Just leaving this here for you to think about...

All of your points in that little sentence make absolutely no sense.

The guy with the loud voice
Ok so... you'd prefer a guy with a quiet voice?

Who hates minorities
his wife is a minority and he wants to protect the borders and protect the US from terrorism. Oh I get it, lets just have open borders let anyone in from anywhere that's a good idea right?

Threatens to imprison opponents
What? Who other than Hillary has he even said he would imprison in the election? I assume you mean "Opponent" regardless, imprisoning someone who has done what she has would be a good idea would it not?

Doesn't give a fuck about democracy
What the fuck are you even saying here.

Claims he alone can fix everything
When did he say that he alone would fix everything? Even so, which candidate ever has said "Oh I can't fix anything, but vote for me!"​

 

Right... You're the kind of guy that votes Trump and has no braincells. 'Protect the US from terrorism.' What the hell? I so much don't understand American thinking about 'protection' 'freedom' and all other shit you guys have that the rest of the world also has but in a different way. I hope you know who this refers to...

 

Very well thought out response

 

"Doesn't give a fuck about democracy
What the fuck are you even saying here."

Still don't know if you know who this refers to btw!

 

I find the above comical and accurate in regards to Hitler, but the comparison somewhat unjustified. You can compare Hitler to a lot of things and Trump does have some Hitler-esque qualities and while he may be completely unqualified for the position, he is not Hitler.

The irony.

Anyway, this is irrelevant to the overall presentation and refers to his behavior during speeches.

There is a difference between open borders and stereotyping of races (Mexicans), sex's (women), the disabled, and religions (Jews & Muslims) and that's just off the top of my head.

Your argument sums down to "I have a black friend, I cannot be racist!"

Well, he does plan on deporting 11 million immigriants via "rounding up" so.. there's the imprisonment. Anyway, that is beside the point due to the idea of a leader of another party threatening to imprision the leader of the opposing party. That is an issue.

No, it would not. There is a reason the DOJ did not charge Clinton and why the FBI recomended no charges even though it is comprised of a very pro-Trump culture (83% white, nearly 70% males). Using an email server does not amount to criminal charges and if you took a moment to look at previous instances you would also see that charges were not made. I.E. Collin Powel the Republican Secretary of State for Bush also used a private email server. If anything were to happen, the individual would be reprimanded for their use of a private server as is what happened in the case of (what I believe was) a Kenyan ambassador for the U.S. He was told to stop using a private server or face in-house punishment. It is hard to reprimand someone after they already left their position.

Well, Trump has refused to say he will concede, so there's that.

I think you will be hard pressed to find candidates that will state they will solely fix the issues an entire coutnry is facing; however, Trump has gone on to state things such as he knows more than the generals fighting IS and how they need his help, not the other way around. Is that not him alone fixing everything?

 

I agree with you that he is, ofcourse, not Hitler. But the general idea and the meaning of this comic felt very appealing to me. There is no comparison to be made between the two of them, but still. Even coming close to such a comparison as president of the United States, with your hand on the nuclear codes... Once again, he will have a whole team of professionals around him and won't do it. But the idea, just the idea

 

Loud voice: Is this a problem?
Hates minorities: For what reason is he 'hating' minorities, and, is that reason justified?
Threatens to imprison opponents: What threat of imprisoning opponents did he make, and, do his opponents deserve to be imprisoned under the rule of law?
Doesn't give a fuck about democracy: What makes you think that?
Claims he alone can fix everything: 'I have great people...' people is plural.

There is nothing of substance to respond to in that picture. You have, what is supposed to be a person that embodies Hitler - who was undoubtedly evil - and all you can come up with is a substanceless picture? Really? If you want to enter a circle jerk that only says what you think is correct, then be my guest, but Trump doesn't stand alone, he has hundreds of millions of people who his message resonates with. Just think for a second before you call those hundreds of millions of people 'deplorable'; they've been called that for years, this wasn't an overnight thing - you're jumping on a bandwagon, how courageous, as courageous as those many Germans pre-WW2 who didn't like Hitler but just went with it.

 

Loud voice: talking a lot of words, that are not backed up by any facts. Is this a problem? Not directly, just very unprofessional.
Threatens to imprison opponents: They do not, as Tmoe stated before. Threatening as a president candidate is a sign of weakness, I think.
Democracy: 'I'll build a wall' deporting immigrants. That dude is fucked up in his mind and power hungry. Maybe I don't understand American standards and mind-sets, quite possible, but it's insane.

The hundreds of millions of people that follow Trump are either poor as fuck and are happy that he 'creates' jobs, or have an IQ too low to understand that he is a madman with no morals. The things he says, the things he does are so non-president like. You are running to be the most powerful person in the world, please behave like one if you have the ambitions. I bet I have more manners than he has.

 

Loud voice turned into lots of talk and no facts; that was a radical departure. Clinton does the same.

You did not respond to the first question. Trump never threatened to imprison his opponents. He said he would get a special prosecutor to look into Hilary's case. How is this a threat? A threat is usually 'Do X or else'. What is the or else? He is merely saying he will do X. Hilary has not been charged, the argument being a lack of mens rea, and yet we know she had emails deleted after a subpoena. This is pretty good evidence of some sort of intent, among other things. Additionally, hiring a special prosecutor =/= threatening to imprison. All the special prosecutor can do is take their case to Court (as far as I know), and that is not inconsistent with the rule of law.

I don't see how this contradicts democracy? Democracy sanctions the doing of ANYTHING, provided it has 'majority support'. If it has majority support, I fail to see how this is evidence that he 'doesn't give a fuck about democracy'.

Many people that 'follow Trump' are more successful than you and your descendants combined will ever be. Regardless, the points you made in an attempt to justify the picture you posted are absolutely divorced from the natural meaning of the words from the picture, and the meanings those words were intended to convey. Ultimately, your position seems to be you don't like Trump, and you will say anything to justify it; how is this any different from the supposed Trump supporters you profess to condemn?

 

Not saying I think Clinton is much better. They are both shit.
If you want to exclude immigrants of your country, I find that pretty much a big finger to democracy. Ofcourse if he has a majority it is still democracy, considerably, but you can't disagree with me that he is radical. Having a majority doesn't make anything justifiable.

Yeah nice call, same goes for Clinton. The points I make is that the US elections in general are retarded, the people don't know what they vote for and just think about what will be best for them, instead of voting for something that will actually help. But, since there is a lack of suitable candidates you're fucked both ways. In my eyes Clinton is the best of the rest, since I indeed can't believe how insane Trump is and how you could vote for such a madman. If you really believe that Trump's actions will make America 'safe' (What even is safe?) and he'll be the best, please go ahead and vote and shit. It's just that I don't understand how people can think that Trump is good. Neither can I understand that there is no decent Democrat candidate either. So many people in the country, but not a single qualified one to take the spot. That goes beyond me. And sorry if this looks like an all out Trump rant, not supposed to be like that. Picture was funny to me as a non American, and for an outsider it really looks quite the same. He isn't that radical and evil, all good. But still, as a European I can understand why you would state what is in the picture.

 

The picture implies that 'not giving a fuck about democracy' is bad. The logic being Donald Trump doesn't give a fuck about democracy, therefore Donald Trump is bad. You are now saying that democratic mandate isn't always justifiable. That is a valid point to make, but that in no way shape or form superimposes onto Donald Trump that he 'doesn't give a fuck about democracy'.

So democracy is flawed. Sure, but if Donald Trump doesn't give a fuck about democracy, then he is not giving a fuck about something flawed, which doesn't seem to be as bad. See when analyze things, your whole scare-picture breaks down.

I'm not an American either, but if you think Clinton is the 'best of the rest', you probably haven't looked into her track record. When she's done with her presidential term, it is probably more likely that Women and Blacks will lose their right to vote, or that that we will be in the middle of WW3, as opposed to America seeing any meaningful economic growth.

The balance of power will shift considerably more toward Asia in 8 years time. But go ahead, meme the only person who identifies the issue; just call Trump a madman and win the debate, Liberal Debating Tactics 101.

 

People are expecting change through the ballot box, when in reality they need total reform. Comparing all of these candidates or recent presidents/congress is like saying Clinton got a 40% on his test, Bush a 42% on his, and Obama a 43% on his. Nobody seems to pay much attention that they are all failing. Reform will not come through the ballot box, ask yourself, is that truly a reasonable expectation?

Change comes from people demanding a change through actions further than just voting in a two-party system with candidates both parties seem to admit they do not believe in. Commonly referred to as the "lesser of two evils." Keeping that in mind I'll ask again, is it a reasonable expectation to expect reform from the ballot box?