[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Foxi4]

Whitewater was a political witch-hunt like Benghazi, and the furniture thing is a non-story.

Edit: What I think Clinton's history shows is 24+ years of right-wing attacks against her in an attempt to make her seem corrupt or scandal-prone, escalating, fabricating, and embellishing non-stories. No wonder she wanted to use a private email server.

So the universe is scheming against Hillary, that's your explanation? All the suspicious donations to her various causes are the work of the GOP too? C'mon man. I'm a relatively trusting guy, but some things she's involved in rise questions. Whenever I see a politician running a charity it's already a red flag for me.

 

[Lacius]

So the universe is scheming against Hillary, that's your explanation?

Regardless of how scandalous you think Secretary Clinton actually is, it's inarguable that the Republican Party has engaged in political witch-hunts against her again and again. Numerous Republicans have even admitted that specific investigations had the goal of hurting her politically.

All the suspicious donations to her various causes are the work of the GOP too? C'mon man. I'm a relatively trusting guy, but some things she's involved in rise questions. Whenever I see a politician running a charity it's already a red flag for me.

1. Secretary Clinton doesn't control who donates to the Clinton Foundation, and you can't hold it against her unless you can conclusively demonstrate quid pro quo. That is, unless you're going to presume guilt again.
2. The Clintons are hardly the first first-family to create a charitable foundation. Look at the Carter Center, for example. Charitable work is very common for a former president.
3. Hillary Clinton wasn't even involved with the Clinton Foundation until 2013, after her time as Secretary of State, and she stopped being involved in 2015, before her second run for the presidency.

This is such a non-story, it's embarrassing.

 

[RevPokemon]

you can't hold it against her unless you can conclusively demonstrate quid pro quo.

To a large degree whenever certain people or organizations donate large sums to a person one could argue that indeed they (the donator) are doing it with intentions for political favors. Not that this is necessarily unique but it is something that happens but if Clinton is elected as president then we will see how they will be treated. Granted there were a few donator who were politically sensitive like Saudi Arabia but then again they also gave Bush money as well.

The Clintons are hardly the first first-family to create a charitable foundation. Look at the Carter Center, for example. Charitable work is very common for a former president.

This ^^^^

Hillary Clinton wasn't even involved with the Clinton Foundation until 2013, after her time as Secretary of State, and she stopped being involved in 2015, before her second run for the presidency.

Granted you could still argue if the Foundation receives money from politically motivated people that it could affect her policy decisions. But then again so would her Super PACs and the groups that donate to the DNC as well probably will affect her political decisions.

 

[Lacius]

To a large degree whenever certain people or organizations donate large sums to a person one could argue that indeed they (the donator) are doing it with intentions for political favors. Not that this is necessarily unique but it is something that happens but if Clinton is elected as president then we will see how they will be treated. Granted there were a few donator who were politically sensitive like Saudi Arabia but then again they also gave Bush money as well.

Granted you could still argue if the Foundation receives money from politically motivated people that it could affect her policy decisions. But then again so would her Super PACs and the groups that donate to the DNC as well probably will affect her political decisions.

As I said before, quid pro quo needs to be demonstrated, particularly when Secretary Clinton didn't control who could and could not donate to the Clinton Foundation. A maybe argument isn't much of an argument at all. In addition, President Obama received Wall Street campaign money, but that didn't change his policy positions, and he still signed into law Dodd-Frank. As Donald Trump once said in an interview in an attempt to explain his previous political donations to the Clintons and other Democrats, donors tend to cover their bases and donate to a wide range of candidates.

In summary, a candidate cannot be blamed for the donations he or she receives, whether the donations are political or to a charity one has no control over.

 

[RevPokemon]

As I said before, quid pro quo needs to be demonstrated, particularly when Secretary Clinton didn't control who could and could not donate to the Clinton Foundation. A maybe argument isn't much of an argument at all. In addition, President Obama received Wall Street campaign money, but that didn't change his policy positions, and he still signed into law Dodd-Frank. As Donald Trump once said in an interview in an attempt to explain his previous political donations to the Clintons and other Democrats, donors tend to cover their bases and donate to a wide range of candidates.

In summary, a candidate cannot be blamed for the donations he or she receives, whether the donations are political or to a charity one has no control over.

I agree. I am talking hypothetically but regardless of the candidate they could easily let them affect their judgement which is why you need to vote for someone with good judgement and who will not let outside interests affect them.

( Note I am not stating she has poor judgement just)

 

[Lacius]

I agree. I am talking hypothetically but regardless of the candidate they could easily let them affect their judgement which is why you need to vote for someone with good judgement and who will not let outside interests affect them.

( Note I am not stating she has poor judgement just)

I agree that it can and does happen. I just think it needs to be demonstrated before we condemn someone for it.

 

[RevPokemon]

I agree that it can and does happen. I just think it needs to be demonstrated before we condemn someone for it.

Again I agree. But at the same time I did not mean for that statement as a condemning but rather to assert a need for caution.

 

[Foxi4]

Regardless of how scandalous you think Secretary Clinton actually is, it's inarguable that the Republican Party has engaged in political witch-hunts against her again and again. Numerous Republicans have even admitted that specific investigations had the goal of hurting her politically.

A politician was hold under a magnifying glass by their opposition? Oh no! Hateocracy - point out everything at all times.

1. Secretary Clinton doesn't control who donates to the Clinton Foundation, and you can't hold it against her unless you can conclusively demonstrate quid pro quo. That is, unless you're going to presume guilt again.
2. The Clintons are hardly the first first-family to create a charitable foundation. Look at the Carter Center, for example. Charitable work is very common for a former president.
3. Hillary Clinton wasn't even involved with the Clinton Foundation until 2013, after her time as Secretary of State, and she stopped being involved in 2015, before her second run for the presidency.

1. Yes, she does - she can refuse donations from sources that put her credibility and impartiality at risk.
2. I don't support those either. I don't think politicians should be in charge of large sums of money from random sources, and that's essentially what a charity is. Donations are always suspect to me - the current money-oriented style of politics is offensive to me, it's a string of conflicts of interests. If it was up to me, all the donation nonsense, both to campaigns and to charities ran by politicians would have the brakes pumped on. Maybe campaigns would be smaller and less glamorous, but at least they'd be transparent.
3. Oh? She was not involved in a charity created in her husband's name? Okay. Does that work the same as any other wife not being involved in her husband's business? Cool.

This is such a non-story, it's embarrassing.

I'm not even trying hard, there are so many more examples of dubious activity to choose from, but I'm not here to change minds, I'm here to explain why someone might consider her intentions questionable, which was the impetus of this conversation.

 

[Lacius]

1. Yes, she does - she can refuse donations from sources that put her credibility and impartiality at risk.

She literally could not. As I already mentioned, she was not in a position to do so with the Clinton Foundation until 2013-2015.

2. I don't support those either. I don't think politicians should be in charge of large sums of money from random sources, and that's essentially what a charity is. Donations are always suspect to me - the current money-oriented style of politics is offensive to me, it's a string of conflicts of interests. If it was up to me, all the donation nonsense, both to campaigns and to charities ran by politicians would have the brakes pumped on. Maybe campaigns would be smaller and less glamorous, but at least they'd be transparent.

I'm not arguing with you on this, but isn't the libertarian point of view generally to allow people to give as much of their money to whomever they want for whatever reason they want?

3. Oh? She was not involved in a charity created in her husband's name? Okay. Does that work the same as any other wife not being involved in her husband's business? Cool.

That's an association fallacy.

 

[Foxi4]

She literally could not. As I already mentioned, she was not in a position to do so with the Clinton Foundation until 2013-2015.

She should in that period of time then, and to my knowledge did not.

I'm not arguing with you on this, but isn't the libertarian point of view generally to allow people to give as much of their money to whomever they want for whatever reason they want?

In business, yes. In public service, no.

That's an association fallacy.

Or just healthy knowledge of the female psyche. I believe the saying goes "behind every great man stands a woman", the source of the quote escapes me though.

 

[gbaboy123]

so trump is like Hitler he wants to build a wall and close the boarders and make America great again vs Hilary who wants to take money from the rich to give it to the poor and remember the us ambassador in Egypt who got killed because she told her to got to a secret dirty place and in that place he got killed. my Americans we are fucked

 

[Lacius]

She should in that period of time then, and to my knowledge did not.

I don't know if she did or not in that period of time. If you're going to say she did, you need to show me. She also wasn't in any position of power during that time, so I'm not sure where the quid pro quo would come from.

In business, yes. In public service, no.

Playing devil's advocate here, a libertarian candidate like Governor Johnson would probably call that distinction arbitrary. A person has every right to give as much money as he or she wants to a political candidate. It's his or her money, afterall. It's a form of free speech.

Or just healthy knowledge of the female psyche. I believe the saying goes "behind every great man stands a woman", the source of the quote escapes me though.

Now it's a sexist association fallacy.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't know if she did or not in that period of time. If you're going to say she did, you need to show me. She also wasn't in any position of power during that time, so I'm not sure where the quid pro quo would come from.

I would have to care enough to go through the records, which I don't, to be perfectly honest.

Playing devil's advocate here, a libertarian candidate like Governor Johnson would probably call that distinction arbitrary. A person has every right to give as much money as he or she wants to a political candidate. It's his or her money, afterall. It's a form of free speech.

That doesn't mean that the candidate should accept the money, especially if its source is an obvious special interest group.

Now it's a sexist association fallacy.

I'm okay with that. I acknowledge differences between sexes, this includes their mentalities. Besides, there's scientific evidence to support this, it's a mechanism of self-preservation. Men are more concerned and thus quicker to notice physical infidelity due to a subconscious desire to propagate their genes, meanwhile women are more concerned about emotional infidelity as it can jeopardise the future upkeep of themselves and their offspring - none are aware of these tendencies, they're all subconscious. This could be the source of the stereotypical "snooping" - a running gag with a grain of truth, or so I infer from the results. I don't have the study handy, but it's pretty recent and very interesting.

 

[Viri]

so trump is like Hitler he wants to build a wall and close the boarders and make America great again vs Hilary who wants to take money from the rich to give it to the poor and remember the us ambassador in Egypt who got killed because she told her to got to a secret dirty place and in that place he got killed. my Americans we are fucked

Yup, the day Trump gets elected is the day Mexican are ripped out of their houses, and shoved into gas chambers. Blacks will be lynched, and the US is going to nuke Russia, Syria, and other countries we do not like.

 

[RevPokemon]

Playing devil's advocate here, a libertarian candidate like Governor Johnson would probably call that distinction arbitrary. A person has every right to give as much money as he or she wants to a political candidate. It's his or her money, afterall. It's a form of free speech.

The issue of campaign financing is somewhat debated upon libertarians. Some like the Libertarian Party's plank and Ron Paul argue just that the current laws which restrict campaign finance are bad since they effectively impose more government regulation which is a bad thing. Likewise some as criticize these laws since they violate the first amendment and that it goes against the right to petition in their eyes as you have stated.

On the other hand some libertarians have argued that unregulated campaign spending is a bad thing as it can very easily lead to crony capitalism and in turn to government since such politicians we enact legislation to rewards said companies with unfair benefits. Now that is bad since it basically makes the amount of success you could have based upon your relationship with the government bureaucrats which harms the belief that the government should not regulate the market. Basically it could be said libertarians in this camp argue that it is bad since it leads to crony capitalism which is in a libertarian view hurts free markets.

One issue is libertarians are often disagreeing in how big the government should be and what are its roles which can be confusing.

 

[Lacius]

vs Hilary who wants to take money from the rich to give it to the poor and remember the us ambassador in Egypt who got killed because she told her to got to a secret dirty place and in that place he got killed. my Americans we are fucked

Do you mean Libya? One could argue that it was negligent for Secretary Clinton to allow Ambassador Stevens to go to an embassy with such awful security, but he wanted to be there. One could also blame the Republican congress for the lack of security funding. Hindsight is always 20/20.

That doesn't mean that the candidate should accept the money, especially if it's source is an obvious special interest group.

I asked if people should be allowed to give unlimited money, and you said no in matters of public service. Are you saying now that people should be allowed to give, but candidates just shouldn't accept on principle?

I'm okay with that. I acknowledge differences between sexes, this includes their mentalities. Besides, there's scientific evidence to support this, it's a mechanism of self-preservation. Men are more concerned and thus quicker to notice physical infidelity due to a subconscious desire to propagate their genes, meanwhile women are more concerned about emotional infidelity as it can jeopardise the future upbringing of offspring - none are aware of that. This is the source of the stereotypical "snooping" tendency, or so the researchers argued in the paper. I don't have the study handy, but it's pretty recent and very interesting.

You're now committing an association fallacy based on an appeal to probability. Your study likely deals with predispositions, not absolutes. Two fallacies don't make a right, and it doesn't make it any less sexist. Your scientific evidence supports bologna.

Yup, the day Trump gets elected is the day Mexican are ripped out of their houses, and shoved into gas chambers. Blacks will be lynched, and the US is going to nuke Russia, Syria, and other countries we do not like.

Your sarcasm aside, there are parallels between Hitler and Trump with regard to rhetoric and wanting to forcibly remove millions of people from the country.

 

[Viri]

Your sarcasm aside, there are parallels between Hitler and Trump with regard to rhetoric and wanting to forcibly remove millions of people from the country.

Correction! Forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants from the country!

 

[Lacius]

Correction! Forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants from the country!

It's not much of a correction unless you're saying they're not people.

 

[Foxi4]

I asked if people should be allowed to give unlimited money, and you said no in matters of public service. Are you saying now that people should be allowed to give, but candidates just shouldn't accept on principle?

This is as is/ought argument. There's a difference between how politics are conducted and how I feel they should be conducted. If it was up to me, money would be removed from politics altogether, but in the current system the next best thing is only accepting donations from private individuals with no specific interest beyond the candidate him/herself.

You're now committing an association fallacy based on an appeal to probability. Your study likely deals with predispositions, not absolutes. Two fallacies don't make a right, and it doesn't make it any less sexist. Your scientific evidence supports bologna.

I have no evidence of impropriety, I already admitted that. As for the accusation of sexism, I'm merely interested in what makes humans tick - I'm not claiming either sex is superior. Regarding the probability fallacy, that was your argument against certain guns and magazines, was it not? Lowering the probability of mass shootings taking place and the deathtolls when they do pre-emptively?

 

[Viri]

It's not much of a correction unless you're saying they're not people.

It is a correction! You said he's forcing people out, I corrected you and said he's forcing illegal immigrants out.