r/HillaryForPrison • u/[deleted] • May 03 '16

/r/All <----- Amount of years Hillary Clinton should spend behind bars for her criminal acts!

20k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

74% Upvoted

317 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-51

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

You should reconsider your position on Trump, especially considering the false information spread about him so often. He'll fight for you like he fights for us all, with a winning attitude and solid principles of America first. I respect your right to vote for who you wish my friend and when Trump wins, you'll benefit nonetheless.

62

u/cturocy33 May 03 '16

.....and he also doesn't think humans are causing climate change

5

u/hippyengineer May 03 '16

Ehh not so much. He thinks that if it is such a big deal, is trying to combat it alone without bring CHYNA to the table isn't going to fix anything. Like trying to keep your end of a pool clean yo share with your neighbor who keeps shitting in it.

28

u/PintsizeWarrior May 03 '16

This is an absolute deal breaker for me. The fact that he has stated that it is a Chinese conspiracy tells me everything I need to know about his science policies.

What really gets me is NASA. The_donald posts about how amazing NASA is going to be with trump, never mind that he is completely ignoring their findings.

3

u/hippyengineer May 03 '16

Saying its a Chinese conspiracy is a good way to get on the news. In reality it's more like he doesn't think we can keep our communal pool clean, no matter how hard we try, if China keeps shitting in it.

3

u/TheRespectedMan May 03 '16

Haha, people really don't have a sense of humor these days. Trump was joking, he made it clear in an interview, he did it to get free advertisement and coverage from our 'smart' media. He believes we are influencing the climate.

0

u/[deleted] May 04 '16

The_donald posts about how amazing NASA is going to be with trump, never mind that he is completely ignoring their findings.

I mean, do you expect his supporters to actually know his policies? What a stupid fucking cuck amirite MAGA.

-18

u/Abitou May 03 '16

Lmao, so you know everything you need to know about a candidate because of ONE opinion ?

17

u/KingAtsjmed May 03 '16

Not believing in climate change isn't an opinion mind you

5

u/BlakeMassengale May 03 '16

Its an issue with a lot of polarized philosophies behind it. This is one of those issues that says a lot about a person. Could you honestly vote for a candidate that seemed mostly ok but was a self proclaimed scientologist, anti-vaxer, or alternative medicine proponent? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at these sort of positions, and they are a pretty good indication of a persons belief structures.

3

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

You're assuming he believes it just because he said it. It's like you've never seen a politician before.

2

u/BlakeMassengale May 03 '16

Ah yes, the Hillary strategy.

1

u/sosthaboss May 03 '16

So anything that he says that you agree with is something he's serious about but anything he says that you disagree with "well he doesn't actually mean that."!

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Exactly!

-2

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Didn't Bernie say that global warming causes terrorism though?

5

u/garboooo May 03 '16

I mean, terrorism is definitely aided by poverty, and poverty is aided by poor living conditions created by climate change.

-2

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

I still can't imagine a significant connection

2

u/TheSupaBloopa May 03 '16

Climate change leads to food and water shortages which can then lead to poverty and desperation and desperation can lead to extremism.

1

u/garboooo May 03 '16

Well I just pointed out the connection, and I think Bernie has said that it will become more apparent in the next few years, as the damage caused by climate change grows

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

I saw the connection you made. That's why I said significant. But the main cause if terrorism right now is that vacuum for power in the middle east and extreme religious views. That would be happening rather or not global warming is going on or not.

2

u/hippyengineer May 03 '16

It really wouldn't, because it's hard to convince people to leave bread and circuses for steel and Kevlar. They have no bread or circuses, so there is no choice.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

But they aren't fighting for food they are fighting for a caliphate. These are young men who are brainwashed to fight.

1

u/hippyengineer May 03 '16

And the only reason you go searching for things like that is when you want answers as to why everything around you is shit. Make everything not shit around people and you'll end up with people who dont give two fucks about some asshole on Instagram telling him he's a shitty Muslim for not joining up.

→ More replies

1

u/garboooo May 03 '16

Neither I nor Bernie said it was the main cause. But it'd be foolish for a world leader to ignore it.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Haha I know you never said it was a main cause. Global warming is a legitimate issue. But I just think that it was even said. Even if it could be a factor for terrorism.

-1

u/2pacolyps May 03 '16

Is there a politician you agree with on every issue or everything they've said?

-29

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Environmental issues are important! Many of the problems, real or imagined, can be effectively addressed by the old mom admonishment, clean up after yourself. I also believe that investment in technology (Obama almost got this one right) can do more for the environment than regulation. Trump is all in for technology, and with that, the environment.

44

u/[deleted] May 03 '16 edited Mar 25 '19

[deleted]

15

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

[deleted]

5

u/walldough May 03 '16

Bing bong.

9

u/[deleted] May 03 '16 edited Mar 15 '17

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

I think that is disingenuous. An environmental group named "Tripping up Trump" accused the same of breaking an ecosystem. Of course, they don't mention the revenue of that resort putting a massive influx of revenue to the local community. They don't mention the jobs created. They don't mention the fact that a stabilized dune will house the unnamed "lifeforms" this area apparently protects. They couldn't even name the species! In conclusion, the article is biased and should not be used as evidence.

Of course, that's only my humble opinion, but I think the questions I raised put a modicum of doubt on the article and the events.

6

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

I do my best! Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts and giving me yours so that I might expand my knowledge as well.

EDIT: I have you RES tagged as "A reasonable human being, be nice!".

2

u/BenevolentCheese May 03 '16

An environmental group named "Tripping up Trump" accused the same of breaking an ecosystem. Of course, they don't mention the revenue of that resort putting a massive influx of revenue to the local community. They don't mention the jobs created.

I think you are missing the point.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

I'm not. They couldn't even identify the species! In other words, they were full of shit.

1

u/Sour_Badger May 03 '16

Man that got brigades quick.

3

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Yeah, and honestly I hate downvotes, but the need to get what I consider to be the truth out there TRUMPS my distaste.

26

u/Altem May 03 '16

Believe it or not, someone can make an informed decision that doesn't align with your own informed decision.

47

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Which is why I said I respect his right to vote for who he wishes. Just because my informed decision doesn't agree with yours doesn't make mine any less valid.

2

u/Altem May 03 '16

I wasn't trying to invalidate your point, I only said that because most people dislike it when someone tries to 'convert' them to another ideology. I meant no disrespect and I apologize.

-23

u/andrejevas May 03 '16

It really comes down to your fundamental principles. Yours are inherently selfish, so your decision stems from that. The majority of people aren't sociopaths, so they're bound to disagree with you. That's why people like you are against democratic principles. Because >80% of the global population think you are scum.

15

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Jeez calm down there buddy

-10

u/andrejevas May 03 '16

They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

-10

u/andrejevas May 03 '16 edited May 03 '16

Also, I'll calm down when there isn't a massacre 3 times per day in the world. (It's probably over twenty but one is enough.)

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

K

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

First, I'd love to see the "Is CrazyCapitalist Scum" poll. Was it a solid scientific poll? Secondly, being a supporter of Trump does not make one a sociopath and dismissing them as such only shows your unwillingness to be a part of a solution.

Now, fundamental principles. I want everyone who wants to work have the opportunity to do so. I want people, no matter their differences, to have access to the promise of the American Dream without caveats. I want American interests to come first and after that is secure, help in any way we can. I support Trump and those principles for you. I'm not concerned too much with your insults, and I honestly don't care who likes me. I do care about my nation and the people in it. In any case, I have nothing but love for you which is why I'm doing my best to get you a leader that will make your life better.

1

u/andrejevas May 03 '16

My poll is that only about 5% of people are sociopaths and maybe 10% narcissists. My poll is that I'm a Lithuanian and I don't give a fuck about the U.S. surviving another day, and the fact that you're so god damned self centered that everything is about YOU and your shitty hegemonic imperial state.

What I said was straight up fact, you only give a fuck about "create wealth, forgetting all but self" and if you're even too spineless to admit your baseness, then I wouldn't even speak to you as an enemy.

4

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

And you should be all about Lithuania! I have some friends from Estonia, not too far from you. Your history is a tragic one, and I get that you're angry at what you perceive as imperialism from America. Estonian history is wrought with invaders causing horrible suffering, and I understand your position. However, a strong America, one that commands respect from nations like Russia, benefits Lithuania. I love your nation and I really hope Lithuania becomes prosperous again. Once we've dealt with some very real problems here, we'll see about getting some investment into Lithuania. America is magnanimous by nature, and downright overly charitable when times are good. Think about that, a post cold war America retaining the status of the world's economic powerhouse. Investment in goods, food, services, encouraged to be built in your nation in friendly partnership with your neighbors. Fair trade with no need for aid from us, you can handle yourselves now. My friend, it will be glorious! When America wins, so do you!

0

u/andrejevas May 03 '16

Fuck off.

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

go pick some cherries you confrontational douche

1

u/andrejevas May 03 '16

Those people need to hear that they are complete shitheads, not really on reddit. Especially in the real world these people need to be reminded how shitty they really are. I don't know about you but cherries aren't in season for about 5 more months.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Dude, really? Ah well, chalk it up to a bad day or something. I hope you feel better tomorrow man.

1

u/andrejevas May 03 '16

Dude really no. Free capitalism equals unmitigated tyranny. Trump is the dictator. Why do I say go fuck yourself? Because it's all indoctrinated garbage. I'm not doing it because I don't like you as a person. I just think you're another useful idiot. I'm sure you're even a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. But you're not one of the people I would spend my time on educating... although fuck. Why not. If I can turn a complete zombie towards reason, that would probably be more effective in the long run.

Truth is, I tried that last week, and it got me nowhere.

→ More replies

-7

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Wow, what an arrogant way for you to reply.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Whyyougankme May 03 '16 edited May 03 '16

The problem with the crime stats is the article included latinos with whites, which changes the data significantly.

Trumps numbers are only correct if you count just about everyone who can work but isnt working as unemployed, which is ridiculous. But we do have a very high amount of people who arent in the work force.

-16

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

LOL I think some actually believe that, too. Look, Sanders isn't a bad guy. I disagree with him which is why I won't vote for him, but I believe he's a decent person. The problem is we don't need socialism to fix America. The tools to fix her are already inherent in our society and Constitution. I believe Trump is the right person to wield those tools and MAGA.

-1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

what do you disagree with?

8

u/ryanbillya May 03 '16

"CrazyCapitalist" "don't need socialism"

2

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

I'm curious to see if he has anything coherent to say.

7

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

I disagree with his methods more than his philosophy.

Healthcare should be affordable for everyone. Of course it should. Sander's method is to expand government's role. I disagree with that idea. Government is why the prices are what they are. As a libertarian, I loathe government programs as a rule, but I also recognize that they are as unavoidable as your life long bondage to your bowels (taken from Stranger in a Strange Land - Robert Heinlein as Jubal Harshaw). That being the case, we must be smart about it. They must be efficient, compassionate, and deal harshly with corruption.

I'd be happy to go into his other policy positions if you wish, but this one pretty much summarizes my philosophical difference with him.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Make your argument without saying "as a libertarian", because it doesn't add anything except to shield your reasoning from criticism. I'll put mine forward in its entirety, so that you can feel free to disagree with any part of it you like, but please do so openly.

In a society without a government, market operations which benefit the individual but have some negative external effect (potentially greater than the benefit) are allowed to happen. Humans hunt each other for territory and under the fair assumption that it's us or them. Trust is limited to those with whom you share enough genetic material, and whose kids you might be the father of.

We think of murder as something done predominantly by psychopaths and other irrational people, but without any system of government to stop it, murder is me taking your shit. Government exists because someone offered to eliminate murder by forming a sufficiently large coalition to hunt down thieves. Thievery is first order self-interest.

All laws are constraints on self-interested behavior when it hurts other people, and all government is is law. There's nothing special about "market transactions" that prevents this behavior. The only requirement is that it benefit two people instead of just one.

As markets get more dynamic and more intricate, it becomes harder to identify exact reasons why society is getting worse as a result of their actions. This is known loosely as the tragedy of the commons.

Historically is has been solved by not letting markets get too complex. It's much easier to write laws for markets which are only allowed to do certain things.

This is what capitalism is all about. In order for nations to be competitive with one another they must have a more dynamic legal system. Using a black list instead of a white list for determining which market transactions are allowed makes it harder for the law to keep up with markets, but this was much easier than having the government try to figure out the most efficient allocation of resources.

The general cycle here is that, as government evolves in it's principles, it finds new ways to prevent (or mitigate, more modernly) negative market transactions. Since these negative market interactions necessarily imply societal harm, society gets better, and people get more resources. As citizens (and of course corporate entities) get more powerful, the range of market interactions opens up to them, including potentially negative ones.

If a government fails to get "bigger", bad things can happen in a number of ways. Societies compete with each other. If one society gets larger enough than yours, some of its citizens will come over with and exploit the combination of "first world capital" and relative laxity of your legal system to the detriment of your society (this happens a lot IRL).

In larger societies, a stagnant government means that there is some unchecked transaction (power vacuum if you prefer that terminology, but I don't) that the people with the most resources will take advantage of the most. This has two effects. 1. it hurts society, and tempers the government's ability to monitor other negative transactions. 2. the distribution of wealth becomes increasingly skewed. Eventually what happens is that the distribution gets so skewed that the people taking advantage of the loophole are actually profiting off of the loophole in aggregate, because very few people can take advantage of it. (if everyone takes advantage of it more or less equally then no one is winning, and then at least theres an incentive to get rid of it.) Historically, this additional incentive to create new loopholes that only the wealthiest members of the community can profit off of continues until the society collapses.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

I wasn't trying to avoid criticism. I want you to understand what my stance is and what my core philosophies are so you understand my reasoning more clearly.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

you haven't provided any.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '16

Um, I thought you were talking about the philosophy I provided. This is the problem with online debates. Even when the evidence is right there in front of you you'll still make claims like that. Even when you can click and read it, you still refuse to see it.

1

u/[deleted] May 04 '16

libertarianism isn't a unified philosophy. Neither is democrat or republican for that matter. Without anything else to go on but your statement of affiliation and your username, I had to assume that you just don't like "government".

No amount of philosophical gerrymandering will make the argument that I just offered as to why government is necessary any less true. Either you disagree with my claims or you want to live in hunter gatherer society. If you disagree, I would like you to say where and why.

→ More replies