US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Libertarian Paumanok]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her

[USS Monitor]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Strange that you didn't read the thread, and you missed all the anti-Hillary posts before yours.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her

She never threatened to go after Breitbart for criticizing her.

Rumors about her health based on out of context clips are meaningless, especially in light of her release of her medical records.

Her corruption is overstated.

All of these things have been discussed at great length in this thread (except the first), so I'm not sure what you're going on about.

[Wallenburg]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Strange that you didn't read the thread, and you missed all the anti-Hillary posts before yours.

This. If you are going to make wild and generalizing claims, make sure that they aren't such obvious bullshit as that one.

[Hittanryan]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her

Got a source for all that?

[Liriena]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her

Strange that you mention Clinton's criticism of Breitbart, but not Trump's pledge to reform libel laws so he could sue newspapers who spoke ill of him.

[Liriena]

I wasn't expecting Clinton to make comments like the "basket of deplorables" thing, but I doubt it was a gaffe on her part. A part of me suspects she is trying to beat Trump at his own game: say something controversial, monopolize media attention and collect your free publicity.

[Liriena]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her

She never threatened to go after Breitbart for criticizing her.

Rumors about her health based on out of context clips are meaningless, especially in light of her release of her medical records.

Her corruption is overstated.

All of these things have been discussed at great length in this thread (except the first), so I'm not sure what you're going on about.

I try to avoid generalizations, for generalizations are terrible, but the "nobody talks about Clinton's problems" thing seems like the go-to cliché for several Trump supporters in the face of valid criticism against their candidate. Go to a Stephen Colbert video on Youtube, and you'll find Trump supporter after Trump supporter claiming that he never criticises Clinton, and demanding that he does it.

[Liriena]

So Donald has demonstrated his commitment to fighting to secure LGBT rights... by making an appearance at an event chaired by a notable anti-LGBT hate group.

And the media just keeps letting him get away with this, on top of all things. But they are totally biased in Clinton's favour, aren't they?

[Galloism]

I wasn't expecting Clinton to make comments like the "basket of deplorables" thing, but I doubt it was a gaffe on her part. A part of me suspects she is trying to beat Trump at his own game: say something controversial, monopolize media attention and collect your free publicity.

I posted a link earlier, but Huffpo pulled statistics showing she's not wrong anyway. In fact, she might have been somewhat generous.

[UED]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her

It's been some time since I last saw a Libertarian supporting Trump. I thought almost all of them went over to the Johnson camp like 3 months ago.

[Liriena]

I wasn't expecting Clinton to make comments like the "basket of deplorables" thing, but I doubt it was a gaffe on her part. A part of me suspects she is trying to beat Trump at his own game: say something controversial, monopolize media attention and collect your free publicity.

I posted a link earlier, but Huffpo pulled statistics showing she's not wrong anyway. In fact, she might have been somewhat generous.

So you're saying she was just telling it like it is?

Nice to see America finally has a candidate who is not politically correct like that weak crooked cuck, Trump.

[Liriena]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her

It's been some time since I last saw a Libertarian supporting Trump. I thought almost all of them went over to the Johnson camp like 3 months ago.

Some didn't get the memo that they are supporting a guy who idolizes authoritarian leaders and panders to religious fundamentalists.

[Galloism]

I posted a link earlier, but Huffpo pulled statistics showing she's not wrong anyway. In fact, she might have been somewhat generous.

So you're saying she was just telling it like it is?

Nice to see America finally has a candidate who is not politically correct like that weak crooked cuck, Trump.

If we learn how to turn cognitive dissonance into electricity, we'll have a clean energy plan better than any place on earth.

[Liriena]

So you're saying she was just telling it like it is?

Nice to see America finally has a candidate who is not politically correct like that weak crooked cuck, Trump.

If we learn how to turn cognitive dissonance into electricity, we'll have a clean energy plan better than any place on earth.

With the sheer amount of Trump supporters with no self-awareness or sense of irony who immediately started to whine about "discrimination" and "bigotry"? You could export that stuff.

[New Chalcedon]

So Donald has demonstrated his commitment to fighting to secure LGBT rights... by making an appearance at an event chaired by a notable anti-LGBT hate group.

I honestly don't know why Trump is still rising in the polls. I mean the media did pounce on Clinton this August but you would think Trump's crawl towards 42-44% would be stopped by his insane nonsense.

Because the media treat it as just another day, while they parse every single word that comes out of Clinton's mouth to find the hidden, umpteenth-dimensional scandal. If Trump had been subjected to a tenth of the "scrutiny" that the Clintons have endured over the years, he'd either wither like a dehydrated hydrangea, or slink off back into the shadows and back-alleys, playing Three-Card Monte to scam the passersby for lunch money.

[Hittanryan]

I honestly don't know why Trump is still rising in the polls. I mean the media did pounce on Clinton this August but you would think Trump's crawl towards 42-44% would be stopped by his insane nonsense.

Because the media treat it as just another day, while they parse every single word that comes out of Clinton's mouth to find the hidden, umpteenth-dimensional scandal. If Trump had been subjected to a tenth of the "scrutiny" that the Clintons have endured over the years, he'd either wither like a dehydrated hydrangea, or slink off back into the shadows and back-alleys, playing Three-Card Monte to scam the passersby for lunch money.

All while bitching about being oppressed and needing a safe space for con men.

[Libertarian Paumanok]

Many have denied Hillary's disrespect for the first ammendment, however it is well documented.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... tbart-com/

http://wearechange.org/no-right-to-exis ... poses-her/


http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hilla ... n-website/

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comme ... ive_media/

Now I am fully aware that many of the more leftist nations here are not exactly diehard fans of Breitbart, but before you guys drop me into Hillary's basket of deplorable and label me a bitter clinger, I'd like to remind you all that free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. If Hillary is allowed to go after Breitbart as president it will compromise our values of liberty, and open the floodgates for censorship of dissenters and authoritarian statism. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, or whatever. That is not something you want. This woman is a Trojan horse for authoritarian statism.

[Hittanryan]

Many have denied Hillary's disrespect for the first ammendment, however it is well documented.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... tbart-com/

http://wearechange.org/no-right-to-exis ... poses-her/


http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hilla ... n-website/

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comme ... ive_media/

Now I am fully aware that many of the more leftist nations here are not exactly diehard fans of Breitbart, but before you guys drop me into Hillary's basket of deplorable and label me a bitter clinger, I'd like to remind you all that free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. If Hillary is allowed to go after Breitbart as president it will compromise our values of liberty, and open the floodgates for censorship of dissenters and authoritarian statism. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, or whatever. That is not something you want. This woman is a Trojan horse for authoritarian statism.

You just cited 3 blogs and a Reddit thread. Got any actual sources?

Here's some sources on Trump wanting to "open up" libel laws so he can attack media outlets who report when he screws up, complete with footage of him saying it:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/24/471762310/donald-trump-wants-to-open-up-libel-laws-so-he-can-sue-news-outlets

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/22/donald-trump-doesnt-understand-libel-laws/

[The Lone Alliance]

So Donald has demonstrated his commitment to fighting to secure LGBT rights... by making an appearance at an event chaired by a notable anti-LGBT hate group.

I honestly don't know why Trump is still rising in the polls. I mean the media did pounce on Clinton this August but you would think Trump's crawl towards 42-44% would be stopped by his insane nonsense.

Because people are no longer listening to the media anymore. I believe the media wants a horse race so they attack whatever candidate who's doing well in the polls in order to keep the polls close.

The down side is that this leads to both sides saying that the media is against them and being right.

[Hurdergaryp]

Many have denied Hillary's disrespect for the first ammendment, however it is well documented.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... tbart-com/

http://wearechange.org/no-right-to-exis ... poses-her/


http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hilla ... n-website/

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comme ... ive_media/

Now I am fully aware that many of the more leftist nations here are not exactly diehard fans of Breitbart, but before you guys drop me into Hillary's basket of deplorable and label me a bitter clinger, I'd like to remind you all that free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. If Hillary is allowed to go after Breitbart as president it will compromise our values of liberty, and open the floodgates for censorship of dissenters and authoritarian statism. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, or whatever. That is not something you want. This woman is a Trojan horse for authoritarian statism.

You just cited 3 blogs and a Reddit thread. Got any actual sources?

Here's some sources on Trump wanting to "open up" libel laws so he can attack media outlets who report when he screws up, complete with footage of him saying it:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/24/471762310/donald-trump-wants-to-open-up-libel-laws-so-he-can-sue-news-outlets

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/22/donald-trump-doesnt-understand-libel-laws/

The blogosphere tends to pop up every now and then in this thread, because those suit the ideological bubble of certain people better than properly written articles providing actual facts.

[Arachno-Satinism]

Strange that none of you are mentioning Hillary's corruption. or her terrible health. Donald may not be perfect, but at leas he's not controlled by the big banks and special interest groups.

Hillary also has no respect for free speech. she vowed to go after Breitbart for criticizing her

No, but he's controlled by Kremlin which is worse. He's also just yet another capitalist plutocrat, not some heroic defender of the populus. Judging from his statements (a bit hard to do so, he changes his words everyday), Trump doesn't look like a person that would respect free speech either.

[UED]

Many have denied Hillary's disrespect for the first ammendment, however it is well documented.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... tbart-com/

http://wearechange.org/no-right-to-exis ... poses-her/


http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hilla ... n-website/

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comme ... ive_media/

Now I am fully aware that many of the more leftist nations here are not exactly diehard fans of Breitbart, but before you guys drop me into Hillary's basket of deplorable and label me a bitter clinger, I'd like to remind you all that free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. If Hillary is allowed to go after Breitbart as president it will compromise our values of liberty, and open the floodgates for censorship of dissenters and authoritarian statism. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, or whatever. That is not something you want. This woman is a Trojan horse for authoritarian statism.

This is just like how people say Obama will take guns away from everyone, it's not gonna happen. Let's have a scenario where we pretend you are correct. Let's say President Hillary Clinton wants to actually screw over Breitbart. The Supreme Court will make sure to smite her down before she can actually succeed. She's not going to succeed, the Supreme Court is the Republic's final, strongest defense against any authoritarian or populist President/Congress. You are being delusional if you think that Hillary can somehow oppress Breitbart and get away with it. Not to mention how the Republicans and Democrats in Congress will go into an uproar if Clinton tried to harass Breitbart.

Now Trump on the other hand, he has a stronger chance at actually oppressing his opponents. The bulk of the Republicans (at least the religious extremist right wing, basically conservative evangelicals) of the 21st century are bent on winning elections and defeating Democrats rather actually improving the situation of the nation. Paul Ryan admitted that Trump's actions made him basically fit the dictionary term for racist and yet he went on supporting him. Same applies to Mitch McConnell. Republican congress would be far more willing to bow to Trump than Democrats would vow to Clinton. Trump would have an easier time getting congress to submit to him than Clinton ever could.

[Libertarian Paumanok]

Many have denied Hillary's disrespect for the first ammendment, however it is well documented.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08 ... tbart-com/

http://wearechange.org/no-right-to-exis ... poses-her/


http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hilla ... n-website/

https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comme ... ive_media/

Now I am fully aware that many of the more leftist nations here are not exactly diehard fans of Breitbart, but before you guys drop me into Hillary's basket of deplorable and label me a bitter clinger, I'd like to remind you all that free speech is designed to protect unpopular speech. If Hillary is allowed to go after Breitbart as president it will compromise our values of liberty, and open the floodgates for censorship of dissenters and authoritarian statism. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative, or whatever. That is not something you want. This woman is a Trojan horse for authoritarian statism.

You just cited 3 blogs and a Reddit thread. Got any actual sources?

Here's some sources on Trump wanting to "open up" libel laws so he can attack media outlets who report when he screws up, complete with footage of him saying it:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/24/471762310/donald-trump-wants-to-open-up-libel-laws-so-he-can-sue-news-outlets

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/22/donald-trump-doesnt-understand-libel-laws/

I do in fact have actual sources. I'm trying to give you the facts, but you just won't listen. That stuff about Trump trying to open up libel laws is disturbing, but not nearly as bad as Hillary's call for censorship of dissenters in the alternative media. Dr Drew was even fired recently for questioning Dear Leader Hillary's health.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... k-freedom/ that's from Breitbart itself.

Here's a video of her actually saying it. Just skip to the part with Hillary. https://youtu.be/0h5O0uPqIcs

This guy also has some interesting things to say about this. https://youtu.be/00UUAVmOaxo

[Libertarian Paumanok]

And the supreme Court will not smite her down if Hillary has a chance to appoint her liberal judges. Republicans would grumble about it for a week and then give up like the weak cuckservatives that they are. Democrats in Congress will not be in an uproar, and will likely side with Hillary. You underestimate the treachery of our politicians.