The debate "Whom do you support trump or hillary. and why" was started by
July 12, 2016, 9:09 am.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
dalton7532 posted 18 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 11 arguments, Zuhayr posted 3 arguments, MathDebating01 posted 1 argument, Alex posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 12 arguments, Iyah posted 1 argument, NationalistGuy posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
The_richman, tony123, ototoxic, Alex, RogueAmerican, maestroforce, divine05, Zuhayr, JakobBoghora, why, MathDebating01, Ali001, moneybagboyz, Bman192837465, sabrina and 18 visitors agree.
Iyah, historybuff, Nemiroff, NationalistGuy and 17 visitors disagree.
Can I just say no to both? They are most likely both liars and this is an election of the shiniest turds. Take this with a grain of salt if you'd like.
I personally don't give a sh*t.
She is clearly in bad shape, and you do not have to be a doctor to come to that conclusion. All of her symptoms are Parkisons, and if she has it, it deteriorates motor skills. Most likely she has brain damage from the blod clot in her brain. What we know is that she is prone to seizures, and seziures are caused by stress or randomly. This probably will effect diplomacy. Can you agree that seziures may effect diplomacy. What is we are in war time and she has sezuires under stress? Who is going to make that split decision?
I don't see how a medical condition even matters. unless it is going to compromise hee ability to think like dementia or something, her being sick would be completely irrelevant to her doing her job.
She is hiding some underlying health condidtion so she can win.
I am not saying she has parkisons definetly, but it seems to be pretty clear that it is something severe. She has all the symptoms, not just one or two. She has emotional illiteracy, head spasms, abnormal facial expressions, severe coughing fits, severe difficulty swallowing, trouble walking and keeping balance, and deteriorating motor skills all in the same small timeframe. She also seems to have repeated seizures and seizures are usually random or caused by stress. The causes, It can be either be brain damage from her severe concussion that caused a blod clot in the brain, Parkisons, or something else severe. Political bias aside, this is not good for a candidate nor America if we have a candidate with these problems.
Ah, I thought I was shaking up the discussion by giving it direction. As far as medication and unfit goes, there are two ways to think. One being that the medication makes "Operating heavy machinery" and other tasks that might involve difficulty dangerous. The other being that the medication is a preventative measure. I might not be her doctor, you may not be a doctor, but reasonable steps of thinking aren't too different from speculation. The symptoms suggested, plus the prolonged use, would infer that this is suffering, and if she has not already had a stroke (sort of like tremors before and after an earthquake) then she will. This medication is actually useful for the clots in her legs, however, it is often prescribed for up to 2 months of use.
Think of it in terms of oxycodone and aspirin, patients that need oxycodone are weened of of the medication and never prescribed for a long time due to addiction risks as well as other issues. If someone used oxycodone for headaches, that would be overkill, not hard to see. The current use despite how long ago the clots were, means that an expected complication is impending, just not known when. This means there is no plan to get her off.
Paint a vivid picture? Provide direction? Fair assumptions? Not to mention that while this is a direction that can be assumed, there is little alternative that suggests a different scenario, a different affliction would have the same magnitude, and no affliction would mean the medication is being abused. A rather difficult situation be be in, yeah?
I'm not arguing for any particular diagnosis. I have no idea. but neither does some drug salesman on the internet.
and this whole line of discussion started when dalton said people shouldn't vote for her because of her health because she has Parkinsons. there is no real evidence that she has it. it is not a good reason to change your vote.
Entering and exiting the conversation in regards to a simpler and maybe useful bit of information.
It is public knowledge that Hillary is using Coumadin, an anti-coagulant, which is fairly out of date, and somewhat dangerous should you start bleeding.
Transient Ischemic attacks maybe? Take that as you will. Asking for sources before you look online won't get responses, and I say this now because I believe this is common knowledge, and I want to shake the cage, sources can be rebutted, confirm, be rationalized for or against. This lets me drop out, as a suggestion. A suggestion of a reoccurring, less dangerous without removing a constant risk. More feasible noting the old people symptoms, a middle ground? Despite that, it should lean in the "unfit" argument just as well, not mentioning the defibrillator vest theory.
And the "Age" argument seems like very wishful thinking, and less likely if we look in the right places.
I know they are. I also gave an example ealier of brain damage. I would associate that with blood clots, not parkisons. Sorry for the confusion. I will send it later, it was actual real footage of her but it was on a propaganda clip. I will try to find the uncut source later.
as far as I can tell blood clots and Parkinson's are completely unrelated. if you are going to try to undermine her based on her health at least get your desease straight.
and i already told you, and that video you linked told you, it is perfectly natural for facial ticks like that to happen with age.
this is the first you have mentioned difficulty swallowing. care to provide a source.
What about the lack of motor skills for a period of time in the same time frame as all her other symptoms twice?
The weird circles on her tongue, an uncontrollable spasm, severe difficulty swallowing, and this is all in a small time frame of 2 weeks and exhibit serious and abnormal symptoms for a serious condition. Also, she had a blood clot in her brain. connect the dots?
he has absolutely no training in medicine. he works for a pharmaceutical company. he is not a doctor. his medical opinion is no better than most.
you haven't proven she even has most of those symptoms.
she has facial ticks. easily explained by being old.
she got helped up the stairs once. easily explained by pretty much anything.
a guy near her carries some kind of syringe. there are lots of medical conditions that requires injections. many of them caused by age. maybe it was his. maybe she has diabetes.
did I miss something?
Shkreli is the pharmaceutical guy who developed alot of drugs, including one for parkisons. He was also they guy that screwed alot of people and became the most hated person in the world by raising drug prices by 5000%
I gave 2 sites made by real doctors that people use to get accurate details on certain diseases and other problems. It had symptoms of parkisons, and I linked you of her clearly displaying these ABNORMAL symptoms. If it was just one symptom, then yes I would swiss it off. The same goes with two, but 5? That is concerning.
you gave us one guy with no Medical background saying she has Parkinsons because of a few easily explainable things. you then linked the defininition of Parkinson's.
there was absolutely no evidence. just some biased interpretation of events.
I atleast try to be honest. I sourced my information from multiple websites trying to piece togther the puzzle in the most unbiased way possible to inform you and give me my representation on the subject.
I thought you'd like it. it had just as much evidence as most of the websites you reference.
That site was pure liberal BS. Trump never said he would use weapons outright nor would he. What if we are in another Japan WW2 scenerio? That is always a possibility and is he supposed to deny that we will ever use them even if another situation like Japan is quite possibly to appeal the idiot liberals? I hink not. He is not going to say stuff to appease people just to get elected not would I appluad him for doing so.
Same could be said of Hillary. Its groundless, and your article is national enquirer level reporting: no sources, not even a first-hand account.
America has never signed an NFU. they reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in case of conflict. that doesn't have to be a direct attack. and besides one terrorist attack on American soil and that would untie his hands to nuke people.
did you people heard about NFU?
america cant use their nukes unless attacked first.
There are no sources, and he wasnt privy to the conversation.
he reportedly asked an expert advising him 3 times in a one hour briefing why America can't use its nuclear weapons.
When did he day he would nuke someone?
considering he needed to be told several times in one briefing why America can't use its nuclear weapons, I'd say the world exploding is a very real possibility.
The world wouldn't blow up.
Well really I don't "support" either. I don't trust Hillary and I know for a fact the world would just blow up if Trump became president. I merely tolerate Hillary.
The term progressive has been recreated. Are liberals classical liberals? No. Democrats advocated slavery if we are to play that game.
Well they also said we needed Slavery and discrimination.
I think he drinks wine before joining the election. If Trump doesn't wanna hear any more shit from me then he should immediately back off from the decision he made about Muslims. He is a shitee person with pee poop on his ass.
Hillary because, trump is a dumb ass, he only thinks about war, and money. He is a dirty swine on the land of poop.
Of course Hillary cuz Trump is a shit in the ass
I suppose I support hillary because she is not as crazy like trump. Trump is always behind war for some reason, Hillary seems smarter, and the greatest president bill Clinton, for him I support hillary. Also trump takes advantages of what the others do. Hillary is jot like that. Hillary is smart in different ways. The election, Hillary will win. Bernie is also good but I prefer hillary a bit more.
Huckabee was the leader of the fair tax. The rest are VAT with a flat tax that doesnt distinguish between levels of income.
So therefore the party hasnt moved right. Debates over legitimacy have transformed into decisions over extent. But conservatives always lose; its easier to elect a tyrant then remove one.
Fine I'll call you progressives (liberal gives scope). But if there is no way to organize collective ideas, well then, things get difficult. The entirety of the progressive movement looks to change our system of liberty for the sake of the perfectibility of man. In order to do so, governments interfere in order to alter individuals so that they behave against nature and and for the whole. Conservatives want to maintain the original ideals of the country: that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights: that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To preserve these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Progressives seek to organize power from the government and to redefine individual liberty. That is undeniable, and if you require it, I will prove it.
There is no moral equivalency to the two. He was doing his job and was within his rights to do so. Is there anything wrong with helping you business if that is your sole purpose and occupation.
personal sovereignty is an over simplification that Noone can argue with. however the "fairtax" of his platform is anything but. taxing only sales means poor people get taxed on 100% of their income while the wealthy toss most of it in the savings.
of course, how often in history do conservatives ever win in the long run? it's called progress :) but thanks for keeping some of our crazier members in check.
an agenda implies a scheme and a unified position. "liberals" describes numerous parties and goals. the term liberal agenda is a right wing propaganda creation. please stop using it. same goes for the "conservative agenda" which I'm sure passes around some liberal circles.
we are individuals. we have many views. simple categories are easy to digest, but are a fantasy.
so because an attempted murderer was stopped by the cops means he didn't actually do anything wrong and is completely innocent?
the fact that Trump was stopped doesn't change that he is a selfish piece of shit. the fact that he was very well off and not struggling in any way makes him absolute scum.
Rand Paul was probably the furthest. But what part of personal liberty and sovereignty is bad?
That is entirely false. Republicans are accepting abortion and trying to go moderate. Even party members say they have to slide left till they pick up votes.
trump is farther right then almost anyone else. the only leader that was worse was Cruz.
Trump is bringing them to the center with tax rates, abortion, and LGBT community. Polls show him seen as the leader of the republican party.
you actually believe that don't you? look at a Republican party platform from 50 years ago. conservatives have gone so far right they aren't even recognizable any more.
agenda implies a progression. Conservatism is conservatism; to maintain what is current and prior, not evolve
I say liberal agenda because you cannot purchase a gun without a background check. Try purchasing a gun without a check, please do. Can you show me the legislator that democrats want to pass that has been denied? I bet you anything that it is more than just background checks, or there is a catch. I will admit and look stupid if I am wrong. Nobody should deny just background checks, and everybody has to get a background check.
There is nothing wrong with saying liberal agenda because that is what it is, and there is also something called a conservative agenda.
He didnt force his way. It was stopped by a good judge.
But what i mean is that changing enforcement can nullify laws. If you wont uphold certain aspects of law, that law is dead and congress--the people are weakened.
yes, but some things need more perversions than others.
the Obama example, none of those were laws that applied to citizens at large. he was acting like a boss of the agencies he controls, not a legislator but an executive.
laws apply to everyone, what Obama did was nowhere near a law.
justifying what trump did is much more perverse. not only did he disrespect the most basic of property rights, he bypassed the judiciary and forced his way from behind the scenes.
Im ok with checks, but im saying you can pervert definitions infinitely if you choose to do so.
That is thr only agenda
this whole "liberal agenda" mindset is what is ruining america.
no, technically cant. not anything sensible at least.
background checks are supported by a majority of republicans, including all the sensible ones.
Accountability by the people as addressed by the constitution and expanded upon in the federalist papers. Yes technically its all defensible, but technicality can be used too far as in Trump and eminent domain.
Just because congress does not allow a liberal agenda does not mean they are not serving the people.
but as an executive, does he not control government agencies and departments under the executive branch?
his orders were never laws. his minimum wage hike only applied to government workers. federal. his immigration order was a directive to the immigration agencies to act differently towards migrants. they weren't laws.
the gun one maybe, but I think your asking the wrong question. it's not why the president acted, but why didn't Congress act on this pressing and basic principle. background checks don't deprive innocent people of guns, and there is overwhelming support for it across party lines.
congress must serve the people, and if it doesn't then it should be held accountable.
The debate on executive orders is whether or not executive orders should be so vast as to begin to infringe upon article 1 powers. Right now we are caught in a definitional game of whether or not the executive agreements/orders are trully executive powers. So in Hannity's opinion and many others, they could be breaches.
I can't find anything on this buying of nukes on google.
Nobody said it let them purchase it. The searches are inadequate based on red tape.
the money way Iran's and we weren't the ones holding it. it was going to go to them anyway. and wtf about allowing them to buy nuclear weapons?
1 is fake twisted truth, 1 sounds like an outright lie pending citation.
based on your discription, I would mark cnn as inadequate and incompetent. not biased.
fox is still sounds like a poison.
*a nuclear weapon,
NPR is pretty cool they use direct quotes from people who represent a view, and the journalist do not give their opinions which I like. To your point, the coverage of the Iran Nuclear Deal was very unfair on CNN. I never really heard about the terms of the deal on CNN except "It prevents them from getting a deal and will release sanctions" Whereas, I heard on Fox the deal would give Iran 150billion dollars and within 5 years they can trade/purchase for nuclear weapons.
I am not defending cnn, but I would like an example of them leaving information out that was known at the time to other sources?
NPR is a very credible source. they don't skip information. they invite political on all sides to come in and tell their views. they grill both sides pretty hard, I've never been dissapointed in their reporting.
maybe it wasnt, but every American president since George Washington have used them (except 1 but he held office for 1 month lol)
the presidents actions matched the will of the people, even Republicans claimed to only opposed him on ideological grounds over his authority, not the merits of the actions.
he did nothing wrong. congress were the ones that should have been indicted for refusing to act on anything for a decade! traitors.
here is a whole lot of lies from bill O'Reily.
I wouldn't trust him to tell me the weather outside.
name a news source that that can't be said about.
that's why I trust people (Bret baier for facts, Bill O'Reilly for opinions supported by facts) nether of them lie.
there might be a guy who has a show on CNN or a NY times columist who is liberal and tells opinions supported by facts. that's fine to trust them.
I'm not suggesting that you should limit yourself to one news source. you shouldn't.
but trusting a "news" source that lies constantly to push their own political agenda is stupid.
I do not trust any news source to give me fair and balanced coverage, but I trust Fox News in some aspects to do that and other news channels for other aspects. I watch all news networks CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and when I can I do my own research. If you call me dumb for that, then we have serious problem. CNN leaves out important information on liberal candidates and actions Obama takes and that is very common with CNN. I am not only going to subject myself to one POV to make you happy.
then you're dumber than I gave you credit for.
You trust Fox news??
Executive orders are not granted by the constitution when it was ratified. Think again.
and I don't abandon debates.
also the video in that link shows hannity showing either clear ignorance of the issues he's talking about, or spreading blatant missinformation.
like that it is illegal for the EXECUTIVE to use EXECUTIVE orders, and that it would be unconstitutional for the president to use powers given to him by the constitution.
fox news is worse than a joke, it is a poison. it is one thing to lean in a certain direction, it's another thing to outright lie and frame your opposition.
if this is your best source for news no wonder you abandon most of the debates we have. please, find a reliable source of ACCURATE and COMPLETE information, for your own sake. conservatives have some very good points and pressing concerns, your leaders and party do not represent those anymore. wake up and stop being used.
from a quick search, here's a alleges DINO.
eitherway, I asked you to link to a position held by Fox " democrats" and how they defend them.
the competency of their defense is all the proof we need. link any of your choosing.
Since you love to demonize Fox New, Is there any definitive way you can prove that fox news pays people to act like liberals? The burden of proof is on you. Can you also find evidence that Fox news leaves out stuff it does not like and does it more than CNN? Again, the burden of proof is on you.
The link I sent you was the Benghazi timeline that documented Hillary Clinton's lies. I am trying to find the link. There is a lot of stories that look the same but are not. Hold on.
I am concerned about her carelessness, and I've seen "do no wrong" trump being careless with money that didn't belong to him, like our tax money may be. double standard...
I'm still trying to figure out how her email scandal is different than Chris christies and Collins powell's private email use? the politifact you linked made no mention of her emails nor anyone elses.
before you run out of context with my propaganda argument, can you point to cnn printing half truths?
what you see here is not "left wing propaganda" but a news network whose humans do have personal opinions, but who run a news story based on ALL the facts and not editing out parts they don't like.
that's why despite its liberal leaning, cnn is considered quality news, while fox is considered a joke. not cause it leans right, but cause it leaves out info it doesn't like, brings on fake or stupid "liberals", and generally spreads nonsense.
yes, the administration is at fault, and someone should be disciplined to some extent. that person would be the person with the title of head of embassy security details or something similar. not the top ambassador of the country, and not the top executive. I'm not saying there should be no accountability, I'm saying stop scapegoating people just cause you don't like them.
Well, I guess it is the "left-wing" "propaganda" then that is the problem and that consumes me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ2l8rZ2Nxc To be clear, I have a problem with how the whole administration handled Benghazi, and this was the administration Hillary Clinton was apart of. Specifically, I have a problem with the lies Hillary Clinton told to the families of Benghazi. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
"Do you not have a problem with her being associated with careless by the FBI director? Do you not have a problem with her after all this commotion and attacks on her for being careless with classified information giving someone with no security clearance access to classified information?" The email scandal is in no way similar to any other person you mentioned. Why can't you admit that? The liberal Politifact fact checking even admitted that. How much propaganda from Hillary Clinton can you consume?
"Do you also like how she said it is time to "move on" to the families of Benghazi?"
you see, nonsense propaganda.
she didn't say that to the families, she said that to congress. how the hell do you consume so much propaganda? if she had said that to the families her career would be over.
THE HEAD DIPLOMAT IN CHARGE OF ENDING WARS AND NEGOTIATING TREATIES IS NOT IN CHARGE OF SECURITY DETAIL AT RANDOM EMBASSIES.
unless you care to address that, which you typically just let the thread be buried when I bring this up then repeat later like a broken record, stop playing dumb with the benghazi issue.
if you got nothing else on benghazi, would you like to examine her alleged hit man (lol) or stealing office supplies (you guys were running out of meaningful propaganda?).
emails, her republican predecessor in the same job, and trumps head of staff for presidency both used private servers. yet Noone cares about them.... double standard?
any other "scandals"?
I know you said more in that post, but I want to separate the blatant nonsense in your force fed propaganda before we can tackle the only valid scandal, the email.
well trump is a racist man. he will bring trouble to our country. hillary Clinton is corrupted too. so all we can hope is a corrupted and racist america
None of Hillary's scandals have been blown out of proportion. Her email scandal was totally blown under proportion and Benghazi showed her lack of leadership and her true self lying to the families of Benghazi.
Do you not have a problem with her being associated with careless by the FBI director? Do you not have a problem with her after all this commotion and attacks on her for being careless with classified information giving someone with no security clearance access to classified information? Do you also like how she said it is time to "move on" to the families of Benghazi?
Quit trying to paint Hillary as this fighter of big money, we all know she feeds of big money and uses her political power to profit from big corporations. She is a corporate sell out and that is a fact.
Hillary Clinton lies about her past positions, she is a corporate sell out, changes her views as the political winds shift, and she has to be told to be genuine. All of these actions point to her being a power hungry individual whos only goal is to become the most powerful person in the world and can care less about the American people.
I support Hillary cause I think most of the "scandals" against her have been fabricated. aside from the email issue, which is defensible as well, everything else is nonsense. from benghazi to her hitman (lol) to stealing office supplies (really? who cares!)
she's been attacked by big pharma, big oil, and the right wing machine for decades. Buff, exactly what does Hillary do that makes you believe she isn't fighting for you besides the typical things every politician has to do in order to keep their job.
I never said she wasn't a liar. I said she wasn't a pathological liar. which she obviously isn't. a pathological liar lies all the time for no reason. they cant help themselves. Hilary lies because she has political reasons to lie.
we have explained this to him before. he continues to call her a pathological liar even though he knows it isn't true because he thinks it makes her sound worse. really it just makes him a liar.
wait a sec, you don't think Hillary is a pathological liar? What about her lying under oath? She lied under oath (that's a felony). She's flipped flopped on many issues. What do you think about her funneling in millions of dollars through the Clinton foundation?
So Trump's a liar but Hillary isn't? I don't understand how anyone can defend Hillary, you know she's a corrupt politician.
Even if you don't believe she did anything wrong, can you trust her even after the statements Comey made about her after the investigation concluded?
we have already explained to you what the word pathological liar means and why it does not apply to Hilary. did you not understand or can you just ignore information you don't like?
Trump is the epitome of the crooked businessman. trying to steal land from little old ladies by using crooked politicians. why people think putting a crooked businessman in power will solve the problem of crooked politicians I will never understand.
I support Donald Trump. He is a successful businessman, and I think he will straighten out America. He is so much better than Crooked Hillary Clinton. She is a pathological liar, corruption and scandals follow her wherever she goes, and she is a corporate sell out. I am an advocate for gun rights, repealing the ACA, and lower taxes. These are all things Hillary Clinton are against and Donald is for.