Iran vs Israel

My main point is that peace between those countries is nigh on impossible. It's interesting to see foreign policy influence people's vote as opposed to domestic policy even when nothing can be done about foreign policy but a lot can be achieved domestically.

For those countries to have peace, they have to want peace. But the more you hear the case from either side, the more you realize this is a situation that will never be resolved.

So why worry about it when there are more important issues closer to home.

Considering that the Pentagon and the Kremlin do most of the geopolitical meddling, Presidents such as Kennedy, Reagan actually sought to look past the cold-war rhetoric and deal with the opposing super power on good terms.

Have you noticed though that the cold war is heating up only now China is becoming a major player too. Maybe it would be a good thing to have a President who doesn't try to stoke the flames.

But then again, the Pentagon/CIA/Kremlin/KGB always seem to be doing their own thing. Obama bans torture, for example, only to find they merely outsourced it. Unbelievable.

Look, there really isn't a debate or a middle ground here.

There is for those who don't practice hysteria. A lot of pro-HRC anti-DJT supporters don't argue on issue, but instead resort to hysteria.

People are busy so they make up their mind on hearsay. When I watched the debates and then the reporting on the debates, it was as if news outlets were reporting on a different debate entirely. So it's no wonder that HRC supporters are pumped with negativity about DJT so much that they lose objectivity and respond with hysteria.

You'd be surprised how similar HRC (prior to 2008) is on policy compared to DJT with the exception of free-trade (a very big deal, if you properly understood it).

I'm not being hysterical. Looked at rationally, Trump is such a terrible candidate, he's a punchline in most countries.

Again, Clinton wouldn't be my preferred candidate, but compared to Trump? It's not even a contest.

Again, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'll be damned if that's not a bullshit list. Hillary's should much longer than 1 and some of Trump's list is crap he said, not stuff he did.

This may surprise you, but I'm pretty sure that article was not meant to be taken 100% seriously.

This may surprise you, but I'm pretty sure that article was not meant to be taken 100% seriously.

LOL. The internet and its attempted sarcasm. It's cute that you actually said that. But if Slate has to use that level of bias to make a point, then it needs to be called out for it.

There is for those who don't practice hysteria. A lot of pro-HRC anti-DJT supporters don't argue on issue, but instead resort to hysteria.

I just need to bring this up again. The hysteria here is all on one side. If you watched the RNC, you will have seen screaming, demented people practically frothing at the mouth... and that was just the speakers. The people outside are even more unhinged.

Trump is not a normal candidate.

Even senior republicans are against him. Do you think Mitt Romney is hysterical? How about George Bush (either of them)? Michael Steele? John McCain? Condoleezza Rice? Colin Powell? The bloody Koch brothers?

Or newspapers like the Arizona Republic, or the San Diego Union-Tribune (both of whom have endorsed a Democratic candidate for the first time in over 100 years)?

I tell you, this hysteria is catching. Maybe they're all "bleeding out of their you-know-where"....

If you look into it, most politicians (even ex presidents) really aren't too bright

Thats not really true. The presidents IQ hoax in 2002 prompted several institutions to compile accurate estimates of presidential IQs. The 2006 Simonton study showed that every US president has had an above average IQ with the average being estimated at 147 points.

I'm not sure what an 'accurate estimate' even means but Kennedy's estimated IQ in that study was 151 when his actually IQ was tested to be 119.

I think the US two party system is the culprit here.

It's not a two party system. There are more than two parties.

I can't take a HRC supporter seriously if they haven't spent much time giving Jill Stein thoughtful consideration (especially after Bernie Sanders "lost" the nomination).

Iran vs Israel; He [Trump] doesn't understand the word "compromise".

I'd say Iran and Israel are the ones that (politically) don't have the word 'compromise' in their vocabulary. I think both the U.S. and Russia are trying to 'win' over Iran. But that's another story. Right now, you have bigger concerns, like the nation's unemployment rate. Lay-offs, rising homelessness, people living in their cars, tent cities... that doesn't bother you?

A guy who will only accept the results of an election if he wins it isn't undermining democracy?

So when Al Gore raises the issue (in 2000), it's worthy of your attention, but when a Republican does so, it's just paranoia?

Hitler!

That to me is a sign you don't take politics seriously anyhow. Instead of popular conjecture, you should be reviewing policy and how that affects you and your future. Instead of only showing an interest in politics once every fours years, take an interest in it everyday.

I think its probably important that your colleagues actually respect you.

More like "social conformity". I have more respect for the individual that think for themselves rather than merely go along with what is popular. Have you heard of the Asch experiment?

Look at successful businesses today, rarely are they lead by paper thin spokes people...

Ah, an outsider.

I'll just leave your delightful faith in CEOs intact.

If you prioritize experience/knowledge than certainly Hillary is an obvious choice.

Highly disagree with Hillary being the one with more experience and knowledge. If she is elected, she will no longer have to pander to voters, and instead can concentrate fully on acting in the best interests of her major donors. Most HRC supporters are voting for her for superficial reasons. They really should get to know her first before deciding. #NeverTrump isn't exactly what I'd call research into reasons of why to vote for the opposing candidate.

Trump is a business man who wants to make America great again.

Indeed.

Unemployment above 2% is not great.

So yeah, making America "great" again is perfectly logical.

You can't expect people to take jobs that don't exist. And you can't "create" jobs without industry. When industry is leaving for the lowest bidder, it is the job of your representatives to protect its taxpayers (after all, what exactly are they getting paid for?).

You don't get to fall back on "I'm just a businessman" so you can hide your ['ignorance'] and ['inability'] of making global and strategic decisions in the best interests of the US (and by extension our allies).

You are describing the job of the Pentagon/CIA (who brief the President with their analysis and advice). And frankly, most global strategic decisions are based on business (whether governments like to admit or not).

Trump & Women

So "innocent until proven guilty" applies to HRC but not DJT?

And of course we all know the universal truth that women never make false allegations. Women are simply incapable of lying out of spite or for financial gain. And if anyone says otherwise, well then clearly they are nothing more than misogynistic liars!

Sorry, don't know what happened there.

Trump is only for white Christian male Americans.

So you prefer to be blind to the fact that there are African-American Christians who support Trump, non-Christian African-Americans who support Trump, Mexican-Americans, women, even Muslim-Americans who support Trump who would admit it if they weren't so afraid of other Muslims. But since I suspect you get most of your information from TV then I can understand why you have a narrow view of just how much and how diverse support for D.J. Trump there really is.

Look, there really isn't a debate or a middle ground here.

There is for those who don't practice hysteria. A lot of pro-HRC anti-DJT supporters don't argue on issue, but instead resort to hysteria.

People are busy so they make up their mind on hearsay. When I watched the debates and then the reporting on the debates, it was as if news outlets were reporting on a different debate entirely. So it's no wonder that HRC supporters are pumped with negativity about DJT so much that they lose objectivity and respond with hysteria.

You'd be surprised how similar HRC (prior to 2008) is on policy compared to DJT with the exception of free-trade (a very big deal, if you properly understood it).

I'm not sure if you identify as a conservative or a Republican, but I'd think that Trump's $11 trillion addition to the debt would trump (excuse the pun) you saving $22k in taxes. Seeing as you'll be giving money back and further wrecking the economy in the mid to long run.

The debt to the Federal Reserve is illegitimate. The Federal Reserve Act usurped the exclusive right of Congress to print/coin money. In other words; You shouldn't be expected to pay taxes to cover a debt that does not deserve to exist in the first place. The Federal Reserve is a private entity. There is more debt than money. That shouldn't even be possible.

I should probably repeat that: There isn't enough U.S. dollars in existence to cover the Federal Reserve debt. It's bogus.

you argue like a flat earther. Respond to a lot of points badly but just good enough that's its too time consuming for anyone to actually debate you properly.

Seams to be a trend among trump supporters in this thread.

Pick 1 or 2 main points and get to the bottom of them...

As example: My argument about locker room talk, no one managed to actually retort on that after it was pretty much summed up to be an absolute black line unless you're motives are "I hate the status quo this much". The debate can end right there imo until someone can show why he isn't a sick man.

The pro trump arguments keep changing without actually addressing the critical issues.

Right a guy who will only accept the results of an election if he wins it isn't undermining democracy, my bad.

I mean, no offense, but... counting votes and not being sure about the result, then counting again and getting a totally different result... people not understanding what to vote, voting computers that don't work (or do work, nobody seemed to know for sure) and allegations of false ballot papers, thousands of dead people having voted, etc etc... talking about threatening democracy?

Heck, even the Simpsons did it! Edgar Neubauer, eh?

if any such thing happened in Russia, one would cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of media. Oh wait, that's indeed what happens pretty much every time when there's elections in [list of 50 countries].

Bush was a perfectly good (*cough* *cough* *choking*) president despite anything that happened during the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008. What makes you think Trump could be much worse? Or Clinton, for that matter. Get real. Democracy is not at stake, none more than it has been during your entire lifetime.

That being said... the People should have done something when there was still a possibility to get a good candidate. There exists such a thing as primary elections, no? The People didn't care.

Now they have two bad candidates to choose from... so, shoot them or live with them. (I'm saying "shoot them" not because I'm really suggesting that, but because I've heard that death is the only legal way a party can bring forth a replacement candidate now -- so if you think the candidates are truly that much worse than previous presidents and that is the only solution, well, there's a logical conclusion).

If you look into it, most politicians (even ex presidents) really aren't too bright

Thats not really true. The presidents IQ hoax in 2002 prompted several institutions to compile accurate estimates of presidential IQs. The 2006 Simonton study showed that every US president has had an above average IQ with the average being estimated at 147 points.

I'm not sure what an 'accurate estimate' even means but Kennedy's estimated IQ in that study was 151 when his actually IQ was tested to be 119.

The IQs are adjusted up to reflect modern IQs as the median increases over time. Still even if they used his 1960s IQ of 119 it is still way higher than the average American.

Right a guy who will only accept the results of an election if he wins it isn't undermining democracy, my bad.

Not something limited to Trump, or even limited to Republicans. Only when democrats don't accept the result, it's perfectly acceptable. Gore vs Bush rings a bell? (Ironically, in this case, it was indeed justified!). I mean, no offense, but... counting votes and not being sure about the result, then counting again and getting a totally different result... people not understanding what to vote, voting computers that don't work (or do work, nobody seemed to know for sure) and allegations of false ballot papers, thousands of dead people having voted, etc etc... talking about threatening democracy?Heck, even the Simpsons did it! Edgar Neubauer, eh? if any such thing happened in Russia, one would cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of media. Oh wait, that's indeed what happens pretty much every time when there's elections in [list of 50 countries]. Bush was a perfectly good (*cough* *cough* *choking*) president despite anything that happened during the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2008. What makes you think Trump could be much worse? Or Clinton, for that matter. Get real. Democracy is not at stake, none more than it has been during your entire lifetime. That being said... the People should have done something when there was still a possibility to get a good candidate. There exists such a thing as primary elections, no? The People didn't care.Now they have two bad candidates to choose from... so, shoot them or live with them. (I'm saying "shoot them" not because I'm really suggesting that, but because I've heard that death is the only legal way a party can bring forth a replacement candidate now -- so if you think the candidates are truly that much worse than previous presidents and that is the only solution, well, there's a logical conclusion).

He's pretty much a sociopath.

Did it ever occur to you that all politicians, with a possible very few singular exceptions, are sociopaths? That's more or less a basic requirement. How do you successfully lie, and lie again, and lie again about not having lied, otherwise?

How can you even do an election campaign where you do anything from insulting the other candidate to outright spreading libel? Someone who isn't a sociopath couldn't do that without getting ill effects. How can you actively sabotage the government while in the opposition, and then blame them for failing to deliver (because the opposition blocked everything)? Is that what "normal" people do, and is that what "normal" people can live with?

(Sorry, forgot to answer that question of yours: No, I don't think anyone whined before elections happened back then, although I wouldn't know for sure. That being said, people have been voting by letter for how long already... 4-6 weeks?)