, they wont pay workers, or they will raise prices. Minimum wage promotes automation. If a business owner can replace an expensive portion of business, he will reduce the sector or replace it.
please answer. what is the point of allowing businesses to make large profit margins per sale if there are no costumers who can generate sales....
instead of reducing profit you are eliminating it.
automation will happen anyway. minimum wage or not. unless you really bring wages down to a dollar a day. minimum wage and automation do not affect each other unless wages are brought to complete 3rd world standards. automation is inevitable.
the point that is to increase demand so that even tho factories employ less people you will need many many more factories to produce more and more goods. and demand requires that people can afford those goods.
Or i should say it will hurt them, butbthey can manage. Minimum wage hurts employees by removing experience and small business who need cheap labor.
Those corporations are made up of people. Raising minimum wage wont hurt them. They are large enough to automate amd lay off employees. Small businesses which have a small profit line and avoid bankruptcy cannot automate or afford higher wages. Labor is the heart of small business. Every employee has a large share in the outcomes of small business.
the companies that will be hurt the most by minimum wage are not mom and pop shops like you are being led to believe, but Walmart and mcdonalds. massive corporations that Idgaf about. they are already very profitable.
they would stay for several reasons. China and Mexico are already no good because their wages are rising. these companies would have to constantly relocate to chase the low wages, and building new factories every few years is not cheap. and the United states has something most other countries have. a hell of a lot of consumers willing and able to afford to consume....
that is if we pay them enough to consume. and a higher minimum wage is a temporary fix to that problem until we get our education system to the point where we can start stealing all the good high end jobs from the nations stealing our garbage ones. why are we fighting to keep garbage jobs in the long term? that just sounds stupid.
btw. how are small businesses supposed to outsource their jobs and their products? grocery stores, contractors, and the vast majority of the small businesses the right claims to represent are stuck in the communities that right wing anti minimum wage policies are decimating. that is why a majority of small business owners support a living wage.
there be incentives*
Of course lower ages are an asset to businesses. However, higher taxes on business are also an incentive for them to leave. The two contribute highly to job creation/loss. An additional harm is a minimum wage that disrupts price theory. It is overall a harm upon the economy. It damages the possibility of new small business, and creates a difficult job search because businesses must cut down jobs in order to maintain profits. The only reason minimum wage occurs in businesses is because there is a wide supply of labor to bid on. Even most fast food restaurants pay 10-12 because they must bid higher to satisfy their demand in labor.
I am confused on your third paragraph. If businesses paid more taxes in the United States, why would their incentives to stay.
the kind of businesses I think you are talking about don't leave because of the tax code. they leave because they can pay some poor bastard in South East Asia or Mexican a $5 a month to do what they would have to pay $20 per hour here.
you cannot and will not get those jobs back without making the American people into slave labor.
companies like Apple move some of their headquarters to places like Ireland for tax purposes. but that is so that they can move their earnings into a lower tax bracket. if the government forced them to actually pay taxes on earnings here then those locations would be much less attractive.
And to the Muslim issue: the primary platform of the issue was on whether or not the US had the capabilities to vet individuals. A large portion of terrorists in the United States committing mass murder are muslim.
The reason Trump does business overseas is that it is infeasible to have it in the United States. The American worker, being such a potent force, is not given a chance since other nations have tax policies that favor business development. No business is going to willingly lose profits, and that is why many businesses leave the US.
I'm not saying I love Hillary, but I do not like Donald Trump. I think my chances of being killed in a war on American soil will greatly increase if Trump is elected, just because he is so easily baited by any negative comments toward him. He is not a person who would ever take the high road. I think he would wage war on a country just because their president says he has bad hair. I don't want a trigger happy president watching over me. And where to start with the racism that trickles from his pores? Stop and frisk is a good example. Who does Trump want to stop and frisk? Just the bad guys. Since it's so easy to tell which ones are good and bad just by looking at people. Now I could be walking down the sidewalk with my gun toting friend Suzie from Texas , and I bet since we are a couple of white girls wearing cowboy boots and jeans I will never once be stopped and frisked, even if I hung out in a high crime area, I would never be stopped and frisked. However if my 22 year old friend Ryan who graduated with honors has never been in any trouble in his life, has a tattoo to honor his mother who has passed, and baggy jeans on and is half black, guaranteed he gonna be the one frisked. He is a good person and does not deserve the humiliation of being patted down in public as passers by look at him as if he has done something wrong. How will an officer pick and chose who gets frisked. He would have to be choosy, otherwise you would have to create turnstiles for the frisk in lines. Furthermore, this big idea of banning all Muslims from the country, also profiling. Being Muslim is a religion, not a race. If you believe all Muslims are terrorists then you must believe all Christians are terrorists. Christianity is a huge religion, however there are extremists who do horrible things in the name of that religion. Individuals and large groups like the KKK. Can you tell by looking at a Christian whether they are one of these such extremists? Since we can't tell should we just ban all Christians from America? Isn't it hypocritical if we ask that of Muslims and not of Christians? And while I'm on the subject of hypocritical let's review some of the most hypocritical things I've heard from him. Like keeping business in America. Ha, Trump has many overseas businesses and hotels which could have been here instead, but they make a better profit overseas. Also Trump always wants to put his rocky past in the past but wants to bring all others to light.
Yes, but I'm one of those Bernie supporters who are still in denial
Do you know Bernie is no longer running?
Bernie all the way
I've never heard him say he wants to ban everyone. I've only heard the statement where he said he wants to ban all Muslim for an indefinite period of time. which is completely unconstitutional. if he has said that he wants to ban everyone then please provide a reference as I have.
even if he did say he wants to ban everyone then that is just a different kind of stupid. it would mean completely closing the borders. that would tank the US economy. but I've never heard him say that one.
He wants to ban everyone, christians muslems, ect. until he knows what's going on, and then keep records of all immigrants.
he said he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country. all Muslims. that means tourists, legitimate migrants, that means everyone. he isn't talking about illegals.
No, it's a crime to let them all come in freely. That's illegal. He never said he's going to ban all Muslims lol. Look at what he says. He's talking about illegals. Keep the Muslims and mexicans and everyone else out if they're not legal.
the US government doesn't keep records of the religions of all new permanent residents. but the estimate at the moment is that 61% of the new permanent residents are Christian. Muslims make up about 10%. So no, the large majority of legal immigrants are not Muslim.
and yes there are bad Muslims. there are also bad Christians, and bad Hindu's and bad Buddhists. you cannot discriminate against an entire group based on the actions of a small minority. that isn't a plan, its a crime.
I think he will create a database for all imigrants, but most of them are muslem. he is not doing this because of what muslems believe, but because there are bad muslems out their who kill. Trump doesn't want killing and he will do something to stop it. at least he has a plan, and will try his best.
no. he said all Muslims. he is not talking a out illegals. I quoted it for you.
He's talking about ILLEGALS
When asked about creating a data base for Muslims living in the US, he stated "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely". So he would be denying habeas corpus to a group of people based on religion.... That is a direct violation of the 1st amendment and article 1 section 9 clause 2 of the Constitution.
Now that's a good point.
could America survive a few years without immigrants? it will likely not take long until we figure out what is going on.
if the negative birthrate is a problem, then stop using overpopulated as an exuse for abortion.
less illegal but much more stupid. even if America weren't founded on immigrants and had a long history of accepting them. America has a negative birth rate. it cant survive without immigrants.
what is will cause more harm?
not letting people come in, Maybe 1 or 2 terrists slip by.
let anyone come in, as much terrists as they can send us, take in people by the thousands, and terrists by the hundreds.
trump has said "I'm oposed to all new people comming in" not just muslems, he want everyone to stop comming in.
banning all Muslims from the country won't stop that. they could lie about their religion, cross illegally, or any number of ways. 99.99% of people this would affect would be innocent people. but just as you said in other debates, if a bad person wants to go on a killing spree they will find a way. all banning Muslims does is hurt innocent people. not to mention spitting on the principles of America.
if you want to talk about no business being an elected. official talk about hillary and sanders. both have broken laws.
so you do want to let terrists come into the us? into my country, into our country you want terrists? you do not want terrists in the us. terrists are bad, they blow stuff up, and kill people. but you want terrists to be able to come in this country to shoot us.
banning an entire religion violates one of the core principles of your country. anyone who advocates that has no business being an elected official.
so it's better to let terrists come in then let no one come in?
first he didn't say anything about illegally. he said stopping all Muslims from entering the country. this isn't an illegals issue.
second I don't see how the last part is relevant. trying to bar an entire religion from entering the country violates the religious freedom of America. it doesn't matter for how long. in the end it doesn't even matter why he wants to do it. preventing all Muslims from entering America for a single second violates the Constitution.
He wants a safe country. He sees a few muslems sneaking in and making the country unsafe. How do you put a stop to a few muslems messing this up? stop everyone from comming, if nobody can come, then no bar people can come. once our intelligence organizations can figure out what's going on, then we can create a way to filter the bad people from comming in.
?total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country?s representatives can figure out what is going on.?
you forgot the last part of the quote lol.
That's not banning muslims, that's preventing them from coming in illegally.
I didn't think it was necessary. it has been all over the news. but since you asked he said he wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the united States". that is a textbook case of religious persecution.
Historybuff are you incapable of giving a quote?
he wants to ban an entire religion from the country. you were created by people fleeing religious persecution. America is founded on freedom of religion. that violates the Constitution.
Give me one quote where Trump oppresses a race or disregards human rights.
he says things that violate the Constitution. he says things that discriminate against millions of people. he says things that of he ever tried to do, assuming he could get elected, actually would cause an armed rebellion. he is the very worst that American politics has to offer. and if you ever needed guns to protect yourself from a tyrannical government, it would be led by someone like trump.
Awww, what's wrong, he said something that hurt your feelings? We don't need to worry about being offensive. You and all of the other liberals never want to talk about the real issues, it's always about being offensive. Boo hoo. Hillary Clinton is a dirtbag. She let's Americans be slaughtered ruthlessly and does nothing, hides emails, and disarms the American people. Trump says something that everyone else is afraid too. And we need to worry about being offensive. What a joke.
trump can't go a week without saying something rediculous or offensive or both. he is a huge joke. the worst part is that people take him seriously.
Hillary Clinton? Dumbass can't even run her emails let alone a country.
I've looked at my statements earlier and still can't find where I tried to connect Obama's policies with Hillary.
You are right about unemployment, however it only tells about the one's who are still trying to find work. Unemployment is measured by the people who are still looking for work. The total work force of the United States as of July 2015 is 62.6%. By that number one can deduce that the work force is down and measuring unemployment does not tell the whole story
You are making some terrible arguments here.... First, as psychdave has already pointed out, your discrimination against females says more about you than it does about her.
Now, let's talk about the rest of your arguments. You are trying to pin bill Clinton's presidency on hillary.... So you're making a guilty by association argument (not a very strong argument at all by the way). Then you go on and make a argument based on popular opinion rather than fact by claiming the public has already decided the issue (even though in the national polls, hillary crushes Trump)....
You claim that his boisterous tone is something admirable, but how can alienating one of our biggest allies, Germany be a good thing (read his comments about Angela merkel)? How come he can't answer basic questions about national defense and foreign policy and get away with nonsense like claiming 99% of Egyptians want to attack Israel, wanting to bomb the Iraqi oil fields, etc... He's not credible.
Now, his tax plan is a joke and would lead to TRILLIONS of lost tax revenue....
Hillary Clinton's tax plan is much more solvent.
I didn't feel like going through economic research papers, but if you really want to challenge me on the tax plan analysis, I can certainly find some analysis published by better sources. Although, the differences will be minor (I have done this research before for other debate topics.)
Let me run through your arguments...
"dems ruining the country"
How so? The unemployment is down to 5%, mitt Romney promised to have it down to 6% by 2016 during his campaign and the voters of GOP were all behind that....so on unemployment he's fine even by GOP standards. The Fed has seen enough growth to increase interest rate again and stimulate inflation. We've had 64 months of job growth, adding 12.8 million private sector jobs in that time.
So, the argument is the usually that it's the slowest recovery in history.... It's also the largest recession with global contributing factors. We've never had a financial crisis which involved literally the entire world market. I would argue that to claim it is slow is fine, however, to claim that it could have been done quicker is to ignore the geopolitical effects on the economy.
So tell me how did he actually ruin the country?
As to your "Trump has more money" argument.
It's irrelevant, especially since he inherited most the money he used to start his businesses, isolated himself from risk and then had 4 of his companies declare bankruptcy and being caught lying about his wealth (he claimed he had double his net worth). So you want to elect a lying racist who has antagonized world leaders (Angela Merkel for example), has a questionable business record, marginalized an entire religion, called an entire group (illegal immigrants) rapists and murderers, had shown a complete lack of knowledge about foreign affairs and defense (he couldn't even answer the question about the nuclear triad in the debate) to be the president?
I understand that politifact has been called out for political bias, however, they have not had very many factual errors. I'm not using politifact as a source for its political statement, but rather for its factual account of presidents ignoring laws since that was one of your arguments. If you want more sources, here you go
The reason I used GOP presidents as an example is to show that your accusation crosses party lines and is therefore not a valid argument since it is used unilaterally instead of being used against both parties.
Furthermore bigb, you were the one that brought up Obama's policies and tried to hitch them to hillary. Go back and look at your statements earlier.
thehill.com, another source. Does that work for ya?
But I guess it won't since it's not from CNN.com or MSNBC, so I'm going to take a stab at it and say this is futile arguing with you on this subject
There are several fundamental flaws in your argument. The first is that you seem to think Clinton being female counts against her. This says more about you being sexist than her capabilities. The second is that you claim she will be a poor president because her husband was not a very good one. This may surprise you but she is actually a different person than her husband. The third and most concerning problem is that you seem to regard Trump's sexist, racist, xenophobic and obscene comments as a sign that he is a strong leader. How does saying that, were she not his daughter, he would probably be dating her demonstrate that he is an intelligent and capable leader? Trump is already a laughingstock for his ridiculous comments and antics, so how would electing him strengthen the nation?
Hillary Clinton has had her own share of scandals and controversy. Was Bill Clinton good? NO. It seems younger people consider him good cause he got some head. It's crazy to think hillary would be a good president given these events that happened. Did I mention that hillary is a female? we need a stronger leader that won't be easily as exploited and showed to be weak cause we already have that with obama. Donald Trump has shown he can be strong and is a loose cannon on the microphone. He doesn't beat around the bush and isn't scared to say what's on his mind. There is a reason he is winning the race and Hillary isn't doing good. I mean the polls themselves should already conclude this debate. To be fair, we probably won't ever see a good president again regardless of who's elected but I'm sure as hell feeling better with trump as the president than hillary who would be a laughing stock nation wide and across countries.
Again, you are making claims based on your opinion without backing them up with anything resembling evidence.
Republicans claim that Clinton is in Wall Street's pocket, and also that she is communist. These are mutually exclusive, so at least try to pick one side to criticize her for.
Extremism in what form?
Feminism is not a bad thing when they are fighting for equality. To use it as an insult demonstrates that again you have no understanding of the subject you are talking about.
The hatred I have seen seems to be coming from Republican candidates like Trump, so you should avoid bringing that up unless you want to compare the two sides.
Incompetency is again something that has been demonstrated more by Trump that Clinton. He has repeatedly driven his companies bankrupt even with millions of dollars to play with. While Clinton does not have as much money as Trump, she has been successful in her career demonstrating at least some measure of competence.
Liberalism is again not an insult any more than being accused of being Republican is. Why you would include this on the list of baffling.
"A pair of emails stored on Hilary Clinton's private, home-based email server were considered top-secret intelligence, a federal review has found, according to a report Tuesday from Fox News. "
Daily Mail UK
So while yes, they are following the story, so far only Fox claims that there were top secret emails. No official sources, no charges laid, and no verifiable evidence. Fox claiming something means absolutely nothing to the presidential campaign unless she is charged and convicted. Do you have any sources that don't contradict your statement that you are just regurgitating things from Fox?
Hillary Clinton is the last thing we need in offiice. The Democrats have nearly destroyed this countey, they get elected again, the country is damaged beyond repair.
If you support communism, extremism, feminism, hatred, incompetency, liberalism, and a all around shitty country, VOTE FOR HILLARY!
To the people who say Trump isn't fit for political positions such as president...The dude has way more money than any other candidates, he's set for life. Trump is a badass who knows how to make money. He has more money than you ever will, so that speaks for itself. He obviously knows something, he's not just some random guy off the streets.
Has she been convicted of a criminal offense? If not, it is just an accusation.
politifact.com has been known to push a certain agenda, that is fact. Politifact.com is not a valuable source of information, it's like citing Wikipedia in a research paper, they are both not valid sources.
How does Obama's policies play into this debate?
You mentioned all Republican presidents only, a move to try and divert attention away from Hillary and defend the former Republican presidents.
How is it accusation alone when you can look on daily mail UK, a 3rd party following this story. When you look at CNN and other known Liberal sources they only talk about Ash Carter and don't mention Hillary at all. So stop looking at one side alone
The only thing I can find that supports tour claim that there were top secret emails on her server was Fox, and they say it came from unconfirmed sources. Other news outlets have picked up the story and referenced Fox, but I have yet to find anything from the FBI that backs up your argument. Could you link an actual FBI release, or are you just misleadingly citing where your information comes from to borrow authority?
Sosocratese fairly thoroughly went through most of your rambling response, but I have one thing to add. You seem to have a very limited understanding of what a debate is. When we "pull in other facts to manipulate the debate" that is what debating is. We are giving information that supports our opinion rather than simply stating our opinion as fact.
man; you are all over the place with your arguments.....
First; I was using Politifact to make a factual point about past presidents not enforcing laws since you stated "Allowing illegal aliens to live in this country is not breaking law?" You can easily source the claims made by Politifact and their accuracy hasn't really been the subject of question. Rather it is the frequency with which they check GOP vs Dems that is often the question.
Now, on to the E-mail "scandal" and your claim she is not eligible to hold office; that is not true unless she is actually convicted in the court of law. Accusations alone aren't enough to bar anyone from office. So until she is convicted, she is absolutely eligible to hold office. No matter what you accuse her of.
Now, on to "illegals". They are unable to receive government assistance of any type (welfare, food stamps, subsidies, grants, etc...)
ACA is also constitutional as per SCOTUS. So, having a insurance mandate is perfectly legal and does nothing to further your point. Especially since ACA isn't even Hillary's legislation.
The reason we keep bringing up Obama is because you're using arguments based on his policies to argue against Hillary which is absolutely absurd.
You might want to stop citing politifact.com, they have been know to push a political agenda; a certain political agenda. Now to use the power of logic and reasoning you would gather both sides of a story and form your own consensus
Haha I have to say congratulations on assuming I'm repeating nonsense from Fox News. Fox news isn't reporting this sh*t, they are still stuck on the fiasco of Libya. Two days ago the FBI came out with a statement saying the information she placed on her own servers and not servers used by the United States or approved by the United States government was in fact "top secret" information. Now according to law that is negligence of sensitive information and a threat to national security; and by law she is not allowed to hold public office again. I like how you pull other facts into this argument in order to manipulate the debate in your favor. Good move by the way! You say "my opinion" on her eligibility to run for public office doesn't mean anything. However, what I said on her is factually based. What does Obama have to do with this argument? I'm lost on that matter. If the RNC is having "secret" meetings on Trump but everybody knows about it, not a secret by definition.
Oh umm yeah the citizens who are forcibly having to pay for insurance are in actually covering for the one's who don't (welfare recipients, illegals; things of that nature)
By the way "less than a drain on tax dollars than I am", I'm paying through the a** on taxes. Don't talk to me about taxes
Obama was not the first and won't be the last president to not follow the law. Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., etc... All have violated the law.
Secondly, you're transferring blame of the current presidency to the former secretary of state. The secretary of state has no involvement as to which laws are actually enforced. So, either you don't actually know what the secretary of state does, you are just repeating nonsense you've heard on Fox news, or you are knowingly making false accusations and presenting lies as a form of argument....
As for Trump, I think there is a reason why the RNC is having secret meetings about his possible candidacy. They know he's destructive to the country and thus the party. It is obvious that he has no actual knowledge about the issues and he simply insults his way through the debates. There is also a reason that many of GOP supporters are outspoken in their opposition to Trump. They know he's a terrible choice for the general election.
On a personal note, his views on Muslims, immigration, and the silly wall are a little too fascist for me....I'm also not a big fan of his national security "plan" (I'll use that term loosely). His lack of knowledge is becoming more and more apparent, even Ben carson looked better informed than Trump last night, and Carson is a joke about foreign affairs.
First, you claiming she is a criminal does not make it so. Until she is convicted of a felony, she is entitled to run for office. Until that happens, your opinion on her eligibility means less than nothing since you would not vote for her regardless, so you will in no way influence her nomination or her campaign.
Second, if someone is an illegal immigrant, how exactly do you think they get publicly funded health insurance? Follow that line of local, or lack thereof backwards. For them to have health insurance, they would need to register for it. If they are illegal immigrants, they are unable to do so. Unless they are citizens, they cannot receive government assistance in any form, whether health care, welfare, or social security. They are less of a drain on tax dollars than you are since absolutely no tax dollars go towards caring for them. They don't even damage roads by driving on them since they are unable to get a license.
No one is denying that they came illegally or that they have not broken the law, but that does not mean that the government should violate their human rights in response.
Sorry. Section 18 US law clause 793
Allowing illegal aliens to live in this country is not breaking law? So forcing the citizens to pay health insurance and to cover the health insurance of the one's who are not citizens and you say it's ok. I don't care if they immigrate to this country if they are willing to become citizens and pay into society. Allowing these illegals to stay is breaking law. Why do people want to be quick to forgive law breakers. Just like Hillary Clinton, people want to forgive her on breaking the law; however she committed a felony. According to US law 18 section 297 Hillary Clinton can not be allowed to hold public office for the rest of her life.
you seem to pin the blame on Obama alot when it comes to politics, how come?
this is off topic, so i'll make a discussion about this another time.
My vote was changed accidentally. It is fixed now.
So when they set up check points to make sure everyone has papers proving they are American, you will be alright with that? When doors are kicked in to find the illegals, you will consider that constitutional? Rather than just saying "kick out the immigrants" try to find a way to round up and dispose of 11 million people without violating the law as well as the charter of human rights.
again you don't want to follow the law as trump is trying to do.
because of Obama not following the law illegal immigrants have gotten out of control and to follow the law now drastic measures are needed. trump wants follow the law, but the only way to do so is go round up illegals and ship them out.
there are other solutions to this problem, but trump looked at the law "no illegal immigrants in the us" and is going to follow that law directly.
Alex, that is a vastly oversimplified and blatantly misleading statement.
When it comes to abortion, liberals think it is morally wrong for your religious views to take away women's rights, and the belief that when a fetus stops being a cluster of cells and starts being conscious should be determined by science and medicine rather than a 2000 year old book. I do not think you should be ashamed of your views on abortion since to sit by while you believe murders are happening would be unconscionable, but neither do I agree with you.
I can't speak for everyone, but I dislike Trump because he is a racist and sexist bully who has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks common sense and common decency. He insults people rather than showing he can lead them. He is not opposed to applying similar tactics against both Muslims and illegal immigrants that the Nazis applied to the Jews. Rounding up people en mass and putting them in camps, and creating a registry for Muslims are some of the terrible ideas he seems to think are a good idea.
Trump is a horrible person. When there was a draft for Vietnam, trump faked an injury and got out of the draft. Then he has the gull to shame POW's. Innocent, young men were tortured in vietnam after serving thier country, while Trump was at home, sitting on stacks of bills.
I don't get it when it comes to abortion and gay marraige liberals are like "follow the law." but with illegal immigrants they are like "ignore the law, do what I think is morally right" but when we don't like abortion because if the sane reason shame on us!you dislike trump mostly because he wants to follow the law.
Criminals are people too. You seem to have lost sight of that. How many children are you comfortable with starving to death so that you can use them as a scapegoat for society's problems?
I can use the same argument your using with abortion. it's very similar.
you say a fetus isn't a human I say it is.
I say a illegal should not get rights, and should be treated as a criminal, you say it should be treated as a regular person.
is it OK to not follow a law?
Practice any religion youd like. Thats the 1st amendment. We don't need to ban Muslims or anything, lol. But we do need to Keep the Muslim refugees OUT! You act like that's a bad thing! All they do is commit acts of terrorism, just like Obama. Keep them out at all costs. America is under attack.
Hahaha. Trump all the way! Hillary Clinton is an elitest scumbag. Deport all of the illegals and keep the terrorists out of this country at all costs. If you're an illegal, you're a CRIMINAL. America doesn't take kindly to criminals---- Well, at least it shouldnt. I guess you guys think it should, haha. If you're an illegal immigrant then get out of this country. Quit living off of Obama and Hillary and actually work. Get a life. I have no compassion for illegals at all. Look at Mexico. Full of crime. Now... I know this will be extremely hard for most of you to understand...But do you think bringing all of the criminals into America is going to help? It will help destroy the country, that's for sure. When (pray to god for otherwise) Hillary Clinton comes and take our guns and bans the 1st and 2nd Amendment you'll all realize how brainwashed you are. Donald Trump is definitely the best candidate and deserves to be president. Save this country now, before it's too late.
there is no US law saying that you must deport 11 million people. plus it is entirely possible for laws to be against human rights. there was a law that allowed you to own people. there was a law that kept women from voting. these were against human rights and needed to be reexamined. trying to deport 11 million people would absolutely be a human rights issue. and that's not even the worst thing he's said.
so your argument here is that the US Law is against human rights.
Trump has vowed to round up, arrest and deport all undocumented immigrants. That would mean arresting an estimated 11 million people, and he claims he will do it in two years. How do you round up and ship off 11 million people?
The only way would be by kicking down doors all over the country, raiding every town and city and checking everyone's ID. When your door is kicked down and your family questioned to make sure all of you are legal residents, will you still think it is acceptable?
The next step is camps to detain a population roughly the same as that of Ohio so that they could all be processed. Where would you suggest he put the internment camps? How will they be fed while there? Will the children go to schools?
Finally there is the mass deportation itself. Where do you send all of these people? The countries they came from are unlikely to be excited to receive millions of new unemployed people simultaneously, which would lead to shanty towns full of starving people.
If you can't see how mass arrests, concentration camps and deporting them so that they have no means to support themselves and starve to death is a human rights issue, I can go on.
a country needs to make a profit. The country is not "mommy or daddy", look at the the US debt does that not say enough. The country devotes 67% of its budget taking care of people, it will rise in the future. A national cannot survive in such away.
Jimmy Carter closed the border to Iranians during the hostage crises. The US as a whole closed its borders to immigrants before in the influx of immigration, we eventually opened them again. Trump said he wasn't saying against the Islamic faith but for security. Temporarily closing it and opening it up again.
How is denying someone's entry into the US against the constitution? Or a violation of human rights?
trump wants to exclude all Muslims from entering the US. he also said he wouldn't rule out a national registry of Muslims. both are explicit violations of the Constitution. America was founded on freedom from religious persecution and that is exactly what he is proposing.
no one is claiming that trump hasn't made alot of money. but being rich doesn't mean you can run a country. a government isn't a company. a company exists to produce profit. it is entirely self centered. a government exists for the good of the people. if you have good instincts for running a company, you probably have bad instincts for running a country. but that wasn't really point about china. my point there was he can't negotiate because he's a rude, racist douche.
I agree with bigb. Also, hasn't Hillary Clinton already stepped over human rights before? From what I understand, she wouldn't be held accountable for her actions (deleting emails, lying in a rape case, silence on some human right violations, and so on).
An estimated worth of 9 billion dollars and Trump isn't a good business man? Or respected business man? What constitutional law does he want to violate?
Hillary is under investigation from the FBI for mishandling classified information. That alone should tell you she can't be trusted with sensitive information. Let alone my personal favorite saying by her, "I went to Wallstreet in 2007 before the crash, and I told them to cut it out" as if she knew what was going to happen. Plus she wants an executive order on a gun buy back program like in Australia; if I'm not mistaken, wasn't the gun buy back program in Australia mandatory? Wouldn't that be in violation of the second amendment?
I'm not voting for Trump but if it came down to it between Trump and Hillary for president then my vote would go to Trump
What law is trump trying to violate? You don't think a successful businessman whoa job is negotiating big deals can negotiate with China? or do it at least better then Obama who gives China whatever they want.
negotiations require some trust and respect on both sides. trump is not respected. he is rude and wildly racist. he wants to violate the country's Constitution. he couldn't negotiate with China. the truth is they hold most of the cards. insulting then isn't going to work.
The idea's of pure capitalism, which trump seems to like so much, don't work. history has proven that. it creates and reinforces inequality to the point that the system collapses. look at Russia or China pre-revolution. they weren't exactly pure capitalists, but they had alot of the problems that go with it. when a tiny group of people hold the majority of wealth it creates problems. much more so when they view things like trump, and you. like assuming everyone who takes money from the government is lazy and they should starve. those are the kinds of ideas that cause revolutions. the poor don't like being treated like that.
what hunan rights does trump put down, that other conservitives do not? saying "illegals should leave" is actually the law. I dislike trump, but as president he could use his business skills to create a good economy and negotiate with China and such.
Hillary Clinton will be like Obama. She can't negotiate ant better then Obama who's deal with China was "americans will learn Chinese, who cares if you hacked us" trump would be more like "you going to get in big trouble of you mess with us, we are stronger and better then you"
Hillary wants to solve the poverty problem by people like me giving my money to poor lazy bums, along with hardworking poor people. Trump believes one should work to get money, and stop taking money from the goverment.
which one works better? Trump may be a rude person and a tiny bit racist, but he will be much better then Obama and Hillarry.
America is not in good shape right now, and we need a strong, brave, confident leader to lead us. Trump will take charge and make america a bit better whereas Hillary will continue on the path Obama's going on, which is debt, unemployment, uncontrolled foreign policies, and unhappy people.
so who do you want a strong leader that can improve the economy and knows how to negociate, or a debt loving poor negotiating Obama follower?
Not having a president would be better than Trump. Clinton has some plans that I disagree with, but at least she doesn't suggest human rights violations as a potential solution to problems.