US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[Philjia]

Sander's is not going to be in the general. And Trump is much less interventionist than Clinton. If you want non intervention vote Johnson or Trump. Not Hillary.

"Bomb the shit out of them" is hardly non interventionist.

Trump is a mix of foreign policy ideas and can't be pinned down either way.

This suggests he either has no idea what he actually wants or in fact has (Or thinks he has) a cunning plan.

[Novus America]

"Bomb the shit out of them" is hardly non interventionist.

Trump is a mix of foreign policy ideas and can't be pinned down either way.

This suggests he either has no idea what he actually wants or in fact has (Or thinks he has) a cunning plan.

Or he just says whatever random shit he thinks of at the time.

But yeah, he does sound Nixony.

[Eol Sha]

Technically or not, Sanders' foreign policy ideas don't come close to isolationism. They may not be as active as Clinton's, which I personally view to be a good thing, but they aren't the same as Trump's.

Sander's is not going to be in the general. And Trump is much less interventionist than Clinton. If you want non intervention vote Johnson or Trump. Not Hillary.

1. I don't give a fuck?
2. Trump isn't coherent. I'm not rolling any dice.
3. You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to cast my vote for Johnson or Trump.
4. Clinton is the least bad option so I will vote for her.

[Novus America]

Sander's is not going to be in the general. And Trump is much less interventionist than Clinton. If you want non intervention vote Johnson or Trump. Not Hillary.

1. I don't give a fuck?
2. Trump isn't coherent. I'm not rolling any dice.
3. You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to cast my vote for Johnson or Trump.
4. Clinton is the least bad option so I will vote for her.

Obviously Trump is not coherent. Hillary totally screwed up with her Russia plastic toy and the Arab Spring. So Johnson is definitely the least bad on foreingn policy.

[Eol Sha]

1. I don't give a fuck?
2. Trump isn't coherent. I'm not rolling any dice.
3. You'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to cast my vote for Johnson or Trump.
4. Clinton is the least bad option so I will vote for her.

Obviously Trump is not coherent. Hillary totally screwed up with her Russia plastic toy and the Arab Spring. So Johnson is definitely the least bad on foreingn policy.

*shrug* I don't know much about Johnson's foreign policy ideas, but I'm uninterested in wasting my vote on a guy and party I do not support.

Not to mention, there are a whole bunch of other things I agree with Clinton on.

[Novus America]

Obviously Trump is not coherent. Hillary totally screwed up with her Russia plastic toy and the Arab Spring. So Johnson is definitely the least bad on foreingn policy.

*shrug* I don't know much about Johnson's foreign policy ideas, but I'm uninterested in wasting my vote on a guy and party I do not support.

Not to mention, there are a whole bunch of other things I agree with Clinton on.

What exactly do you agree with her on? Her plans most involve throwing more money at things. Which does not work.

[Ashmoria]

Polls are not perfect, but him being that far behind bodes ill. The point is he is not getting 66% of the remainder.
I am not a Hillbot. I hate her. But I am realistic. She is going to win the nomination. It is just a fact of life.

I understand your position, I'd just rather not declare it over until it absolutely is- I see no harm in keeping the primary 'race' attitude, and some amount of gain.

As I've said before, ever since Bernie got pasted in the south and it became apparent that he wasn't going to win all I've heard from Bernie supporters is how we have to work for party unity. By we I mean of course Hillary supporters. Fuck that noise. Reconciliation isn't "Do it my way or I walk" it's a two way street and the smugness I've far too often encountered from the Bernie side of the fence has long past made me not give a shit. Honestly the Bernie supporters this time around are acting so much like the Hillary fans I hated in 08 it's amazing. Funny enough Hillary didn't really win me over this election. I was on the fence for quite a while, it was the Bernie supporters and surrogates who drove me into Hillary's camp.

Experience dictates most of the Bernie or bust crowd will vote Hillary anyway, those who don't, I don't care. Vote for your dog if it makes you happy.

Nobody's saying they can force Hillary to do anything- but votes are earned, not entitled. There is a divide between the party establishment and Bernie supporters, not between Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters.

the problem is that with the republican race over it allows the republicans to cross over in open primaries and skew the results thus weakening the actual eventual nominee.

[Khadgar]

An analysis of Trump's absurd pledge to slap tariffs on trade with China. Unsurprisingly for everyone who's given it a moment's thought it would be horrifically expensive.

[Eol Sha]

*shrug* I don't know much about Johnson's foreign policy ideas, but I'm uninterested in wasting my vote on a guy and party I do not support.

Not to mention, there are a whole bunch of other things I agree with Clinton on.

What exactly do you agree with her on?

She's a fairly standard Democrat so I'd naturally agree with her in principle on most policies ranging from gay rights to the minimum wage to energy policy. My difference with her on at least some of those issues is a matter of degrees rather than substance.

[Crurnlark]

the problem is that with the republican race over it allows the republicans to cross over in open primaries and skew the results thus weakening the actual eventual nominee.

So it seems like the ONLY ideal time for closed primaries would be late into the election cycle, when we have this sort of risk.

[Novus America]

What exactly do you agree with her on?

She's a fairly standard Democrat so I'd naturally agree with her in principle on most policies ranging from gay rights to the minimum wage to energy policy. My difference with her on at least some of those issues is a matter of degrees rather than substance.

On minimum wage the democrats pull out random one size fits all numbers. So tell me what should the minimum wage be? How would that compare with the equilibirium wage? How would that effect supply and demand? How would that look on a supply demand graph? How would the graph for Maryland look compared to say Puerto Rico?

On energy the Democrats have no consistent policy. Obama and Jerry Brown support fracking. Hillary now claims to oppose it. Despite the fact that stopping fracking would cause a recession, massive unemployment, and only help Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[Eol Sha]

She's a fairly standard Democrat so I'd naturally agree with her in principle on most policies ranging from gay rights to the minimum wage to energy policy. My difference with her on at least some of those issues is a matter of degrees rather than substance.

On minimum wage the democrats pull out random one size fits all numbers. So tell me what should the minimum wage be? How would that compare with the equilibirium wage? How would that effect supply and demand? How would that look on a supply demand graph? How would the graph for Maryland look compared to say Puerto Rico?

On energy the Democrats have no consistent policy. Obama and Jerry Brown support fracking. Hillary now claims to oppose it. Despite the fact that stopping fracking would cause a recession, massive unemployment, and only help Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Personally, I think hooking the MW to inflation and local cost of living is ideal. That is unlikely to happen. So given the choice between Mrs. $12 and Mr. Wages are too High, I'm going with $12.

I don't live in California so I can't comment on Jerry Brown, but I don't think the President supports fracking. Even if he does, his position is bound to be more reasonable than whatever the Republicans or the Libertarians have cooked up. Not to mention that fracking isn't the only aspect of energy policy.

You can color me skeptical about your claims on the results of a fracking crackdown.

And don't get me wrong, I am also distrustful of Clinton on most of the issues.

[Novus America]

On minimum wage the democrats pull out random one size fits all numbers. So tell me what should the minimum wage be? How would that compare with the equilibirium wage? How would that effect supply and demand? How would that look on a supply demand graph? How would the graph for Maryland look compared to say Puerto Rico?

On energy the Democrats have no consistent policy. Obama and Jerry Brown support fracking. Hillary now claims to oppose it. Despite the fact that stopping fracking would cause a recession, massive unemployment, and only help Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Personally, I think hooking the MW to inflation and local cost of living is ideal. That is unlikely to happen. So given the choice between Mrs. $12 and Mr. Wages are too High, I'm going with $12.

I don't live in California so I can't comment on Jerry Brown, but I don't think the President supports fracking. Even if he does, his position is bound to be more reasonable than whatever the Republicans or the Libertarians have cooked up. Not to mention that fracking isn't the only aspect of energy policy.

You can color me skeptical about your claims on the results of a fracking crackdown.

And don't get me wrong, I am also distrustful of Clinton on most of the issues.

Fair enough on minimum wage. I agree, but no party does. Trump well nobody know where he stands on minim wage either.

But at the very least Obama's EPA has not heavily restricted fracking and found it mostly safe.
Jerry Brown supports it because it is vital to California's economy.

Opposition to fracking is so pants on head stupid that I cannot vote Hillary.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL8N13159X20151106

We should be reducing oil consumption. NOT production! Especially as we are still a net importer! Cracking down on fracking would literally do nothing but drive literally hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs overseas.

Actually it would destroy the Dem rats if they did, they would definitely lose PA, and possibly even California. Texas might actually try to secede. I cannot emphasize enough how stupid banning it is. Or how critical fracking is to our ecnomy and national security.

[Eol Sha]

Personally, I think hooking the MW to inflation and local cost of living is ideal. That is unlikely to happen. So given the choice between Mrs. $12 and Mr. Wages are too High, I'm going with $12.

I don't live in California so I can't comment on Jerry Brown, but I don't think the President supports fracking. Even if he does, his position is bound to be more reasonable than whatever the Republicans or the Libertarians have cooked up. Not to mention that fracking isn't the only aspect of energy policy.

You can color me skeptical about your claims on the results of a fracking crackdown.

And don't get me wrong, I am also distrustful of Clinton on most of the issues.

Fair enough on minimum wage. I agree, but no party does. Trump well nobody know where he stands on minim wage either.

But at the very least Obama's EPA has not heavily restricted fracking and found it mostly safe.

Opposition to fracking is so pants on head stupid that I cannot vote Hillary.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL8N13159X20151106

We should be reducing oil consumption. NOT production! Especially as we are still a net importer! Cracking down on fracking would literally do nothing but drive literally hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs overseas.

Such is life.

I wouldn't be surprised. The President does what centrist Dems have been doing for decades.

I don't think its pants on heads stupid. Especially in the wake of more numerous and increasingly severe earthquakes, a tainted water supply, the fact that fracking is merely a stopgap measure that does little to actively combat climate change. It isn't as bad as oil and coal, but it ain't good either.

I'd rather do both and shift as quickly and as painlessly as possible to cleaner forms of energy.

[Novus America]

Fair enough on minimum wage. I agree, but no party does. Trump well nobody know where he stands on minim wage either.

But at the very least Obama's EPA has not heavily restricted fracking and found it mostly safe.

Opposition to fracking is so pants on head stupid that I cannot vote Hillary.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL8N13159X20151106

We should be reducing oil consumption. NOT production! Especially as we are still a net importer! Cracking down on fracking would literally do nothing but drive literally hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs overseas.

Such is life.

I wouldn't be surprised. The President does what centrist Dems have been doing for decades.

I don't think its pants on heads stupid. Especially in the wake of more numerous and increasingly severe earthquakes, a tainted water supply, the fact that fracking is merely a stopgap measure that does little to actively combat climate change. It isn't as bad as oil and coal, but it ain't good either.

I'd rather do both and shift as quickly and as painlessly as possible to cleaner forms of energy.

Again the EPA found fracking to be safe. So how would destroying American oil production make shifting to cleaner forms more quick or painless? It would just destroy our economy and cause oil imports to soar. Interim measures are absolutely necessary. Stopping fracking would HELP, not hurt oil imports from terror supporting dictators.

Devastating the economy and national security will only leave less money to invest in alternatives.

Actually banning fracking would cause such a crisis it would likly destroy Democratic Party. California and PA would be furious, Texas probably even try to secede. It is pants on head stupid, it is destroying US oil production.

Oh and I doubt Americans would be happy when their stoves an heaters stop working because of a natural gas shortage.

Thankfully Congress would stop any president who tried banning it.

[Eol Sha]

Such is life.

I wouldn't be surprised. The President does what centrist Dems have been doing for decades.

I don't think its pants on heads stupid. Especially in the wake of more numerous and increasingly severe earthquakes, a tainted water supply, the fact that fracking is merely a stopgap measure that does little to actively combat climate change. It isn't as bad as oil and coal, but it ain't good either.

I'd rather do both and shift as quickly and as painlessly as possible to cleaner forms of energy.

Again the EPA found fracking to be safe. So how would destroying American oil production make shifting to cleaner forms more quick or painless? It would just destroy our economy and cause oil imports to soar. Interim measures are absolutely necessary. Stopping fracking would HELP, not hurt oil imports from terror supporting dictators.

Devastating the economy and national security will only leave less money to invest in alternatives.

Actually banning fracking would cause such a crisis it would likly destroy Democratic Party. California and PA would be furious, Texas probably even try to secede. It is pants on head stupid, it is destroying US oil production.

When you say "the EPA found fracking to be safe", I'm almost certain there's far more complexity and nuance to it. I doubt the EPA said "frack to your heart's content! There are no risks!" Especially since the Administration bothered to put regulations and restrictions on the industry. That still doesn't change the fact that fracking likely increases the probability and severity of earthquakes and puts our water supply at risk of contamination.

I'm not saying interim measures aren't necessary. It'd be naive to think otherwise. However, I don't consider fracking to be a net positive for the environment. Nor do I think that we should continue to frack for longer than absolutely necessary.

Again, color me skeptical.

[Novus America]

Again the EPA found fracking to be safe. So how would destroying American oil production make shifting to cleaner forms more quick or painless? It would just destroy our economy and cause oil imports to soar. Interim measures are absolutely necessary. Stopping fracking would HELP, not hurt oil imports from terror supporting dictators.

Devastating the economy and national security will only leave less money to invest in alternatives.

Actually banning fracking would cause such a crisis it would likly destroy Democratic Party. California and PA would be furious, Texas probably even try to secede. It is pants on head stupid, it is destroying US oil production.

When you say "the EPA found fracking to be safe", I'm almost certain there's far more complexity and nuance to it. I doubt the EPA said "frack to your heart's content! There are no risks!" Especially since the Administration bothered to put regulations and restrictions on the industry. That still doesn't change the fact that fracking likely increases the probability and severity of earthquakes and puts our water supply at risk of contamination.

I'm not saying interim measures aren't necessary. It'd be naive to think otherwise. However, I don't consider fracking to be a net positive for the environment. Nor do I think that we should continue to frack for longer than absolutely necessary.

Again, color me skeptical.

Obviously it needs to be done properly. Literally everything, including solar and wind have potential negative side effects.

Okay, even if we should not longer than neccesary, fine. Fracking is neccesary until we entirely replace natural gas and oil. Which is not going to be any time soon.

But yes, it is a neccesary interim, so banning it now be absurdly stupid.

I like being able to cook and not freeze to death. Like millions of Americans natural gas is part of life. A natural gas shortage would be an terrible crisis. People would die.

[Khadgar]

When you say "the EPA found fracking to be safe", I'm almost certain there's far more complexity and nuance to it. I doubt the EPA said "frack to your heart's content! There are no risks!" Especially since the Administration bothered to put regulations and restrictions on the industry. That still doesn't change the fact that fracking likely increases the probability and severity of earthquakes and puts our water supply at risk of contamination.

I'm not saying interim measures aren't necessary. It'd be naive to think otherwise. However, I don't consider fracking to be a net positive for the environment. Nor do I think that we should continue to frack for longer than absolutely necessary.

Again, color me skeptical.

Obviously it needs to be done properly. Literally everything, including solar and wind have potential negative side effects.

Okay, even if we should not longer than neccesary, fine. Fracking is neccesary until we entirely replace natural gas and oil. Which is not going to be any time soon.

But yes, it is a neccesary interim, so banning it now be absurdly stupid.

I like being able to cook and not freeze to death. Like millions of Americans natural gas is part of life. A natural gas shortage would be an terrible crisis. People would die.

Given the number of people who die both from the mining of coal and burning it I'd say natural gas is far better. I'll admit the injecting wastewater worries me greatly.

[Novus America]

Obviously it needs to be done properly. Literally everything, including solar and wind have potential negative side effects.

Okay, even if we should not longer than neccesary, fine. Fracking is neccesary until we entirely replace natural gas and oil. Which is not going to be any time soon.

But yes, it is a neccesary interim, so banning it now be absurdly stupid.

I like being able to cook and not freeze to death. Like millions of Americans natural gas is part of life. A natural gas shortage would be an terrible crisis. People would die.

Given the number of people who die both from the mining of coal and burning it I'd say natural gas is far better. I'll admit the injecting wastewater worries me greatly.

Which is why we cannot stop fracking as we rely on natural gas for much of our energy, and it is definitely much better than coal. Stopping fracking would cause a masively crisis and make us MORE reliant on coal and imported oil.

If we can get all energy needs from cleaner and better sources fracking will not be needed. But phasing out oil AND gas completely is going to take decades and a lot of money.

[Eol Sha]

When you say "the EPA found fracking to be safe", I'm almost certain there's far more complexity and nuance to it. I doubt the EPA said "frack to your heart's content! There are no risks!" Especially since the Administration bothered to put regulations and restrictions on the industry. That still doesn't change the fact that fracking likely increases the probability and severity of earthquakes and puts our water supply at risk of contamination.

I'm not saying interim measures aren't necessary. It'd be naive to think otherwise. However, I don't consider fracking to be a net positive for the environment. Nor do I think that we should continue to frack for longer than absolutely necessary.

Again, color me skeptical.

Obviously it needs to be done properly. Literally everything, including solar and wind have potential negative side effects.

Okay, even if we should not longer than neccesary, fine. Fracking is neccesary until we entirely replace natural gas and oil. Which is not going to be any time soon.

But yes, it is a neccesary interim, so banning it now be absurdly stupid.

I like being able to cook and not freeze to death. Like millions of Americans natural gas is part of life. A natural gas shortage would be an terrible crisis. People would die.

Of course. From what I understand windmills have a negative effect on local property values and are somewhat dangerous to avian wildlife. Solar panels have radiation leaking problems and aren't particularly good at generating large amounts of electiricity. Hydroelectric production has adverse effects on local aquatic life.

Of course not.

It would certainly seem that way, yes.

I meant that I'm skeptical about the national security claims. On this, you are, unfortunately, correct. And, to be honest, I hadn't really thought about the cooking and heating aspect.

I'm not advocating for revolutionary shifts in energy policy, but, at the same time, I don't think the glacial movements of the government are helping either.

[Novus America]

Obviously it needs to be done properly. Literally everything, including solar and wind have potential negative side effects.

Okay, even if we should not longer than neccesary, fine. Fracking is neccesary until we entirely replace natural gas and oil. Which is not going to be any time soon.

But yes, it is a neccesary interim, so banning it now be absurdly stupid.

I like being able to cook and not freeze to death. Like millions of Americans natural gas is part of life. A natural gas shortage would be an terrible crisis. People would die.

Of course. From what I understand windmills have a negative effect on local property values and are somewhat dangerous to avian wildlife. Solar panels have radiation leaking problems and aren't particularly good at generating large amounts of electiricity. Hydroelectric production has adverse effects on local aquatic life.

Of course not.

It would certainly seem that way, yes.

I meant that I'm skeptical about the national security claims. On this, you are, unfortunately, correct. And, to be honest, I hadn't really thought about the cooking and heating aspect.

I'm not advocating for revolutionary shifts in energy policy, but, at the same time, I don't think the glacial movements of the government are helping either.

On national security, do you think more reliance on oil from Wahhabi terror states and Russia will benefit national security? Our military still largely runs on oil. Also the more energy independent we are, the less we can worry about the Middle East.

But I think we can agree banning fracking or severally restricting it now is a really bad idea.

Unless you want people to not be able to cook and heat their homes.

I agree we should be looking at alternatives more, especially Thorium and electric vehicles. So leave fracking the way it is, and use the money generated from it to invest in these alternatives.

[The Liberated Territories]

I prefer an "all of the above" energy policy that competes fairly in the market. I believe that if it weren't for the vast amount of protectionism and subsidies going towards the coal industry, we'd have more green energy now, and that green energy dealers would battle it out (there are strengths and weaknesses to all of them.) The fracking industry is artificially sustained through eminent domain of land with natural resources, and is granted liability caps for spills, and having legal immunity from the seismic aftershocks, and would not exist in an authentically free(d) market. No, don't ban fracking, but eliminate all the things currently propping it up and granting it an unparalleled monopoly.

[Ashmoria]

the problem is that with the republican race over it allows the republicans to cross over in open primaries and skew the results thus weakening the actual eventual nominee.

So it seems like the ONLY ideal time for closed primaries would be late into the election cycle, when we have this sort of risk.

that's what I'm thinking. although there would still be troubles for the OUT party in years when the president is up for re-election. the president's party can create havoc all along the way, eh?

[Trumpostan]

Considering Trumps list of lies and flip-flops I would say the description you gave to Hillary belongs to Trump.

They both lie a lot, it's almost comical.

Trump's lies are well documented (by Politifact ea), but what are Hillary's lies? Because as far as I see, its nothing but empty right wing rhetoric that has never been made to stick (ie baseless).

Trump will win in the end thankfully. Hillary has a very dark past that will come to haunt her, her lead will grow smaller and smaller until she falls behind Trump.

And Trump's endless lies and shady business dealings won't catch up with him? And again, what specific shady things has Hillary done that the right wing propaganda machine can actually back up with facts, unlike the last 24 years when they have made nothing stick (because there is nothing there).

Relavent to this thread, Hillary has put out her first attack ad on Trump, and it's pretty brutal. That she can basically make a pretty eviscerating point this way shows the weakness of the Trump candidacy:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ever-trump

Its a good start. Play this stuff over and over again Hillary. And the one with other Republicans calling him liar/dishonest/fraud etc... as well. Non stop. On a loop. Until election day.

Its not lying Ted, its Donald the liar, the #1 fraud in the 2016 campaign.

This suggests he either has no idea what he actually wants or in fact has (Or thinks he has) a cunning plan.

Or he just says whatever random shit he thinks of at the time.

But yeah, he does sound Nixony.

He's the candidate of the National Enquirer Party.

*shrug* I don't know much about Johnson's foreign policy ideas, but I'm uninterested in wasting my vote on a guy and party I do not support.

Not to mention, there are a whole bunch of other things I agree with Clinton on.

What exactly do you agree with her on? Her plans most involve throwing more money at things. Which does not work.

Proven false. The GOP is continuously trying to gut the VA budget (to make it fail so they can privatize it). Constantly gutting government departments is the thing that doesn't work. And privatizing healthcare doesn't work either because the GOP and their pals won't pay for healthcare if your future earnings are less than the costs of any healthcare you might need (that's the "free market" at work there).

Anyway, I'm gonna vote for whoever is the Dem candidate because Donald the dishonest, bigoted racist liar cannot be allowed anywhere near the WH except as a guest (and he shouldn't be on any president's guest list either).

[Washington Resistance Army]

They both lie a lot, it's almost comical.

Trump's lies are well documented (by Politifact ea), but what are Hillary's lies? Because as far as I see, its nothing but empty right wing rhetoric that has never been made to stick (ie baseless).

The most memorable to me is the sniper fire nonsense. You also have her constant lies about everything gun related, the stupidly high amount of lies she's said about things that Bernie has supported, claiming she criticized the Iraq war before Obama did etc. There's probably a ton more but I'm just going off of memory.

I prefer an "all of the above" energy policy that competes fairly in the market. I believe that if it weren't for the vast amount of protectionism and subsidies going towards the coal industry, we'd have more green energy now, and that green energy dealers would battle it out (there are strengths and weaknesses to all of them.) The fracking industry is artificially sustained through eminent domain of land with natural resources, and is granted liability caps for spills, and having legal immunity from the seismic aftershocks, and would not exist in an authentically free(d) market. No, don't ban fracking, but eliminate all the things currently propping it up and granting it an unparalleled monopoly.

Hey now, stop making sense