Hello! Because I am growing steadily more cynical about the state of our politics, what with polarization and growing animosity between political ideologies (just read this report from the Pew Research Center: http://www.people-press.org...
), I thought that it might be interesting to conduct this debate. Here are the rules:
1. You may not post any positive arguments for your candidate as part of a main argument (all arguments must be negative and explain why the opponent's candidate would be a bad choice for president).
2. The only time you may say anything positive for your own candidate is as a rebuttal to an opponent's arguments. Any positive rebuttals must directly correspond to the argument you are responding to.
First round is acceptance. I will be arguing against Donald Trump, and my opponent will be arguing against Hillary Clinton.
Good luck and looking forward to a fun debate!
Hillary Clinton is a practicer of plantation politics.
The Democratic Party was the party in favor of slaves. Notice that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. Think about that. The Democratic politicians are the political children of those that were pro slavery and pro KKK.
Racism was, of course, a guiding principle, but not quite as guiding as the hatred of the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the Yankees who early Klansmen believed destroyed their homeland through what they termed a “war of northern aggression.”
The Democrats replaced slavery with enslavement through "plantation politics". They found it cheaper and easier to enslave the blacks. With plantation politics, you "hire" the black man rather than have him as a slave. You pay less for him, not being directly responsible for his needs. You pay him minimum wages, then flip him a few "extras" here and there. You pay less for him as a worker than as a slave, he appreciates the "extra", which is actually less cost to you, and you buy his loyalty by flipping or promising him a little something extra here and there, all while he is unaware that you are doing it because it's:
1)Not you actually forking out the money, it's the citizens.
2)To get cheap labor.
3)To buy off your vote.
White, Liberal Democrats are guilty of what we call the "bigotry of low expectations". They would expect 8 out of 10 from a white man, but only 4 or 5 out of 10 from a black man. Blacks are obviously inferior and need help from the white man because they aren't as capable or smart.
And then there is Hillary Clinton, the queen of "political correctness" yet the "Queen of lies and fabrications" as well. The very Hillary who wants to bring in masses of migrants, not for multiculturism, but cheap servants. The same Hillary who's foundation is worth billions. Not millions. Billions...The same Hillary who has 1/4 of her campaign openly payed for by the nation behind 9/11 and supporeter of ISIS and Wahhabism.(Saudi Arabia) The same Hillary who whores herself out for votes by promising little bribes to minorities that she doesn't provide one dime for. The Hillary who is "for the poor", yet is one of the biggest capitalists on Earth. The same Hillary who views blacks and Latinos as her inferior servants to the Democratic party. You fetch the water, she'll flip you a nickel from someone elses' pocket.
In Obama's book "Dreams from my Father", he demonstrates that he got his dreams FROM HIS FATHER. His father had an anticolonialist, anti Western worldview. This is why America is $19 trillion in debt (a worldwide redistribution of wealth as a weapon against America), ISIS gained power in the Middle East, and Europe is now in crisis and at the brink of civil war from listening to his immigration policies.
In Obama's America 2016(but made in 2012), Dinesh Dsouza accused Obama of being an anticolonialist and predicted what Obama would do. Obama tried to shut Dsouza up, and had Dsouza thrown in jail for 8 months because of this movie.
Obama's America 2016 trailer-
In this clip Dsouza talks later about how he guessed it right. It wasn't a guess...-
And now we have Hillary's America. The Democratic leadership are preparing to steal the greatest thing the world has ever produced.
And Hillary plans on continuing Obama's anticolonialist agenda which will sink America. She receives 1/4 of her campaign financing from the mastermind of 9/11 and ISIS(Saudi Wahhabism).
Many in Obama/Hillary's administration are members of The Muslim Brotherhood(An Islamic terrorist organization). This has been an invasion by power of foreign oligarchs by the method of taqiya. Take it from an ex Muslim. What is manifesting in Europe and the U.S. is an invasion by "stealth jihad".
Taqiya-the art of concealing your Muslim ties or beliefs by concealing your beliefs. It's a form of deception.
The Prophet Muhammed said: “War is deceit.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3029; Muslim, 58)
Obama is a Muslim (video with blatant hints)
'The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.'
Although the word Jihad standing by itself means “struggle,” what Westerners need to focus on when reading the Hadith regarding Mohammed’s Jihad is similar to the focus needed when reading Mein Kampf (Adolph Hitler).
-Walid Shoebat, ex Muslim
"God's War on Terror"
I thank brontoraptor for accepting this debate and for his speedy response. However, I clearly stated that the first round is acceptance only. I suggest that brontoraptor forfeit Round 5 (or another round, if more convenient) so that we both can have equal time to argue.
I shall begin with rebuttals to brontoraptor's arguments and conclude with my own opening arguments.
Con: "The Democratic Party was the party in favor of slaves. Notice that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president. Think about that. The Democratic politicians are the political children of those that were pro slavery and pro KKK." This is true--in the 1800s, the Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party. However, this was reversed by the campaigns of conservative politicians Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, and the so-called "Southern Strategy." These campaigns appealed to the racist elements of the Deep South in order to win those states. This brought new voters into the party and allowed Nixon to become president, but the people that the Republican Party was gaining were racists, segregationists, and white supremacists. So although the Democrats were historically the more racist party, that is now not the case. This argument is based on political constructs from over 150 years ago. It must be understood that there has been much change since then. The chairman of the Republican Party himself in 2005 apologized to the NAACP for this strategy. Part of an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com...):
"'By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,' Mehlman says in his prepared text. 'Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.'...Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean spoke to the NAACP yesterday and said through an aide: 'It's no coincidence that 43 out of 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus are Democrats. The Democratic Party is the real party of opportunity for African Americans.'" Currently we have a Republican nominee who advocates building walls between other societies rather than bridges and calls Mexican immigrants murderers and rapists, clearly showing that the Republican Party is clearly the more racist party. This is why KKK leaders such as David Duke and other white supremacists are flocking to Trump, who at first hesitated to disavow their support. The Republican Party is now the more racist of the two parties. If you wish to read more about the Southern Strategy, here is an article: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Your "evidence" for plantation politics is just out-of-context snippets of some speech given by a sheriff in Wisconsin. It doesn't mention any liberal policies that are causing racial income inequality, and Hillary Clinton is not mentioned once. This article is therefore wholly irrelevant. This debate is not liberalism versus conservatism, or even the Democratic Party versus the Republican Party. It is Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. The only policies that you may attack are ones directly proposed by Hillary Clinton or her campaign in a debate, campaign speeches, or on her positions website: https://www.hillaryclinton.com...
First, I'll respond to your point about lying and fabrications. According to the fact-checking intitution Politifact, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, only 4% of all of Donald Trump's statements have been completely true. 56% (a majority) of his statements have been classified as completely false or pants-on-fire (an exceptionally blatant or untrue lie).http://www.politifact.com... Clinton's statements, on the other hand, have been 23% completely true. Only 12% have been completely false or pants-on-fire (http://www.politifact.com...). The majority of Trump's statements have been completely false, and the majority of Clinton's statements have been rated "mostly true." If you look at the graphs on both of these websites, you see how dramatically Trump's bell curve trends towards the "false" end of the spectrum while Hillary's leans towards "true."
You say Hillary wants to bring in migrants only for cheap servants. Again, I need evidence. You can't make these statements without backing them up with relevant evidence. Why does it matter how much Hillary and Bill's foundation is worth? You have failed to link this to the debate in any logical manner and thus it has no bearing on this debate. Next you say that 25% of her campaign has been paid for by Saudi Arabia. First of all, the report that said this was Jordanian, not Saudi, so it could not have been terribly accurate. Secondly, the news agency that published the report, the Middle East Eye, later said that they had been hacked and that untrue quotes from the Saudi prince who allegedly donated money to Hillary had been placed into the report. According to a statement from the Eye, "[Senior global communications specialist Will Bohlen] Bohlen said he could confirm that Saudi Arabia has provided no funding to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign." (http://www.middleeasteye.net...) Finally, the report said that 20% was paid for, not 25%. Until conclusive evidence has been found on the matter, we cannot take these allegations seriously. The rest of that paragraph is completely unfounded and without any sufficient evidence. Provide evidence and I will respond to it. Just as an aside, the Saudis are not supporters of ISIS. Along with the United States, they have been strong allies in the fight against the Islamic State.
The next paragraph is about Obama. I'm not going to address it because the debate is clearly titled "Clinton v. Trump." Obama has nothing to do with this. The debate is about Hillary Clinton's temperament, personality, and policies, not Obama's. I will point out, however, that one of your points is a blatant lie. Dinesh D'Souza was thrown in jail not because of his movie, but because he broke federal campaign-finance laws--the laws that apply to everybody, not just minor political adversaries of the president. To say that a democratically elected president is hijacking the justice system to get revenge on people who oppose him is absurd.
As your evidence that Hillary would ruin the country, you offer a movie trailer. This is not proof. As I said above, you may only use policies that Hillary has personally supported. Not a low-budget movie trailer by a federal criminal.
The next actually half-substantive piece of material you have says, "And Hillary plans on continuing Obama's anticolonialist agenda which will sink America." How do you know this? I'm sorry, "Hillary's America" is not valid evidence. Use actual policies of her that she has directly supported. Show me some of her policies that are anticolonialist in nature. Show me that they will sink America. If you think that America is already sunk, tell me why, and tell me why these policies are directly responsible for the sinking.
Since the last few sentences do not pertain to Hillary, I will not respond to them as thoroughly as your other points that are actually relevant. I will, however, point out certain falsehoods. You say that many in the Obama administration are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Here's a list of Obama's administration members: http://cabinet-members.insidegov.com... through all of these names, research them carefully, and try to find some that are terrorists. You will not find any.
The other falsehood that you are claiming is that Obama is a Muslim. This is an allegation that has been universally recognized as a conspiracy theory. Obama is a practicing Protestant Christian. From Wikipedia:
"Obama was baptized into the United Church of Christ (UCC) denomination and formally joined it in 1988. He left the UCC in 2008 because of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Controversy. He now worships with a Southern Baptist pastor at Camp David but has not become a formal member of any church since 2008." (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Since I'm running out of characters, I will just make for my argument against Trump a list of things that he has said and done.
- has called Mexican immigrants "rapists and murderers"
- said before the 2008 financial crash that he was hoping for a recession simply so he could make some money for himself
- scammed students with his fraudulent "Trump University"
- has said that a judge could not do his job well because of his race
- has congratulated himself publicly in response to the worst mass shooting in American history
- supports giving more tax breaks to the rich
- claimed that thousands of Muslims were celebrating on the streets of New York City following 9/11
- has said that he would do for America what he did to his business; went bankrupt four times
- has absolutely no relevant political experience
- has said that women should be punished for getting an abortion
- has said that the families of terrorists should be killed (completely undemocratic, unconstitutional, and just downright terrible)
- initially failed to disavow the support of KKK leader David Duke
- saying no one should vote for Carly Fiorina (his only female competitor in the Republican Primary) because of how her face looked
- has said, “I really understand beauty. And I will tell you, she's not—I do own Miss Universe. I do own Miss USA. I mean I own a lot of different things. I do understand beauty, and she's not." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
- has called women fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.
Will be elaborated upon in later rounds.
Clinton made a racially driven slur about black people. She insinuated that they were banana gobbling chimps at a black tie affair.
Haitian activists protested outside of the Clinton Foundation in New York over the loss of “billions of dollars” that was meant to help rebuild after the devastating 2010 earthquake.
The activists also said Haiti was a cover for foreign governments to funnel kickbacks of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. They believe that this was done for favors that Hillary was doing for the foreign governments while she was Secretary of State.
She is not the "candidate of the poor". She is the candidate of Saudi Arabia.
And we all know which foreign government she loves the most. The one that owns her and pays her. The nation with human rights' violation beyond belief, and the nation of Wahhabism, the denomination of death and terror adhered to by ISIS who is not above beheading 4 year olds and burning children alive. The S. Arabia that owns Hillary, executes homosexuals, won't let women drive or go out uncovered or even get a job, that stones women caught in adultery if a man accuses her, and is responsible for 9/11? This is who is funding 1/4 of her campaign?
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.
A State Department official has said "Russia is one of at least three foreign governments likely to have obtained the full content of the former secretary of state’s server through covert hacking operations. The other two are China and Israel.'
So, of course, they were affirmed to have been hacked by a Russian hacker named "Guccifer".
After monitoring Guccifer, the Russians were reportedly able to record his actions which allowed the Russian intelligence analysts, in 2013, to not only detect his breaking into the private computer of Secretary Clinton, but also break in and copy all of its contents as well.
The purported memos contain sensitive information regarding the September 11, 2012 attacks on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, as well the January 2013 hostage crisis in In Amenas, Algeria.
So...she got our people killed.
And her response was?
"What difference does it make?"
And she helped frame the Iran nucleur deal lifting $150 in sanctions. Why does it matter? Iran is the most apocalyptic nation on Earth. They are Shiites and literally believe that they have been called to bring about the apocalypse by forging the world into chaos to summon the Mahdi(Islamic Messiah).
("Goodbye to bad Rubbish"-video)
She's not just an embellisher or a teller of white lies, but a full blown sociopath.
Hello! As promised, I will expand upon my main arguments this round. I will respond to your arguments in the next round.
Mr. Trump has shown throughout his career and campaign that he has no qualms about discriminating against other races. The evidence is quite extensive. Here it is.
In the 1970's, when Trump was president of the real estate firm owned by him and his father, allegations arose that he was systematically discriminating against black people. According to the New York Times, "A former building superintendent working for the Trumps explained that he was told to code any application by a black person with the letter C, for colored, apparently so the office would know to reject it." When Nixon's Justice Department sued Donald and his father for discrimination, they found some very revealing evidence. "To prove the discrimination, blacks were repeatedly dispatched as testers to Trump apartment buildings to inquire about vacancies, and white testers were sent soon after. Repeatedly, the black person was told that nothing was available, while the white tester was shown apartments for immediate rental." (http://www.nytimes.com...) Do we really want a president who systematically discriminates him just because of their skin color? I cannot stress enough the seriousness of this. It's chilling, quite frankly.
From "Trumped!: The Inside Story of the Real Donald Trump--His Cunning Rise and Spectacular Fall" by John O'Donnell:
"'I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza--black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else...Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.'" How much more obvious can it get? The man is blatantly racist! And he told the Washington Post, "I'm the least racist person you've ever encountered." Read these two articles for other examples of Trump's racism.
Next comes Donald Trump's reluctance to disavow KKK leader David Duke after the latter's endorsement of Mr. Trump. He dodged questions for a while, claiming he had never heard of David Duke, and eventually rejected the endorsement.
The Trump campaign also retweeted the infamous "Star of David" image taken from a neo-Nazi/anti-Semitic website.
The evidence is irrefutable. Sure, Hillary and Bill de Blasio made an awkward joke that they probably shouldn't have said. But this one incident pales in comparison to all of the evidence for Mr. Trump's overt, extreme, and disgusting racism. A man like this should not--and cannot be allowed to--become president.
Mr. Trump has objectified women for decades. He has been married three times and is currently married to a former supermodel. What does this tell you about his views on women?
He even went so far as to say, "Women: You have to treat 'em like [poop]."  (He said something much more vulgar than that, but the site won't let me post it.)
As with the racism, how can you claim that he is not sexist? How is this not immediately disqualifying? The fact that someone like this is the nominee for a major political party is both astounding and terrifying.
He has also said that he would probably be dating his daughter Ivanka if they weren't related. He was in his sixties at the time and she in her twenties. How creepy is that?
Of Carly Fiorina, he said, "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" It is no secret that Mr. Trump judges women solely on their looks rather than on their intellect or personality. How can you logically support someone who holds half of the world's population in contempt?
3. Lack of Knowledge and Experience
Mr. Trump has had no political experience. If put in office, he would be woefully unprepared to run the country. He holds the Constitution in contempt. He shows this when he suggests blatantly unconstitutional measures such as killing the families of suspected terrorists and reinstating torture. According to a Washington Post editorial, Mr. Trump once said, "I am going to abide by the Constitution whether it’s number 1, number 2, number 12, number 9." There are seven articles in the Constitution, the article points out. (https://www.washingtonpost.com...)
This is the same Hillary playing plantation politics(the worst racism of them all), who had illegal immigrants on stage(technically criminals by law) at her convention, and wants to bring in migrants galore to scratch the back of her pocketfull of lobbyists needing cheap labor.
And there's ol' Bill staring us in the face for being the biggest sexist womanizer on Earth, and to such a monumental degree that he wound up impeached over it. And...Hillary couldn't care less, and to the point she threatened and covered up those accusing him of rape and having had affairs with them. She made the female rape victims into the bad guys.
Roger Stone and Robert Morrow have a book out called "The Clinton's War on Women" goes into graphic detail about Bill Clinton’s decades of sexual assault and rapes. This news should remind voters just how dangerous the Clintons are.
Juanita Broaddrick was raped so severely by Bill that he nearly tore off her upper lip, then raped her a 2nd time.
Just how many Clinton sex assaults were there? Too many to count. The problem is the younger voters don't have the sea of Clinton scandals etched into their minds like those a bit older. We see the same dirty, old Hillary and Bill we watched become the example of scandal and evil that eventually got them tossed from the white house. Do you know how bad you have to be to be ousted by the rich, corupted, fat cat men of our government?
While we would normally extend our sympathy to his wife, Hillary has forfeited those claims by actively conspiring with him to cover up his sexual assaults and smear the victims, showing absolutely no remorse or hesitation about destroying women whose stories she knew to be true.
When Paula Jones sued President Clinton for sexual harassment, his treatment of other women became relevant evidence in her case, and the plethera of dirty laundry was manifest for all of us to see. The whole thing was a freak show on steroids.
Either voluntarily or by legal compulsion, a slew of women attested to sexual encounters with Bill Clinton.
Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Monica Lewinsky, and several dozen cocktail waitresses along the interstate corridor between Little Rock and Washington. Many more told their stories, but said they were afraid to use their names.
As one of Bill's mistresses, former Miss Arkansas, Sally Perdue said,
"Hillary has a “vengeful, spiteful ugliness towards women. And she’s championing women’s causes?”
When the Free Beacon published tapes in which Hillary Clinton laughed cheerfully about a case in which she got a child rapist off, ordinary people had a glimpse into the twisted mind of a woman who keeps claiming to be a role model for young girls.
Did Trump call Rosie O'donell a fat cow? Probably, but she is, and I've thought it in my mind. Does she ever shut that pie hole? And I respect women, just not her. If you call Barack Obama a dildong with ears who's an obvious Islamic mole who is anticolonialist, anti white and practicing taqiya, it's not sexism against men. It's simply the truth.
Besides, Hillary's campaign is being paid for, not by some claimed "mildly mysoginistic male", but the biggest violator of women's and LGBT rights on Planet Earth. And she shakes those Saudi hands with a smile and a fistfull of cash.
Fines, floggings, prison time up to life, torture, chemical castrations, whipping torture, and/or death penalty on first offense. People convicted twice face execution. Vigilante executions are very common as well.
I've decided that young liberal females are hellbent on being forced to wear a hijab or burka in this country...https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
"How can you logically support someone who holds half of the world's population in contempt?"
Rebuttal: His daughters, wife, and ex Wives all say differently. How can you logically support someone who:
1)doesn't have a basic conceptualization of how to handle classified materials
2)Is supported by the nation that the ISIS ideology comes from.
3)Gets her campaign paid for by the instigator of 9/11.
4) Lifted $150 billion in sanctions on the U.S.'s most deadly enemy who is congenitally hostile towards the U.S.
5)Has no sense of protecting us from ISIS, even recommending we bring in an unvetted group that ISIS has declared they will hide inside.
6)And has an Islamic mole as her leading lady?(Huma Abedin)
Iran: "Death to America!" chants
Huma Abedin, Hillary's leading lady is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest Islamic terrorist organisation on Earth.http://www.nationalreview.com...
-Lack of Knowledge and Experience
Are status quo politicians with experience better or worse?
Well, first I'll respond to your arguments from Round 2. Here they are.
First of all, she didn't make the joke. Bill de Blasio did. And last I checked, Bill de Blasio is not Hillary Clinton. Secondly, the joke was pre-planned and intended to be a jab at political correctness gone overboard.
So a Clinton surrogate made a cringeworthy joke in which the intended punchline was "cautious politician time." Donald Trump actually made statements that proved that he believed black people were fundamentally and inherently incompetent. He showed that he was actually, in fact, racist.
So to prove that Mr. Trump is racist, I used a direct quote. You, instead of providing actual quotes or policies that Hillary supports, you quote a sheriff. We're not debating about whether or not a sheriff from Wisconsin can be president. We're debating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. So your claims of "plantation politics" just don't cut it. Give me evidence, and I will respond in full to your argument.
Next you still continue to insist that Saudi Arabia "owns Hillary." I fully understand Saudi Arabia's grievous human rights violations. The thing is: they're not funding her! Just look in my arguments above.
About the emails--I concede this point. Yes, it was stupid, and careless, and she should not have done it. We agree on this point. I, however, have two responses.
1. So you claim that Hillary made it easier for other countries to hack her emails. Just yesterday, Mr. Trump actually invited Russia, an adversary of the United States, to hack us. Is this the kind of behavior that we will see from him in office? Inviting a foreign country to carry out cyberattacks on the United States is much, much worse than being careless so that countries may more easily hack us.
2. With the amount of political protest and negativity that surrounds this scandal, we can be sure that she'll never do it again. Enough said.
Next you mention Benghazi. Here's what I always say to counter that argument:
House Republicans interviewed Hillary Clinton for eleven hours on this topic. And guess what: they found nothing. She is quite obviously not guilty. We can be sure of this because that even if there had been something extremely minor--a breach of some obscure protocol, for example--then the Republicans would have blown it completely out of proportion. Yet we've heard nothing from that House committee.
Next you criticize the Iran deal. Let's put this in context. Iran had just attained enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. You say Iran is "the most apocalyptic nation on Earth," so we can probably assume that they would have used that bomb sooner or later. But if we lift their sanctions, guess what? We don't get nuked! Now what would have happened if we hadn't gotten that deal? Iran's economy would be a bit worse, and we would get blown to bits. I wonder which country gets the bad side of that deal? Lifting sanctions is a small price to pay for our lives.
Rebuttals to Round 3:
Again, you claim plantation politics and racism without a single shred of evidence. This argument about racism is basically invalid. I would like to point out that since you haven't responded to my arguments about Mr. Trump's blatant racism, you have effectively conceded this point. From this point on, it is to be assumed that Mr. Trump is an overtly bigoted individual, unless you respond to this argument in future rounds.
Your arguments about sexism are mostly about Bill. We're not debating Bill Clinton. We're debating Hillary, who has been a champion of women's rights since the beginning. Donald Trump? Not so much. Unless you think that being treated like s**t is a fundamental right of women, this man is sexist. End of story.
Next you make more claims about Saudi Arabia. Enough of that. I debunked that in Round 2.
Con: "His daughters, wife, and ex Wives all say differently." These are three people. The rest of the country begs to differ. According to the latest Pew Research Poll, Hillary leads Trump among women by a record-breaking 16%. (http://www.pewresearch.org...)
Next I will respond to your six points about Hillary.
1. Classified materials: Just see my rebuttals above.
2. Saudis: Again, I debunked this. Enough about Saudi Arabia. Choosing to believe a report put out by a media institution and then refusing to believe a statement from that same institution about how the report was false is hypocritical and inconsistent.
3. 9/11: See above.
4. Iran: I already responded to this. If the deal hadn't occurred, the U.S. would likely have been bombed. You prove this because you say that Iran is our "most deadly enemy" and is "congenitally hostile" towards the country. Again, giving an adversary government a better economy is a small price to pay for our lives.
5. ISIS: Well, this is false on two counts. First of all, the group is not unvetted. The United States vets its refugees more thoroughly than any other immigrant group. In some cases, it takes two whole years. Here's the whole process: https://www.whitehouse.gov...
6. Muslim Brotherhood: The source you cited does not give any evidence to your claim, but it provides a link to a website that does, from PJ Media: https://pjmedia.com...
's their three pieces of evidence:
1. Her mother is tied to the Muslim Sisterhood.
2. Her mother is on the board of an Islamic organization
3. Huma Abedin formerly belonged to a group for Muslim minority affairs. It was a peaceful, moderate organization similar to the CAIR.
Well, I believe I've responded to all of your arguments. Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response!
"Huma Abedin formerly belonged to a group for Muslim minority affairs. It was a peaceful, moderate organization similar to the CAIR."
CAIR isn't peaceful. https://www.washingtonpost.com...http://www.breitbart.com...http://www.foxnews.com...
"He showed that he was actually, in fact, racist."
Then why does he have black, female executives...
There's a difference between saying things off the cuff, and being an actual racist. By your assessment, Chris Rock is racist against whites. Nope. He's just speaking off the cuff in generalizations, but actually relates to white people quite well and has even financially helped poor white people. People who speak off the cuff assume you are mature enough to know the difference and weed through PC speech that is disabling America to its knees.
"Mr. Trump actually invited Russia, an adversary of the United States, to hack us."
Which was an obvious joke because we already know they hacked us.http://motherboard.vice.com...https://www.rt.com...
"I fully understand Saudi Arabia's grievous human rights violations. The thing is: they're not funding her!"
"Iran: I already responded to this. If the deal hadn't occurred, the U.S. would likely have been bombed."
Iran couldn't kill a fly with a fly swatter, much less attack a nation with National missile defense (NMD) and Stealth bombers with any success before being wiped off the face of the earth. We gave up $150 billion which only helps them accomplish actual nucleur capabilities.
"Mr. Trump has objectified women for decades. He has been married three times and is currently married to a former supermodel."
And all of his ex-wives support him in his endeavor, and the people close to him say he's not sexist. He also hires more female executives than men.
Con's assessment of marrying a model is sexist is very anti feminist. If Con was a model who wanted to marry me, she would have the right to. No one can tell her she can't.http://dailycaller.com...
There's even a group called "Wome For Trump".https://m.reddit.com...
He even has a black female executive(Lynne Patton) who spoke out on his behalf. http://www.westernjournalism.com...
If actions do the real talking, I'd say he is very pro women.
"House Republicans interviewed Hillary Clinton for eleven hours on this topic. And guess what: they found nothing. She is quite obviously not guilty."
Not according to the FBI. "She was guilty but didn't have intent." Whatever the h*ll that means. http://m.washingtontimes.com...
"Her mother is tied to the Muslim Sisterhood."
Which is a terrorist organization offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood who had to be run out of town by the Egyptian military. http://freebeacon.com...http://www.al-monitor.com...http://shoebat.com...
"The United States vets its refugees more thoroughly than any other immigrant group."
Not according to the FBI.http://dailycaller.com...
"We're debating Hillary, who has been a champion of women's rights since the beginning."
She had rape victims muzzled. She says things liberals like to hear nowadays, but her actions do all the talking. I'm certain she has no interest in female rights. Paying lip service is not the same as an act. Anyone can say, "I'm pro women's rights," but what do the actions say?http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...http://mobile.nytimes.com...
"Lifting sanctions is a small price to pay for our lives."
If we truely ever thought someone planned to nuke us, you'd have to use history books or the internet to see what that country used to look like before the Stealth bombers flew over and the U.S. missle defense system kicked in.
"Unless you think that being treated like s**t is a fundamental right of women, this man is sexist."
Not actually. It's called banter, and Trump is the king of it. A girl once asked him if he wanted oral sex in an elevator, and his response was, "So what's in it for me?"
This is a trait of men who are good with women. Being suave is not the same as sexist, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.http://www.dictionary.com...http://www.dictionary.com...
Firstly, CAIR is a completely peaceful organization. It is dedicated to civil rights causes and fighting Islamophobia. (http://www.cair.com...) What I was trying to get at was, there is nothing that directly links Huma Abedin to the Islamic Brotherhood. Yes, her mother was linked. But why do we assume the same for her daughter? It is illogical to say that just because her mother was linked to these groups that her daughter is as well. You provide no evidence that Huma Abedin is linked to any terrorist groups; just her mother.
You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept of racism. Here is the definition:
Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Let's compare Mr. Trump's statement with that definition:
"I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities...": "...laziness is a trait in blacks..."
Mr. Trump's statements directly correlate to this definition of racism. And no, he wasn't just speaking off the cuff. "It really is; I believe that" means that he actually believes it, and we have no reason to assume that he has changed his radically racist views. Therefore this statement is, by definition, racist. And because you say that Mr. Trump is honest and trustworthy compared to Clinton, maybe we should take him at his word. He says he believes this; assume he does.
Con: "Which was an obvious joke because we already know they hacked us."
Whether there had been previous hackings or not is irrelevant. Inviting a foreign country to hack us is unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances. And what does this tell us about his temperament?
About Iran--first of all, we didn't give up $150 billion. We lifted $150 billion in sanctions. There's a huge difference. And no, the additional money doesn't allow them to get weapons, because guess what? In exchange for the $150 billion in sanctions lifted, the Iranians got rid of their nuclear program! They no longer can make a bomb! And if the US could not be bombed, why not a much closer target such as Israel? This would probably be the most likely target, but a nuclear-armed Iran is a terrifying thought across the globe.
No, I'm not anti-feminist and I'm not saying that Melania couldn't marry who she wanted, but the fact that Trump has consistently married models and actresses shows that he cares more about women's appearances and bodies than personalities, which is anti-feminist.
And yes, I know there's a group called Women for Trump. But Hillary's support among women is much larger and stronger, because Hillary is the one that will actually fight for women's rights. Donald Trump, however, is against abortion rights and in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood if it continues to provide abortions, saying, "We're not going to allow, and we're not going to fund, as long as you have the abortion going on at Planned Parenthood." (https://www.washingtonpost.com...)
So I would definitely say that Donald Trump is very much against women's rights.
Well, next you talk about Benghazi and then quote an FBI report. But guess what? The FBI report was about a completely different topic; the email server. So, as of yet, my claim remains unchallenged.
Your evidence for the vetting process is taken out of context. The FBI director was speaking out in response to a bill meant to toughen even further the refugee vetting process. "The bill would require Comey — and other top national security officials — to personally certify every single refugee admitted into the United States was not a security threat. Comey, appearing before Congress on Dec. 9, said he couldn’t." (http://www.politifact.com...) However, with the current vetting process, the US will be able to vet all refugees.
The next point you make that I haven't already responded to is your last, about banter.
Even if this statement was simply banter, there are some things you just don't say. "You have to treat [women] like s**t" is one of them. This man cannot be trusted to uphold women's rights or the rights of minorities.
This man cannot be trusted with the presidency. To quote Hillary Clinton's DNC speech, "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." Mr. Trump is easily angered and quick to react, making him a volatile choice for a leader. He's changed political affiliations at least five times (http://www.washingtontimes.com...) and has changed his positions on a Muslim ban twelve times, defeating ISIS six times, the Iraq war three times, tax cuts six times, immigration six times, gun rights eight times, intervention in Libya five times, climate change three times, national debt seven times, abortion four times, the minimum wage five times, money in politics five times, health care five times, and torture four times. (http://www.nbcnews.com...) How do we know that, once elected, he won't completely change on us three weeks in? How can we trust him when he flip-flops so much? The man also has no basic knowledge of government. You think that maybe he would at least try to find out how many articles were in the Constitution, but no. There's only one possible reason for this. He doesn't care.
I'm going to end with a particularly chilling point.
If you watched the Democratic National Convention last week, you say the powerful rebuke to Trump by the father of a Muslim soldier who died in combat to save his comrades. Instead of honoring the soldier's sacrifice, Trump lashed out at the speaker and his wife, ridiculing their religion ("She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say.") and saying that he had sacrificed "a lot" for his businesses. (http://www.pennlive.com...)He compares himself to a war hero and ridicules a grief-stricken mother for not speaking (she said she could not speak because she was still grieving for the loss of her son). Just ask yourself: is this the kind of country we want to be?
"Firstly, CAIR is a completely peaceful organization. It is dedicated to civil rights causes and fighting Islamophobia."
The United Arab Emirates has labeled CAIR a terrorist organization.
A federal district court found it to be so, listing it under the heading "The following individuals/entitles who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood"s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations." CAIR is number 11 on the list.
"He compares himself to a war hero."
Hillary said she was under heavy sniper fire when landing in Bosnia, took it back when video showed otherwise, then said she mispoke from lack of sleep...
"Trump lashed out at the speaker and his wife, ridiculing their religion."
Well..they are commanded to kill us and conquer the world for Islam by the Quran...Everything ISIS has done has been fulfilling what the Quran tells them to do. I'd love it if Islam wanted to coexist, but it doesn't.
"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons."
She's actually attacked multiple countries. Trump opposed the war in Iraq. Actions...
"This man cannot be trusted to uphold women's rights or the rights of minorities."
Many minorities and women support him. He is the only one willing to protect the U.S.'s women from the most female oppressing religion on Earth. He has daughters who turned out great.
"Well, next you talk about Benghazi."
She's guilty of treason, but has the FBI in her pocket. No one else would have gotten away with using a private server with highly classified information and still be around because "they didn't have intent". So is robbing a bank okay if you "have no intent"? Of course not.
"But Hillary's support among women is much larger and stronger."
And shrinking with each new debacle Hillary gets into.
"No, I'm not anti-feminist and I'm not saying that Melania couldn't marry who she wanted, but the fact that Trump has consistently married models and actresses shows that he cares more about women's appearances and bodies than personalities, which is anti-feminist."
A rich man can easily get both. I would if I had his money, and I'm all about women's rights.
"first of all, we didn't give up $150 billion. We lifted $150 billion in sanctions."
On a country who believes they are the ones to bring about the apocalypse. They'll see the reward financially either way.
"Inviting a foreign country to hack us is unacceptable."
1)They don't need Trump's permission to hack us.
2)If true, Hillary should be in prison.
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities...": "...laziness is a trait in blacks."
He hired a black, female executive. Surely he wouldn't want to sabbotage his company if blacks are mentally inferior.
"You seem to be having trouble understanding the concept of racism."
Hillary is a Progressive, anticolonialist hater of whites, which is racism. It's why she panders to minorities rather than whites.