This is every big issue in which the candidates are taking an unique (from the top 3 runners) stance in the campaign. I divided top/bottom into good/bad; notice that B. Sanders has nothing (uniquely) bad, that's why I like him so much. And perhaps this will be easier to understand why I hate D. Trump so much more.

Donald Trump:

*Against making the tax system even more superprogressive.
---
*Against giving the right to a fair court-and-try before judicial punishment to all.
*For growing military spending.
*For upscaling the war on Mashriq, including footsoldiers.
*Very for torture, in both American gaols and foreign war prisoners.
*For making killing innocent folk as official policy.
*For sending back all Syrian refugees in America immediately, and barring any from coming in the future.
*Against more curbs on gun rights.
*For uncurbed bulk government home surveillance.
*Against giving denizenship to illegal immigrants' children born on American land.
*Against any path to citizenship programmes for illegal immigrants.
*Against giving illegal immigrants government healthcare.
*For growing border security.
*For barring all Muslims from coming into America.
*Against mandatory vaccinations of any kind.
*Against abortion, except in rape, incest, hazard to mother or child.

Hilary Clinton:

*For greatening foreign help spending.
*For growing the amount of foreign work visas given.
---
*For forcefully stopping Russian airstrikes on Mashriq.
*For upscaling the war on Mashriq, but no footsoldiers.
*For overthrowing Assad as long as part of an international team.
*For curbed bulk government home surveillance.
*For keeping border patrol as is.
*Against mandating labelling of GMOs as such.

Bernie Sanders:

*Against upscaling the war on Mashriq.
*Against bulk government home surveillance.
*For less spending on border patrol.
*For legalising cannibis for fun.

Maybe I'll put in smaller issues later.

*Against making the tax system even more superprogressive.

I mean I'm not sure what more you want from rich folk. Despite the top 10% of americans (people making over $125,195) making 48% of all income in the United states, they pay the vast majority of taxes at 70%.

And the bottom 50% of americans (people making under $36,055) making 11% of all income only pay 3% of all taxes...

*Against mandatory vaccinations of any kind.

The Supreme court has ruled that Forced medication is unconstitutional, so he and all other candidates had better be against it.

*Against abortion, except in rape, incest, hazard to mother or child.

I don't really understand what's bad about this position. Currently this is the leading cause of death in the united states with 699,202 in 2012, compared to:

Heart disease: 614,348
Cancer: 591,699
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
Alzheimer's disease: 93,541
Diabetes: 76,488
Influenza and Pneumonia: 55,227
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 48,146
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773

Edited 5/13/2016 05:47:52

Vaccination saves lives, and a lot of erradicated diseases are comming back to the US because of irresponsible parents.


There is no proven relation between vaccination causing autism, and even if there was, again there is no evidence supporting this fact, vaccination saves millions every year. And some people are allergic to them. Not vaccinating your child will not only put them at risk, but also those who can't get vaccinated.


Seriously, this crusade against science and everything that has been proven to be right is why I can't support conservative policies. One day someone will question gravity and sue the universe for having laws that are against our freedom to float arround without gravity to pull us down. Please give us, smart people a break.

Edited 5/13/2016 05:57:01

I mean I'm not sure what more you want from rich folk.

"I" agree with you. This is Trump's one good unique stance.

The Supreme court has ruled that Forced medication is unconstitutional, so he and all other candidates had better be against it.

You've before called out the Supreme Court on just giving themselves power, and you're against their ruling on abortion. Anyhow, a parent shouldn't be able to ruin their child's futures and health just since they have some thing against vaccinations, which are all experimentally and logically proven. At least, they should mandate this for contagious illnesses.

I don't really understand what's bad about this position. Currently this is the leading cause of death in the united states with 699,202 in 2012

NO. NOT ONE BIT.

10,153 MILLION were killed by SYSTEMIC SLAUGHTER for food worse than ANY GENOCIDE in all the past in America.

It is a VERY BIG hypocrisy to be for-life and yet be for-way more death. And the most shameful thing about this election is not that any candidate's deathly foreign policy, but their total inaction to such AWFUL FILTHY genocides. And you speak of some literally painless germs dying, huh, not the painful and disrespectful lives and deaths of fellow mamms?

http://www.animalequality.net/food

http://farmusa.org/statistics11.html

http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html

China, America, and Brazil are the most bloodspilling countries in the world.

Edited 5/13/2016 06:10:36

this crusade against science and everything that has been proven to be right is why I can't support conservative policies.

It's nothing new. I definitely do give a clap to those who try to research science while keeping faith - they may have some confirmation bias, but many studies are plagued with confirmation bias of a different kind. Christian Science Monitor and Abdus Salam - a good faithful organisation and a good faithful man.

You've before called out the Supreme Court on just giving themselves power, and you're against their ruling on abortion. Anyhow, a parent shouldn't be able to ruin their child's futures and health just since they have some thing against vaccinations, which are all experimentally and logically proven. At least, they should mandate this for contagious illnesses.

I am very much against Supreme court legislation through Jurisprudence. However, I do acknowledge that they do have this power, whether or not they should, and It's not like I'm denying the legitimacy of their rulings. For example, I am against their ruling on Abortion, but I've never denied that Abortion is legal due to it, as it obviously is.

Anyway, this power is way too far reaching, and forced medication has to remain illegal. For example, forced medication can be used for population control through mass sterilization or simply killing some people.

NO. NOT ONE BIT.

10,153 MILLION were killed by SYSTEMIC SLAUGHTER for food worse than ANY GENOCIDE in all the past in America.

It is a VERY BIG hypocrisy to be for-life and yet be for-way more death. And the most shameful thing about this election is not that any candidate's deathly foreign policy, but their total inaction to such AWFUL FILTHY genocides. And you speak of some literally painless germs dying, huh, not the painful and disrespectful lives and deaths of fellow mamms?

It's not hypocritical, as human life is worth much more than animal life. This is why the term "Pro-life" refers specifically to human life.
___________________________-

I'm not going to have this discussion again, as I feel that we've already come to a relative understanding on the subject in past discussions.

For example, I am against their ruling on Abortion, but I've never denied that Abortion is legal due to it

What you said: Forced medication is unconstitutional, so he and all other candidates had better be against it..

So then, what do you actually think, if you don't care for the Supreme Court's thoughts, but acknowledge the law?

It's not hypocritical, as German life is worth much more than Jew life. This is why the term "Pro-life" refers specifically to German life.

I can't stand f-cking nazis. Frankly, you failed to convince me one bit that something you can't tell apart from a bacterion culture that has no brain (literally) or any kind of nervous-reaction system, no pain, why that gets to be shielded by the law, but shoot a developed, loved, and nervous (in the literal sense) and butcher (in the literal sense) being is fully ok, since they're lower life? You said before since the humans achieved more, that they get the right to kill other beasts? So the Germans had the right to kill the Namibians? Or that the British had the right to kill Bengali who were already fighting others?

There used to be a Hindu on the fora, and he supported abortion. But he was also vegetarian, so I had no big problem, as otherwise, I'd see abortion as one of the validest conservative arguments there are, but you can't support abortion without supporting vegetarianism.

So then, what do you actually think, if you don't care for the Supreme Court's thoughts, but acknowledge the law?

As I said before, I do recognize that the supreme court does have this power, and I recognize the laws that they create using it as being valid. The only thing I disagree with is them actually having the power.

you can't support abortion without supporting vegetarianism.

Really? You can value human life without giving a damn about a f*cking raccoon.

A raccoon has more brain function than most fetuses.

A racoon has more brain function than most conservatives in this forum.

Edited 5/13/2016 16:03:46

Some more, smaller issues:

Donald Trump:
*Against barring folk on the "no-fly" list to buy guns.
*For curbing work unions' legal superpowers.
*Against mandating hiring to based on skinhue, ethnicity, and sex.
*Against mandating health insurance sellers to give birth control as part of the programme.
*For letting businesses have the freedom to refuse any customer based on faith (but for mandating that businesses must serve their customers otherwise, and mandating that for equal jobs must come equal incomes)
*For mandating a photographic identification to vote.
*Against funding small famers.
*For lowering business income tax rates, but not for ending it.
*Transit government pensions into private accounts.
*For slashing public spending until the debt is down.
*For all welfare takers to be tested for drugs, and funding trips to addiction reknacking hubs.
*Against gaoling the folk who allegedly brought about the housing rent economic downfall.
---
*For going on with bulk spying and bugging on allied countries.
*Against closing Guantánamo gaol.
*Against legalising any more drugs for fun.
*For gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
*Against the Senate to hear out the new Supreme Court nominee.
*For racially discriminating against Muslims (for example, patrol of Muslim neighbourhoods).
*For making war on illegal immigration.
*For mandating all immigrants to learn English.
*For basically ending government healthcare, and just giving loans to folk if they need to go to the medclin.
*For more offshore petrol drilling.
*Against funding "unproven technologies" (alternative energy) and more environmental regulations; believes climate change is a hoax and scientists "having loads of fun".
*For uncurbed hydraulic fracturing.
*For making suicide illegal.
*Against mandating that internet sellers make artificial lack.
*For stopping the American space programme.
*Against gay marriage.
*For a bigger sales tax to lower land tax.

Hilary Clinton:
*For funding more alternative energetic programmes besides wind power.
*For national teaching/learning/testing standards and accreditations.
*Against limiting suing powers.
---
*For legalising some drugs for fun.
*For keeping the current public health system.

Bernie Sanders:
*For legalising all drugs for fun.
*For building an one-payer healthcare system.
*Against the death punishment.
---
*For nationalising more land as national parks.
*For funding wind power industry.
*Against mandating that grownups on welfare work.
*For actively taking out references to God from money and governmental stuff.

Edited 5/13/2016 20:44:46

National parks, another Scottish invention.

How, exactly, do you justify an anti-vaccine position as being valid due to Supreme Court ruling and then turn around and want to limit abortion access despite it contradicting Supreme Court ruling?

Rather hypocritical, no?

"National parks, another Scottish invention."
American. Muir may have been a Scot but only the American government followed through with it.

Imperator:

>Claims to be libertarian
>Denies women the right to do what they want with their own body
>Libertarian

How, exactly, do you justify an anti-vaccine position as being valid due to Supreme Court ruling and then turn around and want to limit abortion access despite it contradicting Supreme Court ruling?

I'm not denying the validity or legality of either law, it's just that one I happen to be in favor of (No forced medication) and one I happen to be against.

Also, I'm not anti-vaccination, I'm against forced medication.

>Claims to be libertarian
>Denies women the right to do what they want with their own body
>Libertarian

Firstly I've never claimed to be libertarian; I consider myself to be a classical Liberal. Secondly, I'm fine with women doing what they want with their own bodies, just not with somebody elses body.

Edited 5/13/2016 20:57:47

Vaccines do not work unless they are widely used. The only way to ensure wide use is forced medication.

A fetus is not a body.

Edited 5/13/2016 20:58:18

So in other words, Supreme Court precedence only matters when it agrees with your own stance. Brilliant position.

Vaccines do not work unless they are widely used. The only way to ensure wide use is forced medication.

Vaccines are widely used, only a tiny minority of people choose not to use them.

A fetus is not a body.

Unless you can show me a point at which it turns into a body, the only logical assumption is that it has always been a body.

So in other words, Supreme Court precedence only matters when it agrees with your own stance. Brilliant position.

Again, I'm not denying the validity of any supreme court ruling, although I am personally against them having the power to make laws.

It would be better if congress would pass a law on the topic as should be done, I'm not denying this. I just don't care as much if it's a redundant law that just affirms the ruling.

Edited 5/13/2016 21:05:28