trump vs hillary

Status
Not open for further replies.
I try to avoid hyperbole about this stuff because my Grandparents spent a good portion of time in Concentration camps. That said, it's hard and expensive to deport millions of people at once . But if the people who voted for you expect action, it may be fiscally prudent to transfer the immigrants first to relocation camps while waiting to be deported. The conditions may not be great, but hey, it's better than where they are from, right? Of course we won't call them concentration camps and we won't intentionally kill anyone, but history will draw parallels.

I'm not saying that will definitely happen, but it's certainly a feasible scenario.

My parents watched some of their neighbors disappear over night. One day they're there, next day the house is empty and everyone is gone. No one ever asked, because everyone knew that this is what happened when you crossed someone in the government. Pretty sure that if you ask any of the 159M that voted for him, only a very small number are wanting deportations and interment camps. Most just want immigration reform and actual border control.
 
As an extreme moderate, I could never understand this mentality. You have pre-determined that whatever Trump is going to do will destroy the country. The mentality "my opinion is right, and if you think different, you are an asshole" is something that makes me believe anyone who is to either extreme with no room to compromise is the true asshole.

uDFmIDPzCo4znxgzKlT0_jgv4CqHkarUrQ005ED_HbclD4Ex32hmOHsAn95kbFc_WZMiOQ1BMlRj4Fu-vDLyOgnT3syuxfWFY8KxoEWpqd9gxcPzZnQUM8q76jkJzs7IQUNr_cUt

Climate Change (and not doing anything to stop it) will destroy our country and the world.



More in depth, here is what he says he will do, if given the chance.
Donald Trump said:
"Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:"
5 of these will never survive Congress. Term limits? Barring White House officials from lobbying...not gonna happen. Keep in mind, this is one the key things his supported want...and they won't get it. The one that has legs is:
"SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health)."
This will lead to fewer inspectors (of which we already have too few) for oil rigs, mines, industrial plants, etc. This will lead to accidents, death, explosions, and environmental damage. Without inspectors, corners get cut. I would not be surprised to see another Deep Water Horizon type incident.

"Seven actions to protect American workers:"
"FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal."
$50 trillion is approximately the total of all worth (money, coinage, etc) in the world (excluding derivatives). I'm not sure what he means by $50 trillion (is that over 1 year, 10 years, 20 years). Let's ignore that as artistic flair and get to the second part. Oil is a global market. The reason US pumps are turned off is because it's a lot cheaper to extract oil in Saudi Arabia vs hydraulic fracturing in Texas, North Dakota, etc. US jobs in the oil industry requires lower global supply and higher demand. US oil jobs will come back when you are paying $3+/gallon at the pump. And don't get me started on coal. Will he bring back the horse drawn carriage and get rid of the evil automobile? Sometimes it's best to let an industry die and retrain the workers (hell, it'll probably be cheaper, when factoring in externalities, to just pay all coalworkers a salary for 5 years to learn a new trade).

"SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward"
Pipelines leak. Leaks are bad for the environment. I disagree with this policy, but I don't believe it's evil (shortsighted and based in greed, yes). This is a difference of opinion.

"SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure."
Climate Change is bad for the world and the country. I also don't believe that fixing our water and environmental infrastructure (whatever that means) is something that Congress will approve. Obama tried to get approval for more infrastructure spending and was shut down by Congress.

"Five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:"
"FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama."
This is vague. which are unconstitutional?
"SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution."
This is what Presidents are usually supposed to do. In fact, I think Obama already nominated a replacement. The Senate leadership loves the Constitution, so I assume Merrick Garland will be confirmed now, making this a moot issue for Trump.

"THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities. ★ FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back. ★ FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.”"
I disagree with all of these, but that is the prerogative of the president. This will probably lead to an increased cost for food and many other services as Americans aren't fond of backbreaking labor for low pay. If enacted, Tomatoes and other vegetables are going to be very expensive.

I'll get to page 2 eventually.
 
Climate Change (and not doing anything to stop it) will destroy our country and the world.

Good lord. Didn't anyone take science in school? Climate has been changing constantly for billions of years. Last time I looked, the world hasn't been "destroyed" yet. And no matter what we do to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere (which I think we should btw), how are we going to stop the two biggest polluters on the planet - China and India?
 
Truly, does it matter to our lives that much who is in power??

Ask the gay and lesbian couples who had federal benefits extended to them via Obergefell v. Hodges.
Ask the people who have healthcare today because subsidies were ruled constitutional in King v. Burwell.
Ask the minority students who were able to get into college thanks to Affirmative Action, upheld in Grutter v. Bollinger.
Ask the women who have been given control over their own bodies thanks to Roe v. Wade.

The person sitting in the Oval Office can shape the path of the country for decades to come through their SCOTUS appointments.
 
Good lord. Didn't anyone take science in school? Climate has been changing constantly for billions of years. Last time I looked, the world hasn't been "destroyed" yet. And no matter what we do to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere (which I think we should btw), how are we going to stop the two biggest polluters on the planet - China and India?
Are you being serious with this argument? You're discounting decades of climate science by real experts because you learned something in science class? Global warming might not destroy the planet, just the pesky humans who infect it like a virus. Are we smarter than a virus? Maybe not.

We should do what it takes regardless of what other countries do. It's called leading by example. We combine that with the other carrot and stick options - reward them for doing the right things, sanction them for doing the wrong things.

It's ridiculous that environmentalism is branded as a "liberal" issue. Why wouldn't everyone want to invest in clean air and water and in the preservation of wilderness? Especially us mountain bikers. I'd think we'd be over the top for pretty much every environmental issue.
 
I lost one of my best friends to deportation under Obama. He was here since he was a little kid, doesn't really know anyone from where he was sent back to. Is Obama racist?
Deporting illegal aliens is not racist. Banning all immigration by people of a single religion or ethnic background (as Trump proposes) is racist.
 
And no matter what we do to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere (which I think we should btw), how are we going to stop the two biggest polluters on the planet - China and India?
Actually we are number 2 in that department I believe, and both China and India are currently on board with the Paris accord. If we withdraw, China has vowed to continue, India's participation is less certain.
 
Deporting illegal aliens is not racist. Banning all immigration by people of a single religion or ethnic background (as Trump proposes) is racist.

Do you honestly think that's worse than Hillary's strategy of going to where they live and murdering them from the sky?

How is it okay to bomb them but not okay to cease immigration from that same country?
 
Actually we are number 2 in that department I believe, and both China and India are currently on board with the Paris accord. If we withdraw, China has vowed to continue, India's participation is less certain.
China and India's deal is completely different than ours. If we had to play by the same rules as China does it wouldn't even be a topic of debate.

Our epa standards in a lot of manufacturing are so difficult that the entire industry has vanished from the US. But it made the pollution worse. The industry still exists, but in a country now with zero concern about pollution instead of here where we could have a moderate approach instead of impossible. And now the product needs to be shipped across the ocean and we lost the jobs.
Too tight of regulation just made the pollution worse.

Casting and plating still happen, but now completely unsupervised in a 3rd world country with child labor and complete disregard for the environment.
It got worse. And we lost the jobs and industry.
 
Actually we are number 2 in that department I believe, and both China and India are currently on board with the Paris accord. If we withdraw, China has vowed to continue, India's participation is less certain.

Right, which is why there is a giant cloud of smog you can see from space over southern India.
 
8/19/1934 was the date Hitler was elected president. Trumps campaign was very very similar to the one Hitler ran.

Yea, except that Hitler took away citizens guns after he took power so that there would be no resistance. That's your party's agenda I believe. Any other dumb and ignorant parallels you want to draw?

Holy shit your a bunch of bitches. The shit I'm reading on Facebook and the news. Fires and civil disruption? None of this happened when Obama won, where were the racists then? But keep spewing this bullshit.
 
Are you being serious with this argument? You're discounting decades of climate science by real experts because you learned something in science class? Global warming might not destroy the planet, just the pesky humans who infect it like a virus. Are we smarter than a virus? Maybe not.

We should do what it takes regardless of what other countries do. It's called leading by example. We combine that with the other carrot and stick options - reward them for doing the right things, sanction them for doing the wrong things.

It's ridiculous that environmentalism is branded as a "liberal" issue. Why wouldn't everyone want to invest in clean air and water and in the preservation of wilderness? Especially us mountain bikers. I'd think we'd be over the top for pretty much every environmental issue.

Where did I ever say climate change wasn't real or human-activity enhanced? Or that it's not a serious issue? I was commenting on the ridiculous hyperbole of the pp that climate change would "destroy the planet". And now I can add your nonsense that climate change will exterminate the human species. Somehow, with zero technology, humans managed to survive multiple ice ages and global warming periods. You seriously think this will kill us all off now? Laughable.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_3.htm

And yes the US has been leading by example. Our greenhouse emissions have been stable/declining for 15 years. Why isn't there a full-blown effort to build new nuclear power plants? Somehow liberals don't like that clean energy.
 
Last edited:
Actually we are number 2 in that department I believe, and both China and India are currently on board with the Paris accord. If we withdraw, China has vowed to continue, India's participation is less certain.

Yes you are right, I thought India was higher. But both India and China are increasing dramatically, and I doubt they take the Paris accord seriously. Ours are going down, and have been doing so for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom