Greetings to everyone. My English is still bad. So excuse me for being so terribly annoying with all mistakes, I'm making all the time. Few people in my group were asked to write an article (sort of) starting almost with the same words, as you can read in the name of this topic, but with a few exceptions: it was supposed to be an article, criticising Trump and repeatedly using the same narrative. I thought, that it would be a bit hypothetical to criticise only one candidate. Well, I should not have said this. Now I'm bound to make the same kind of article, but criticising Hillary Clinton instead. Thus, would you kindly share some ideas, that I could use? I really need something horrible but nonetheless truth about this woman.
Trump gonna blow the world up. Hillary, just a big fraud that would have gone to jail. though shes the necessary evil to keep trump and his nazi idealism from being pursued
This should have everything you need. http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/here-they-are-hillarys-22-biggest-scandals-ever/
The title could use some work. There's no reason to replace "Hillary Clinton" with "a woman," which has nothing to do with what she is being criticized for. That, and since the title establishes a lot of the premise, it makes more sense to clearly state who the article is about before using more casual speech. That aside, I think the intention of such an article misses the bigger picture and issue, which would beg the question: how in the world could we end up with either candidate? Something went awry many steps before we got to the point where either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump were in a position to become president.
I don't see Trump lining up with the Nazi. Hillary is the one to take money from the modern day Nazi in Iran and other countries of the middle east. She's also supported by the US communist party.
All mexicans are out to steal your jobs, you're wives, etc. The best way to grab a woman is by the pussy. All black people will rob you, just because they can.
I've heard the recording, which was made over a decade ago, of a private conversation between two grown men. Trump does not, as you claim, say that that best way to grab a woman is "by the p****y." He does brag that, as a celebrity, he can get women to consent to being grabbed "by the p***y," but he does NOT in any way indicate that he is talking about women in general. Are his comments crude and repulsive? Of course they are. But that's how men talk when women aren't around. And when this private conversation between two men was secretly recorded, there were no women around.
That's a logical fallacy. That's how anyone talks when their personality is vulgar enough, and/or it involves other (usually-unsavory) personality traits. And people often talk like that in private when they know it reveals something about themselves that others would find reprehensible, whether it would inconvenience them or not. Man or woman, I see no excuse for those kinds of comments and claims. There is a line that can be crossed, regardless of whether it was private or between two "grown" men. When I ask myself, "What kind of person says those things," my first instinct isn't to say, "A man," but, "Someone that I don't want to be associated with." And if I were married to a pretty-enough woman, then I would have double the reason. Saying that's just how men talk when women aren't around, that sounds more like an excuse that someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome would say to excuse a certain someone's behavior. All it seems to do is rationalize that it's bad ("crude and repulsive," as you said) yet okay to do; which would make no sense, because where the behavior and ideas came from is almost certain to not be restricted from expressing themselves in some way beyond the private. (And if he really was trying to bed a married woman, whether he himself was married at the time or not, well, there you go.) This is another logical fallacy. People can change with time, but that doesn't mean that they will, or that something that happened in the past is automatically irrelevant. I have to ask: how is this not self-contradictory? Perhaps you can shed some light on what you were trying to say, because the only qualifier that I could hear, which wasn't a part of his statement about being able to get away with anything because he was a star, was his claim to having no self-control around beautiful. If it's not self-contradictory, then the only other explanation -- that I can think of -- is that you're splitting hairs with the person you were replying to, by differentiating between women and beautiful women. Which, I must say, wouldn't do you any favors whether you're trying to defend him or not.
Trump's racist dog whistling and misogyny are well documented, but such things in themselves do not automatically constitute fascism. While it is true that white supremacists and Neo-Nazis are among Trump's supporters, at the end of the day, Trump is a crass opportunist with a vague right-populist platform. In the event of him winning (which seems increasingly unlikely) the presidency, his administration would crumble under the hammer blow of events (the power of his personality would not bring major economic growth, and Hispanics would move further to the left). As for opposing Hillary Clinton for president, it is clear that she has nothing to offer workers if "Not Trump" is being touted as a major reason to vote for her. Furthermore, is not her collusion with the DNC to rig the primaries highly repulsive in itself? Apologists of Hillary Clinton say that Trump's hinting at not accepting an electoral defeat are a danger to democracy. Is not such an accusation hypocritical in the extreme, considering that Hillary clinched the nomination in a rigged primary? I am obviously not a big fan of Donald Trump, but in the light of the rigged DNC primaries, one would think that he would have little trouble of triumphing over Clinton by a double digit margin. If Trump would have kept his hands to himself for all of these years and heeded the 2012 Republican Party "autopsy" report, i.e. reach out to minorities instead of bashing them, that would have ended up being the result of the 2016 election.
I'm not defending Donald Trump. I'm voting for Donald Trump, and in doing so I'm defending the United States of America against a woman who has no respect for this country, its laws, or its people.
Honestly, if elections primarily come down to picking the least-bad of two bad choices (insert third party joke here, even though the whole party concept itself is a joke), rather than the best choice of decent or better, I think we've reached a point where our form of government is no longer working well enough to use. After all, Democracies and Republics are largely dependent on the competency of the populace, and I don't think that the majority in the United States fit that description: not when there are so many non-voters, undecideds (leading up to voting day), anti-other-candidate-voters, an unreliable media that's probably just capitalizing on the whole process for money, narrowing our selection to choices like these, and accepting the selection that we started with in the first place and how we end up with it. But it's too much to ask for a revolution. Well, it's not like we're periodically updating/redrawing the constitution either, like at least one founding father suggested we do (which certainly would have taken care of the interpretation issues with the second amendment, at the very least). Anyway, I guess I'll know someone to whom I could say, "Thank you," to, should Donald Trump become president, after his first term ends, whether I say it straight or sarcastically.
I suppose there's something to say about manners. Unfortunately, chances are that I won't get the opportunity to receive it. Now, I'll get back to the futile hope that there will be a fictional write-in that beats the real people running for the presidency.
As a LGBT citizen, I'm scared as hell of a Trump Presidency. Sure, Hillary is pretty bad as well, and I don't quite agree with her on most things. Hell, she may be secretly homophobic and transphobic, assuming WikiLeaks has any credence, but I'm sure if she tried any moves to take away LGBT protections and what have you, there'd be massive backlash. While I agree with Trump on a few things, like guns, stricter border control, I just can't see him being a good choice for me. Granted, neither of them are really that great. #WEIRDAL2K16
