POTUS 2016

[Buddy]

Extreme right wing party with a no-name president taking over, duh?

[Lizard]

6 minutes ago, Buddy said:

Extreme right wing party with a no-name president taking over, duh?

Extreme right wing? I can't imagine being extreme right winged and giving 100 euros for every child... Also I don't see any gun stores suddenly popping up aswell as tax cutting...  Educate yourself.

Edited November 9, 2016 by LizardPL

[KoKo5oVaR]

From an out of nowhere Martin Luther King to an out of nowhere Adolf Hitler, it's still characters who don't represent the interests of the social classes who elect them, but at least the show is assured

[Vorontsov]

5 minutes ago, Buddy said:

Ignorant masses = people that fall for false promises and elect a incoherent moron like Trump. Sorry guys, it's not a superiority thing, it's just calling it what it is. Even if those votes are coming from place of pain and misery, Trump is not a solution.

People needed someone from the outside and it should've been Sanders.

You seem to be some sort of clairvoyant, it's not even been one day and you are entirely convinced it's all false promises? You're trying to compare an outsider billionaire, to a proven criminal? You seem to be very convinced that you're on the right side here and everyone else is not, you imply that you're intellectual and above "the ignorant masses" yet you would vote in a proven criminal, multiple felonies (gotta feel good to own the department of justice, the FBI and the CIA, immune to all crimes) or Bernie, whose economical plans would have been disastrous for America, you can't just take Scandinavian policies and try to apply them to a nation of 318 million people. I'm sorry dude but you're not as wicked smart as you think you are. You do realize how extremely easy it is for us to label you all "the ignorant masses" as well?

The people have spoken, and they're not nearly as ignorant as you are making them out to be. Trump was the only real choice. The two other third party candidates are not competent enough and when asked hard questions immediately crumble. Clinton and her friends are criminals who should be serving lifetime sentances right now. Bernie has too ambitious promises, almost impossible to fulfill, the policy of "free shit" ain't going to cut it. 

[Buddy]

23 minutes ago, LizardPL said:

Extreme right wing? I can't imagine being extreme right winged and giving 100 euros for every child... Also I don't see any gun stores suddenly popping up aswell as tax cutting...  Educate yourself.

Yes, because paying people 100€ reverts everything else they were and are about, lol. It's a low price to pay for people to turn a blind eye I guess. 

Edited November 9, 2016 by Buddy

[Lizard]

3 minutes ago, Buddy said:

Yes, because paying people 100€ reverts everything else they were and are about, lol. It's a low price to pay for people to turn a blind eye I guess. 

Then you should really reconsider what you call right wing party.
And If you want to argue about which party in polish parliaments is right winged with polish citizen then you are very ignorant.

[FrieChamp]

1 hour ago, blackdog said:

Chill out, now he got the votes with his crazy declamations, he'll fold and do what the pentagon and lobbies tell him to do.

There's a very convincing method: showing the Kennedy assassination… from a differently positioned camera ?

I know, Godwin's law and all that, but this is pretty much what Hindenburg and the other politicians thought of Hitler when he came to power. That he will listen to them, that he can be controlled. 

I was shocked this morning but now I am just tired of the endless arguing. We have had enough of this the past months. At best it's an interesting lesson on how pundit predictions and our own social environments can act like echochambers. At worst it is the end of human civilization...But let's not jump to conclusions. The people have spoken. Let's see how much Trump can actually improve the lives of Americans

[text_fish]

30 minutes ago, Vorontsov said:

 You're trying to compare an outsider billionaire, to a proven criminal?

Lol. Hilary Clinton has never been convicted of a crime. Of course that doesn't mean she hasn't actually committed any crimes, but it's a bit of a risky comparison to draw when Donald Trump's legal  affairs actually require their own wikipedia page.

We don't yet know what Trump will be like as a president, but personally I don't think any morally good person can defend a politician who will brazenly talk about banning an entire religion from their country.

P.S. To clarify, I don't like Clinton either, but America's broken democracy is another debate.

[KoKo5oVaR]

The discourse might sound extreme-right wing and he seems to stand out as an outsider, but don't forget that in the facts, unlike Hitler, Trump is not affiliated with an extreme right wing party and its representatives, but he is actually the candidate of the republican party.

 

Arnold is a republican too, guyyyyys

[blackdog]

@FrieChamp was only meant as a joke

[Sprony]

I don't like the comparisons with Hitler either. At least Hitler was able to make complete and logical sentences, plus he was a great public speaker. Even if you don't agree with what Hitler was saying (and I hope that almost nobody does) you simply can't deny he was saying it rather well. Trump is more like a 3 year old. Lots of incoherent rambling with some words you recognize. But instead of ice cream or pizza it's ISIS and China.

PS: @KoKo5oVaR That's true, but Arnold posted a video a while back urging all his followers not to vote for their party but for their country (so he didn't vote Trump).

PS2: @LizardPL You do realize @Buddy is also Polish right?

PS3: Oh and @r1ar, I've hidden that image. That's not something we want people to see in General Discussion. Although I can imagine it's not far from the truth.

[Vorontsov]

44 minutes ago, text_fish said:

Lol. Hilary Clinton has never been convicted of a crime. Of course that doesn't mean she hasn't actually committed any crimes

She will be

8 minutes ago, Sprony said:

@KoKo5oVaRI don't like the comparisons with Hitler either. At least Hitler was able to make complete and logical sentences, plus he was a great public speaker. Even if you don't agree with what Hitler was saying (and I hope that almost nobody does) you simply can't deny he was saying it rather well. Trump is more like a 3 years old. Lots of incoherent rambling with some words you recognize. But instead of ice cream or pizza it's ISIS and China.

Sprony these aren't even arguments, how well people bullshit their speech is a very trivial non-issue :/

Edited November 9, 2016 by Vorontsov

[text_fish]

5 minutes ago, Vorontsov said:

Sprony these aren't even arguments, how well people bullshit their speech is a very trivial non-issue :/

Umm. Arguably 125,000,000 people just cast their vote based on how well people bullshitted their speech! Hardly trivial. It's also interesting that more individuals actually voted for Clinton than Trump, so I guess she's the better bullshitter, but that was obvious in all the debates.

[Buddy]

The only candidate Arnold endorsed was John Kasich in the republican primaries.

[Vorontsov]

3 minutes ago, text_fish said:

Umm. Arguably 125,000,000 people just cast their vote based on how well people bullshitted their speech! Hardly trivial. It's also interesting that more individuals actually voted for Clinton than Trump, so I guess she's the better bullshitter, but that was obvious in all the debates.

I would disagree that 125,000,000 people voted based on how the candidates spoke. I would say it was based more on policies and who had the shadiest past