I wouldn't be surprised if Trump gets impeached from office. I mean, the law literally states that he can't make money from any of his businesses. He can only make money from his president salary of $400000 per year. EDIT: Just recently found out that there is no such rule.
As much as I'd love an impeachment, it's not a viable option at all because then Mike Pence would be in full control. That guy epitomises the disease that is right wing conservatism in the USA, and shows everything that is wrong with the Republican party. It's going to be a rough four years. We've got to deal with a christian taliban. Trump chose the worst people for government positions. Almost makes me think he did it intentionally. Fuck religion. Fuck the American right wing. Why can't everyone be progressive and rational? Why do we still have religious idiots who think aborting a small clump of cells is murder when they don't want to let in refugees from the Middle East who are in dire straits. Shame. The right wing is what's holding the USA back and preventing us from progressing to the level of Australia and New Zealand, several European nations, and the Nordic countries. We still have racists and Neo-Nazis. Shame.
Got that from Breitbart and Fox? You've repeated that so many times and have never provided any evidence. No, she did not laugh at the rape victim. She had to defend her rapist and was not able to do otherwise. Like any human being would, she coped with dark humour. As a lawyer, she had to defend that rapist against her will. She laughed at the absurdity of the situation. Stop using "but Clinton is bad too" for fuck's sake. Stop brushing off the fact that Trump is a danger to America's democracy. That is not a fucking exaggeration. I love how you call Clinton a warmonger, yet conveniently never bring up the Iraq War that the Republicans voted for in 2003. You never mention their stupid idea of war on drugs. The Republicans were the warmongers. Clinton was not the best choice, no doubt. No idea why the DNC chose her over Sanders. That does not change the fact that she was the fittest candidate for president. She was a Democrat. She's liberal, progressive, intellectual and tried her very best to ignore the double standard about her campaign. Don't just brush off anything I say as "still not as bad as Hillary" just because you don't like it. I don't know how you can even think for one moment that the current Republican president elect was better than Clinton. Democrats are far better than Republicans. Sanders was the key to helping America secure a liberal, progressive, rational, socialist, and democratic stance and progress to the level of a Nordic country. But no, we've still got racist assholes in the red states and the deep South. Fuck them.
I knew over half of americans were racist!!1!1!11!1 Maks totl snese!!! This contradicts the above comment. Democrats have always SUPPORTED racism, and still do with urban plantations.
Hey I am choosing being bit by a less venomous spider here. Evil without a sense of direction is worse than evil with a sense of direction. She is What you think I support those people? They are both horrible. The democrats are doing bad things in a concealed way the republicans are not.
You've been indoctrinated by conservative propaganda. That's cute. Old Democrats from back then were racist. I mean, everyone was. Then we adopted the liberal, progressive stance we have today because we're smart and have moral. We unsurprisingly do not support racism. Obama is a Democrat. Your point has been refuted. Like what lol. Clinton's emails? That was merely a group chat between Clinton's staff that was exposed. Comey, the Republican director of the FBI, found nothing wrong with Clinton's emails, twice. Democrats have done nothing wrong. Clinton also gains frequent support from bipartisan groups. Also, since you seem to think Clinton is such a warmonger, tell me the wars which she has induced. Simply repeating "she is a warmonger" doesn't make it true. Clinton got Iran to accept the nuclear deal. Holy shit she's so evil. Fuck's sake. Why do you feel the need to balance things out. "Lol Clinton is bad too". Democrats have been the best party in the USA for a while. Liberalism, progressiveness, a love for science, rationalism, intellectualism, and secularism. Although, I agree that we need to update our party a bit. But think about it. We had Sanders as a candidate. That's what Democrats stand for. The Republicans are a christian taliban. Look at Mike Pence. That piece of shit is evil. Got that from Breitbart? You realise the majority of right wing conservatives are in the South right? Yea those old Confederate wannabes. You know, that short lived Confederacy that was really racist. Yea, that one. The Republicans are the true warmongers here. Why the fuck would anyone open relations with Russia? Trump did it because he's fucking stupid. Why do you think Putin hacked the election? The CIA found evidence of this. If you're president elect (who called for Russian intervention in the past) and choose not to believe the CIA despite evidence, you're a fucking traitor. He encouraged espionage. That's evil. That is warmongering. Why do you think Putin likes this? Because now that the USA under Trump will befriend Russia, the sanctions imposed on them will be lifted. Now Russia will be free to completely invade and possibly annex Ukraine and the Baltic countries with no fear of sanctions. That is a cause for war right there. I knew you two would be the only ones to try and contradict me with whatever right wing propaganda you have. It's amusing.
ISIS: You realise ISIS was a result of the Iraq War in 2003 right? That was when Republicans were in power (Bush administration). Iraq had no WMD's and the CIA said so, but the Bush administration chose to invade Iraq anyway. Saddam Hussein was evil, fuck that guy. But under his regime, Iraq was stable. Any person with a brain knows this. When Bush came and fucked up it all up, it destabilised Iraq a lot. Libya: As for Libya, you realise there was evidence that Gaddafi was killing citizens right? He ran a corrupt welfare state. Speak out against Gaddafi and your home, money, income, etc. would be seized by the government. Secondly, NATO was responsible for the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011 before the US itself became involved (USA is a NATO member but did not participate in the Libya campaign until later). Specifically, it was Britain and France who wanted to invade Libya to help overthrow Gaddafi. However, they did not have the tech assets to safely penetrate Libya's radar. So they came to the US. Obama was hesitant, but eventually agreed to assist. Most of the bombing in Libya was done by NATO member Norway by the way. NATO was able to take advantage of the Arab Spring, a series of anti-government protests which spread throughout the Middle East, to overthrow Gaddafi. So Europe was working on overthrowing the dictator in Libya before the US ever got involved. So stop spreading misinformation. Clinton was not responsible for it.
Yeah let's suck his dick No It is because he uses gold as currency and not the US dollar. Yes they are that petty. Yeah she voted for the Iraq war.
What are you referring to specifically? Yea, but the ones who pushed the idea forward were the Republicans. Clinton did vote for it, like many other politicians in the government at the time, both Democrats and Republicans. Clinton later acknowledged she regretted it. So, this doesn't change the fact that it wasn't her fault at all. She did not cause the Iraq War. It did cause her to lose against Obama in the Democratic primaries in 2008. Again, stop spreading misinformation and right wing propaganda. No
Couldn't be arsed. I don't know why but I cringe at the thought of being 'involved' in a school. I mean, I guess a debate club wouldn't be too bad. Intellectually stimulating, but if all people do in such a club is cite Facebook as a source, I'm out.
You seem to have a large amount of hatred for them. One would have expected you to hate Clinton because she used to be a segregationist and was for law enforcment stopping people on the streets for nothing. Please stop assuming I am a right wing person. This is politics not a game to see if team left or right wins.
How does the New York Times sound? One team from a certain school I argued did that. It was hilarious.
That is something frequently parroted by the right wing. Nothing wrong with what I said. You've absorbed right wing rhetoric, hence why I'm saying it. Once again, stop spreading misinformation. Clinton did show support for Barry Goldwater at the time. However, it's important to note that Goldwater was not some racist prick. In fact, he had supported civil rights movements before. He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the bill contained a clause regulating the behaviour of private enterprise which he found unconstitutional. He thought that this portion of the bill was not enforceable without a federal police force. He feared the bill would lead to racial quotas, hence his vote against it. "I realize fully that the Federal government has a responsibility in the field of civil rights, but it would serve no purpose at this juncture to review my position as to just where that Federal responsibility appropriately lies. I supported the civil rights bills which were enacted in 1957 and 1960, and my public utterances during the debates on those measures and since reveal clearly the areas in which I feel the Federal responsibility lies and Federal legislation on this subject can be both effective and appropriate. Many of those areas are encompassed in this bill, and to that extent I favor it. I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of so-called 'public accommodations' and in the area of employment — to be more specific, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these two areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional republic in which fifty sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal government. If it is the wish of the American people that the Federal government should be granted the power to regulate in these two areas and in the manner contemplated by this bill, then I say that the Constitution should be so amended by the people as to authorize such action in accordance with the procedures for amending the Constitution which that great document itself prescribes. I say further that for this great legislative body to ignore the Constitution and the fundamental concepts of our governmental system is to act in a manner which could ultimately destroy the freedom of all American citizens, including the freedoms of the very persons whose feelings and whose liberties are the major subject of this legislation. My basic objection to this measure is, therefore, constitutional. But, in addition, I would like to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the people of America, regardless of their race, color, or creed, the implications involved in the enforcement of regulatory legislation of this sort. To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions. It also bids fair to result in the development of an 'informer' psychology in great areas of our national life — neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an 'informer' psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society. I repeat again: I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help — but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creation of a police state. And so, because I am unalterably opposed to the destruction of our great system of government and the loss of our God-given liberties, I shall vote "No" on this bill. The vote will be reluctantly cast, because I had hoped to be able to vote "Yea" on this measure as I have on the civil rights bills which have preceded it; but I cannot, in good conscience to the oath that I took when assuming office, cast my vote in the affirmative. With the exception of Titles II and VII, I could whole-heartedly support this bill; but with their inclusion, not measurably improved by the compromise version we have been working on, my vote must be "No."" So no, Goldwater did not vow for segregation at that time. That is a completely false claim and is right wing propaganda. Clinton was a self proclaimed "Goldwater girl" at the time, but her political views later changed. Remember, she was only 16 at the time that she supported Goldwater, and could not even vote at the time. She did not support him for opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following Martin Luther King Jr's assassination, Clinton organised a two day strike at Wellesley college, working with African American students to recruit more African American students and staff. At this point she began to lean left. It's obvious that she really cared about the civil rights of everyone and was clearly not a segregationist. When she attended the 1968 RNC, Clinton was upset due to the way Nixon's campaign portrayed Rockefeller, and felt that his portrayal had racist overtones. At this point, Clinton left the Republican party for good and became a Democrat. Quit spreading false unsubstantiated claims and misinformation. New York Times isn't a bad source. Getting your info from Facebook, BuzzFeed, etc. is bad.
Major News sources are always bad when debating. But yeah, I'd die if someone ripped out a facebook quote xD
Depends. Most news sources are ok. However citing Breitbart is a terrible idea. That site is a conservative news source and has a bunch of alt-right Nazis and racists on there. Fox leans conservative too but you can use it to advantage to argue against the right wing or simply have a wider range of sources.
Lol. That works in internet debates (bc no one cares about sources) but you'll get shredded in an organized one.
Oh I see what you mean. I say this though because in political debates you don't have much of an array of sources due to biased sources.
truuuue. I wish there was such thing as neutral news outlets, but sadly everyone wants: 1) Money 2) an opinion
One day 'Murica will catch up. One day we will become a socialist, liberal, progressive, innovative, rational, intellectual, and secular utopia. We'll get rid of the regressive, conservative, racist, religious right wing. Us Democrats will fight for it. We'll catch up to you European blokes. One day
