US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There were policies in place, but they were executed sloppily, from Comey's report. That does not constitute "gross negligence" when it comes to server and network security, and definitely not the standard that Comey and the Federal Government uses to define "gross negligence" when it comes to dealing with computer data from their departments. If you want to change the definition of what "gross negligence" is to the standard you want to setup, maybe you should write to your legislators. After all, they're the ones who make law here. Under the current law standards, she was not "grossly negligent".

I was concerned about it, and still am, but that still is not as much of a deal breaker as all the stupid bullshit Trump talks every week.

" we know what hillrry did was wrong and comey proved that she lied about everything but lwgally we cant charge her, dont worry though cause trump is hitler reincarnated". Basically all i fuckig hear these days.

Like I said posts ago in one of these threads, I'd rather have a cunning witch at the helm and not an ignoramus at it. I don't think Trump is literally Hitler, his metric tonnes of shit trying to disguise his incompetence simply are too glaringly obvious for me to ignore, though.

At the very least I know one of the two has a clue of what the fuck they're doing. If you think Hillary Clinton or that the Clinton family is that smart to try to put pressure on Comey, while Trump is thumping out his chest like a retard, hey, one of them is clearly the smarter one. What you're basically saying is that Clinton is more competent than she looks, and that's not a negative, to be honest, when the alternative is someone who looks like an idiot, and probably is an idiot.

[Nazeroth]

" we know what hillrry did was wrong and comey proved that she lied about everything but lwgally we cant charge her, dont worry though cause trump is hitler reincarnated". Basically all i fuckig hear these days.

Like I said posts ago in one of these threads, I'd rather have a cunning witch at the helm and not an ignoramus at it. I don't think Trump is literally Hitler, his metric tonnes of shit trying to disguise his incompetence simply are too glaringly obvious for me to ignore, though.

At the very least I know one of the two has a clue of what the fuck they're doing. If you think Hillary Clinton or that the Clinton family is that smart to try to put pressure on Comey, while Trump is thumping out his chest like a retard, hey, one of them is clearly the smarter one. What you're basically saying is that Clinton is more competent than she looks, and that's not a negative, to be honest, when the alternative is someone who looks like an idiot, and probably is an idiot.

So basically you would rather have a guaranteed turd than a maybe-possibly turd...dosnt make sense but whatever im tired peace out.

[Eol Sha]

Why?

Maybe because the polls on these very states seem to flip flop every time I see a poll for them?

That's how swing state polling works, though. They're swing states for a reason.

[Corrian]

Maybe because the polls on these very states seem to flip flop every time I see a poll for them?

That's how swing state polling works, though. They're swing states for a reason.

Within days? Because I saw one recently with Trump in the lead in a lot of substantial ones. It's confusing.

[New Jerzylvania]

So this man who, by all accounts, has shown nothing but the utmost integrity throughout his entire career is suddenly being tempted by cash offers?

Really grasping at those straws, aren't we?

Who said bribery? I dont think he was payed off i think he may have been threatend though and they have the funds to dig dirt or whatever they need to place that pressure

Comey is sqeaky clean. LOOK, he has the same job J. Edgar Hoover had, right? So he doesn't get threatened. He's the one that threatens. Naz, you're way out there in Alex Jones land.

[Kelinfort]

Why?

Maybe because the polls on these very states seem to flip flop every time I see a poll for them?

Most of them show a Clinton lead. Quinnipiac seems to be a bit off this cycle, for whatever reason. They underperformed during the primaries.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So this man who, by all accounts, has shown nothing but the utmost integrity throughout his entire career is suddenly being tempted by cash offers?

Really grasping at those straws, aren't we?

Who said bribery? I dont think he was payed off i think he may have been threatend though and they have the funds to dig dirt or whatever they need to place that pressure

Then you should have been clearer, as that's the most obvious interpretation of what you said. Not that your backpedaling is any less ridiculous.

[Corrian]

Most of them show a Clinton lead. Quinnipiac seems to be a bit off this cycle, for whatever reason. They underperformed during the primaries.

They seemed more accurate than a lot of the polls, though. Hope they're not right in this case.

[Eol Sha]

That's how swing state polling works, though. They're swing states for a reason.

Within days? Because I saw one recently with Trump in the lead in a lot of substantial ones. It's confusing.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how it's confusing. You shouldn't be taking each and every poll as gospel truth. You've got to look at them as pieces to a puzzle showing how the people of those states are feeling at that moment in time. And generally, with swing-state polling, the message is that the voters are divided and it could go either way.

[Neutraligon]

Like I said posts ago in one of these threads, I'd rather have a cunning witch at the helm and not an ignoramus at it. I don't think Trump is literally Hitler, his metric tonnes of shit trying to disguise his incompetence simply are too glaringly obvious for me to ignore, though.

At the very least I know one of the two has a clue of what the fuck they're doing. If you think Hillary Clinton or that the Clinton family is that smart to try to put pressure on Comey, while Trump is thumping out his chest like a retard, hey, one of them is clearly the smarter one. What you're basically saying is that Clinton is more competent than she looks, and that's not a negative, to be honest, when the alternative is someone who looks like an idiot, and probably is an idiot.

So basically you would rather have a guaranteed turd than a maybe-possibly turd...dosnt make sense but whatever im tired peace out.

Since Trump is worse than a turd, your point is wrong.

[Draymond]

So he really is choosing Pence. This is a deliverance.

[Eol Sha]

So he really is choosing Pence. This is a deliverance.

Deliverence?

[Draymond]

The point of this went totally over your head. Read between the lines. She's parroting Sanders almost exactly. Not he idea of raising the minimum wage, but with the very phrasing of her tweet.

It's 7 words. It's about as concise and condensed as it's going to get in that form. You could maybe trim the first three words if you were wiling to end it with an exclamation, but that's about it.

How would she have to have phrased it to avoid you thinking she was parroting? Take the Yoda route? "Raise the minimum wage, we must"?

Nah, you're right. It's a total coincidence. Hillary Clinton doesn't have an army of consultants trying to make her sound more like Sanders. It's all an accident fam.

[Draymond]

So he really is choosing Pence. This is a deliverance.

Deliverence?

For Clinton.

[Draymond]

The point of this went totally over your head. Read between the lines. She's parroting Sanders almost exactly. Not he idea of raising the minimum wage, but with the very phrasing of her tweet.

"Maybe if I copy my opponent word for word people will like me"

Because nuestra abuela Clinton is definitely above that kind of thinking.

[Draymond]

The point of this went totally over your head. Read between the lines. She's parroting Sanders almost exactly. Not he idea of raising the minimum wage, but with the very phrasing of her tweet.

No, she's not.

It's been a line Democratic politicians have used for the better part of two decades.

Sanders is not the first progressive.

In this race, it's his line.

[AiliailiA]

No, she's not.

It's been a line Democratic politicians have used for the better part of two decades.

Sanders is not the first progressive.

In this race, it's his line.

Moving an amendment in March 2015, to increase the minimum wage (not by an specific amount), Sanders said " I believe nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Let's raise the minimum wage to a living wage".

So yeah, it's his line. But so what?

"Poverty" is ill defined, and by any definition there will be someone working full time on minimum wage who is nonetheless in poverty (due to unavoidable medical expenses for themselves or their children, high rents or utility bills where they live, or even simply by having a lot of children to care for). Even at $15.

Honestly Democrats would make more hay by concentrating on the positive economic effects of a higher minimum wage, and strongly debunking the lower employement claims made against it.

Oh and by the way, the $15 is a future target and Sander's amendment would have only raised the immediate rate to $10.10 an hour (Obama's demand also). It's $15 by 2020, by which time $15 will only be worth $13.25 in 2015 money (assuming 2.5% annual increases in CPI).

The difference between $12 and $15 is even less important if you consider that Republicans won't allow either to happen.

[New Jerzylvania]

So what day does Trump get pissed and fire Pence from the ticket?

How about October 5th?

[Grave_n_idle]

Umm the minimum wage does not have to be the same everywhere.

The federal minimum DOES, in fact, have to be just that,

There is no reason why Mississipi and California could not and should not have a different minimum wage.

You could set it to the lowest equilibirium wage if you want a true "minimum" in your absolutist terms.

You phrase it as 'absolutist', I phrase it as 'minimum'. One of us is using the language correctly.

And you're doing something different.

But that would only be effective in the one place where it actually was the equilibrium.

Though that is not the true minimum, the true minimum would be 0. This semantics game is stupid because the minimum wage is not a true minimum, it can always be lower. (Unless it is zero).

The whole point of SETTING a minimum is to have a minimum that is enough and is not zero.

[AiliailiA]

So what day does Trump get pissed and fire Pence from the ticket?

How about October 5th?

I don't think he can, after the convention has voted on the ticket.

So ... three days from now?

[Novus America]

Umm the minimum wage does not have to be the same everywhere.

The federal minimum DOES, in fact, have to be just that,

There is no reason why Mississipi and California could not and should not have a different minimum wage.

You could set it to the lowest equilibirium wage if you want a true "minimum" in your absolutist terms.

You phrase it as 'absolutist', I phrase it as 'minimum'. One of us is using the language correctly.

And you're doing something different.

But that would only be effective in the one place where it actually was the equilibrium.

Though that is not the true minimum, the true minimum would be 0. This semantics game is stupid because the minimum wage is not a true minimum, it can always be lower. (Unless it is zero).

The whole point of SETTING a minimum is to have a minimum that is enough and is not zero.

The federal minimum wage could be set on a formula based on the local conditions not a blanket number. But yes, that is the point of the minimum wage. But it is price floor, not a true minimum.

[Novus America]

In this race, it's his line.

Moving an amendment in March 2015, to increase the minimum wage (not by an specific amount), Sanders said " I believe nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Let's raise the minimum wage to a living wage".

So yeah, it's his line. But so what?

"Poverty" is ill defined, and by any definition there will be someone working full time on minimum wage who is nonetheless in poverty (due to unavoidable medical expenses for themselves or their children, high rents or utility bills where they live, or even simply by having a lot of children to care for). Even at $15.

Honestly Democrats would make more hay by concentrating on the positive economic effects of a higher minimum wage, and strongly debunking the lower employement claims made against it.

Oh and by the way, the $15 is a future target and Sander's amendment would have only raised the immediate rate to $10.10 an hour (Obama's demand also). It's $15 by 2020, by which time $15 will only be worth $13.25 in 2015 money (assuming 2.5% annual increases in CPI).

The difference between $12 and $15 is even less important if you consider that Republicans won't allow either to happen.

Well arbitrary numbers is not the solution. The minimum wage should be 50% of the median wage. Problem solved. Based on sound ecnomics not political grandstanding.

[USS Monitor]

The federal minimum DOES, in fact, have to be just that,



You phrase it as 'absolutist', I phrase it as 'minimum'. One of us is using the language correctly.

And you're doing something different.



The whole point of SETTING a minimum is to have a minimum that is enough and is not zero.

The federal minimum wage could be set on a formula based on the local conditions not a blanket number. But yes, that is the point of the minimum wage. But it is price floor, not a true minimum.

Or states that need a higher wage can pass state laws.

[Novus America]

The federal minimum wage could be set on a formula based on the local conditions not a blanket number. But yes, that is the point of the minimum wage. But it is price floor, not a true minimum.

Or states that need a higher wage can pass state laws.

True, but what about states who might need a lower minimum wage than the national wage? Who have a lower equilibirium wage than the national equilibirium wage?

Again say the national equilibirium wage is 12. In rural Texas it is 9. In San Fran it is 15.

If you set it at 12 it is too high for rural Texas but to low for SF.

There is no doubt the minimum wage should be set to 50% the median wage.
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/l ... y_dube.pdf

But you should exempt localities from the federal minimum wage if their minimum wage is set to the equilibirium wage, even if below the federal equilibirium wage. One size does not fit all.

[USS Monitor]

Or states that need a higher wage can pass state laws.

True, but what about states who might need a lower minimum wage than the national wage? Who have a lower equilibirium wage than the national equilibirium wage?

Again say the national equilibirium wage is 12. In rural Texas it is 9. In San Fran it is 15.

If you set it at 12 it is too high for rural Texas but to low for SF.

The national one is a minimum. You don't get to set it lower locally. If it's "too high" for rural Texas, then rural Texas will just have some inflation.