Who is your president?

[EquALLity]

Exactly what a stalker would say! My home state is so red democrats could all get two votes and would likely still lose.

Like I said, some solidly red states might end up voting blue this election according to polls.
Come on, I can't even drive. And I have no interest in going to the Bible Belt.

Now don't forget a certain Presidential candidate agreed with him at the time, and voted for the war in Iraq as well...., and the American public was so against the anti-abortion policies, the next President went the exact opposite way.

Yeah, but Clinton didn't justify her vote with Jesus.

Actually, America is still quite split on abortion. But that doesn't really matter, I'm just saying that Bush actually was super bad, and that the speculation was reasonable.
Bush also gave the Presidential order that started the NSA domestic spying program, and he allowed the CIA to torture its prisoners. He really was that bad.

So are you saying one side is correct in all their platforms, and the other side is all wrong?

What? No, definitely not. I'm saying that one side is almost entirely correct on its platform, and the other side is almost entirely wrong (and not just incorrect, but deeply insane).

The center isn't the best when one side is so crazy that it declares porn a public menace and wants to establish Christianity as the state religion.

The Democrat party

Democratic Party*.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Democrat_Party

The Democrat party also it the party that spent $350 million dollars for anti-smoking material specifically targeted towards the LGBT community, (The guy with the rainbow pony avatar isn't against the LGBT community, but $350 mill?) The Republican party tries to make it easier for people to start and run a business (I've ran a few), and I will concede they favor the "Super" rich, but also try to make it easier for small businesses like mine to exist. (Once you start to pay out taxes, you will understand why I get so upset when tax money is spent on nonsensical projects. )

It was actually only $35.7 million, not $350 million. And it was the FDA, not the democrats (I actually don't know how the FDA decided to do that, it could've been because of a policy by democrats, but do you have evidence of that?).

Anyway, it's not a wash just because the republicans are correct on like four issues. The republican party is the major force behind why we spent $600 billion dollars on the military in 2015. Look at this graph: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/camp ... ed-states/

They're wrong on almost everything.

So basically, they both suck, and I'm tired of choosing between who sucks less. I would love to vote for someone for a change, instead of voting against the crazier of the two.

I would love to support a good candidate, but it's really a choice between the lesser of two evils. Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil, but it's LESS evil, which means you have a moral obligation to support it.

Yup, they're insane. And an idiot like Trump (who isn't very religious, if at all) breaking up the party could ensure the Republican party in its current form will cease to exist. But he went way to far with the bigotry, but the fact that he is so close to actually challenging Hillary for the POTUS position could make the Democrats realize they need to re-think some of their positions as well.

Trump didn't do so well because the democrats need to re-think their positions; he did so well because he's appealing to bigotry and ignorance.

I also think it's because people are tired of establishment politicians, but that's a problem with our politics in general, not the democrats specifically. He just happens to be anti-establishment and republican. Bernie Sanders, who is an anti-establishment democrat, beat Trump by landslides in the polls.

[PsYcHo]

Come on, I can't even drive. And I have no interest in going to the Bible Belt.

If my state goes blue, I'll give you my name, address, social security and credit card numbers.

Yeah, but Clinton didn't justify her vote with Jesus.

Which means she used logical reasoning and still got it wrong.

Actually, America is still quite split on abortion. But that doesn't really matter, I'm just saying that Bush actually was super bad, and that the speculation was reasonable.
Bush also gave the Presidential order that started the NSA domestic spying program, and he allowed the CIA to torture its prisoners. He really was that bad.

But Obama allowed that program to continue, until Snowden blew the whistle. And I am for personal choice, but I don't believe anyone without a uterus should be able to pass any laws concerning one. (Actually, when it comes to morality, I don't believe there should be any laws legislating morality, which one of the biggest problems I have with the Republicans.)

What? No, definitely not. I'm saying that one side is almost entirely correct on its platform, and the other side is almost entirely wrong (and not just incorrect, but deeply insane).

If we are talking about social issues, I agree. But they (democrats) sometimes act like they have a book of signed check from the American taxpayers, and they don't care how they spend it.

The center isn't the best when one side is so crazy that it declares porn a public menace and wants to establish Christianity as the state religion.

That's the further right side, not the center. ( PsYcHo considers making porn joke , thinks better of it and moves on

The Democrat party

Democratic Party*.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Democrat_Party

My brain has twice the years of usage on it, plus about a decade of severe chemical abuse, cut me some slack! (But I am definitely against that Democrat party!)

It was actually only $35.7 million, not $350 million. And it was the FDA, not the democrats (I actually don't know how the FDA decided to do that, it could've been because of a policy by democrats, but do you have evidence of that?).

Either I read it wrong, or the original site I saw had the facts wrong. But do you agree it was a silly use of money, and the Republicans would have been against it?

Anyway, it's not a wash just because the republicans are correct on like four issues. The republican party is the major force behind why we spent $600 billion dollars on the military in 2015. Look at this graph: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/camp ... ed-states/

They're wrong on almost everything.

There is definitely a massive amount of waste in the military, but a large segment of the population was alive when the majority of military "super" powers were all trying to kill each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties We have debated on the morality of saving one murderer from death, how much money is too much to prevent 60 million deaths?

I would love to support a good candidate, but it's really a choice between the lesser of two evils. Yes, the lesser of two evils is still evil, but it's LESS evil, which means you have a moral obligation to support it.

......but I don't have to like it..

Trump didn't do so well because the democrats need to re-think their positions; he did so well because he's appealing to bigotry and ignorance.

That is similar to the arguments used against the people who were for "Brexit", and despite no one thinking it would happen, it did. That is one of the reasons I have issues with the far left. You and I disagree on many things, but we discuss them and try to be rational and see the other person's side objectively. Some factions inside the democratic party like to call anyone who disagrees with their beliefs or actions "racist" or a "bigot." I spoke with some people about the "bathroom" issue, and suggested it wasn't all based on bigotry, and was called "bigot" and told I just didn't understand what the LGBT community had to deal with. Despite these people knowing absolutely nothing about me, and my not taking a side, I just proposed the possibility that not everyone against Trans-persons using the restroom of their choice was in fact a bigot, I was attacked for questioning the reasoning behind some people not being all for it. I agree there is a sizable portion of people who are bigots or ignorant that support Republicans (definitely a larger segment that those for the Democratic party), but when you group them all as ignorant bigots, it upsets the ones who may actually be willing to vote against the party, and keeps them from listening to any rational arguments the other side may have. (I'm new to formal debating, but I believe that falls into the ad hominum category, ie; You are for Trump, you are a bigot.)

I also think it's because people are tired of establishment politicians, but that's a problem with our politics in general, not the democrats specifically. He just happens to be anti-establishment and republican.

Ding Ding Ding! Yeah, this anti-establishment candidate turned out to be a complete moron ( "Trust me, it'll be great! ), but the other candidate is a lifetime politician who lies and changes her position to fit what people want to hear. (Um, yeah, that describes him too, but she should know better..)

(Nod to RedApple) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IyTipBayj8

[PsYcHo]

Come on, I can't even drive. And I have no interest in going to the Bible Belt.

Sorry for being so cryptic on this point, but I am seriously considering writing for a certain site, and perhaps starting a Vlog type channel, and my views on certain subject matter may be highly unpopular. I'm not at all worried about you, but I intentionally have nearly zero social media footprints, (Don't even have a Facebook page ), so if I do decide to "put myself out there", I won't have to worry about a doxxing attack revealing my identity, which I only care about because of the other people in my life who don't deserve to have their lives intruded on by people who may be out to attack me. (My job takes me all over the country, so even trying to track my IP would just lead to a McDonalds with decent wi-fi )

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Wow Zzzz, your English translations have improved whenever it is a political topic. Glad to see you found a better program than Google Translate.

I have decided to follow RedApple's advice and vote for President Rhino. "All hail President Rhino!!" Third party candidates have no chance, but at least I won't feel like I need a shower after choosing one of the other two choices.

(And as standard practice, I usually just disagree with EquALLity. It always ensures a spirited debate!)

No internet programme, I have used a book to learn better English. It has helped me in all topics, not just Politics, however, as I like to talk about Politics most of the time, you likely haven't noticed me talking good English on other topics. Is President Rhino a joke candidate? In the UK, we have a similar party called the Monster Raving Loonies.

[EquALLity]

Sorry for being so cryptic on this point, but I am seriously considering writing for a certain site, and perhaps starting a Vlog type channel, and my views on certain subject matter may be highly unpopular. I'm not at all worried about you, but I intentionally have nearly zero social media footprints, (Don't even have a Facebook page ), so if I do decide to "put myself out there", I won't have to worry about a doxxing attack revealing my identity, which I only care about because of the other people in my life who don't deserve to have their lives intruded on by people who may be out to attack me. (My job takes me all over the country, so even trying to track my IP would just lead to a McDonalds with decent wi-fi )

Ahhh, ok. I don't really see how anyone would find you just by knowing what state you live in, but ok.

Can I ask, what site are you considering writing for, and about what controversial subject? Or do you not want to post that on here?

Which means she used logical reasoning and still got it wrong.

Yeah, but my point was merely that Bush DID bring Christianity into government.

But Obama allowed that program to continue, until Snowden blew the whistle. And I am for personal choice, but I don't believe anyone without a uterus should be able to pass any laws concerning one. (Actually, when it comes to morality, I don't believe there should be any laws legislating morality, which one of the biggest problems I have with the Republicans.)

1) That's true, Obama did allow it to continue, and most politicians on both sides support it. Bush did start the program, however.
2) Well, isn't all legislation inherently about morality? Murder is illegal because it's immoral. The problem is that republicans don't care about morality when it comes to social issues; they care about religion (specifically Christianity).

If we are talking about social issues, I agree. But they (democrats) sometimes act like they have a book of signed check from the American taxpayers, and they don't care how they spend it.

That's the narrative the republicans have put out, but they actually do a lot of wasteful spending as well. IMO their policies lead to more government spending when you really think about it-
1) War in Iraq- $1.7 trillion, primarily supported by republicans
2) Military spending 2015- almost $600 billion
3) Wall Street bailouts, which were done because of republican under-regulation of Wall Street- at least $700 billion, real cost may be much higher.
4) Climate change- will cost us a lot of money if we don't get out act together
5) War on Drugs 2015- $15 billion

etc. etc.

That's the further right side, not the center. ( PsYcHo considers making porn joke , thinks better of it and moves on

That's not the far right anymore though, it's just the right now. It's the official position of the republican party- it's in their platform.

I'm not saying that's the center, I'm saying that when one side is so horrible that it declares porn a menace and tries to establish Christianity as a state religion that the center can no longer be reasonable.

The center of establishing Christianity as a state religion and not doing that is still going to be terrible.
The center of approving gay conversion therapy and not supporting it is still terrible.
The center of saying gay people should be discriminated against and they should be equal is still terrible.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

My brain has twice the years of usage on it, plus about a decade of severe chemical abuse, cut me some slack! (But I am definitely against that Democrat party!)

Just letting you know.

Either I read it wrong, or the original site I saw had the facts wrong. But do you agree it was a silly use of money, and the Republicans would have been against it?

They would've, because they're against gay people and don't want programs to help them. They'd be against it for the wrong reasons, but yeah, they would be against it and it's a silly waste of money.

There is definitely a massive amount of waste in the military, but a large segment of the population was alive when the majority of military "super" powers were all trying to kill each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties We have debated on the morality of saving one murderer from death, how much money is too much to prevent 60 million deaths?

But we're not living in that era anymore. America has no immediate existential threat.

......but I don't have to like it..

Haha, I don't like it either. I don't really like the idea of campaigning for Hillary Clinton, but I'm going to hold my nose and do it, just like you should hold your nose and vote for her.

That is similar to the arguments used against the people who were for "Brexit", and despite no one thinking it would happen, it did. That is one of the reasons I have issues with the far left. You and I disagree on many things, but we discuss them and try to be rational and see the other person's side objectively. Some factions inside the democratic party like to call anyone who disagrees with their beliefs or actions "racist" or a "bigot." I spoke with some people about the "bathroom" issue, and suggested it wasn't all based on bigotry, and was called "bigot" and told I just didn't understand what the LGBT community had to deal with. Despite these people knowing absolutely nothing about me, and my not taking a side, I just proposed the possibility that not everyone against Trans-persons using the restroom of their choice was in fact a bigot, I was attacked for questioning the reasoning behind some people not being all for it. I agree there is a sizable portion of people who are bigots or ignorant that support Republicans (definitely a larger segment that those for the Democratic party), but when you group them all as ignorant bigots, it upsets the ones who may actually be willing to vote against the party, and keeps them from listening to any rational arguments the other side may have. (I'm new to formal debating, but I believe that falls into the ad hominum category, ie; You are for Trump, you are a bigot.)

Well, if you support Trump, you're either: a bigot (most likely), ignorant (also very likely in addition to being a bigot), or dogmatically anti-establishment.

An ad-hominem would be to say an argument is invalid, or to dismiss said argument, because of a quality of the person presenting it. I'm not doing that, I'm just explaining why I think Trump has been successful. I genuinely believe it's because he's appealed to bigotry and taken advantage of ignorance, not because the democratic party needs better policies relative to the republicans.

Ding Ding Ding! Yeah, this anti-establishment candidate turned out to be a complete moron ( "Trust me, it'll be great! ), but the other candidate is a lifetime politician who lies and changes her position to fit what people want to hear. (Um, yeah, that describes him too, but she should know better..)

That's what all politicians do though, it's not specific to democrats.

[PsYcHo]

No internet programme, I have used a book to learn better English. It has helped me in all topics, not just Politics, however, as I like to talk about Politics most of the time, you likely haven't noticed me talking good English on other topics. Is President Rhino a joke candidate? In the UK, we have a similar party called the Monster Raving Loonies.

Check out the link for President Rhino I posted, it is captioned in english. I'm getting ready to learn another language myself, which books did you use, and do they have more than just Japanese and English?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

No internet programme, I have used a book to learn better English. It has helped me in all topics, not just Politics, however, as I like to talk about Politics most of the time, you likely haven't noticed me talking good English on other topics. Is President Rhino a joke candidate? In the UK, we have a similar party called the Monster Raving Loonies.

Check out the link for President Rhino I posted, it is captioned in english. I'm getting ready to learn another language myself, which books did you use, and do they have more than just Japanese and English?

It is a dictionary, I am sorry but the one I use is Japanese and English, but you can get a dictionary for another language.

[onlyifchased]

Right now Clinton is up 12 points from Trump in my state in the polls. If that remains the case, I will vote Jill Stein, though I know she has no chance. If there was the slightest chance of my state going red, I'd hold my nose and vote for Clinton. If you're Bernie supporter and live somewhere remotely possibly a swing state, I seriously cannot understand why you wouldn't vote for Clinton.

[Red]

Wise decision, PsYcHo.

[EquALLity]

Right now Clinton is up 12 points from Trump in my state in the polls. If that remains the case, I will vote Jill Stein, though I know she has no chance. If there was the slightest chance of my state going red, I'd hold my nose and vote for Clinton. If you're Bernie supporter and live somewhere remotely possibly a swing state, I seriously cannot understand why you wouldn't vote for Clinton.

Exactly. I think you should vote for Jill Stein if you live in a blue state to help hurt the two-party system (be careful and check the polls to see how your state currently leans this election though, Trump has been in the lead in PA for ex. Crazy election).