comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
They should start with the second amendment, and amend it.
...............
They actually can't get to this very simple concept.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
8bit
In truth, neither will. Well not unless they go cap in hand to the Saudis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably not. But looking at Hillary's donors I see her as much more dangerous than Trump and certainly more motivated by self interest.
comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
They should start with the second amendment, and amend it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But, but, but, IT"S THE SECOND AMENDMENT, you can't change the amendment!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that they can't make a change. They simply don't want to.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 11 minutes ago
This idea that they're basically the same is ludicrous.
Clinton isn't a historically terrible candidate. She's a very normal mainstream politician who has made compromises and mistakes. This makes her far from ideal if you believe (as I do) that the system itself is corrupted by big money. But her positions and methods are much the same as those of the people who have been running the country for a long time, albeit slightly left of centre insofar as she's more liberal on issues like abortion, gay rights and accepting climate science than the Republicans, and wouldn't tilt quite so far in favour of the super-rich in terms of economic policy (though still tilting in that direction). She has this reputation for unprecedented evil because she has been in the public eye for such a long time, has been subjected to right-wing smears and politically motivated investigations, which give the impression there's no smoke without fire. There's probably no one in the US today (certainly no one in public office) whose actions have been scrutinised to the same forensic degree. The fact that she hasn't been jailed suggests her mistakes haven't been that grave. Her lack of folksy charm and probably the fact that women are judged to a different standard (just imagine if she had said and done the same things as Trump) don't help. She's a normal candidate with extensive knowledge of how government works, how the world works, and a curiosity about policy.
On the other side there's a candidate who has demonstrated he's a racist and misogynist, who seems to abhor the basic protections of liberal democracy. He's a populist demagogue who appeals to the worst sentiments of the population while clearly standing for the interests of the super-rich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree slightly RR, in that I don't think historically both parties have produced two universally unpopular candidates. Whether HRC's unpopularity is due to decades of GOP mudslinging, or genuine concerns over various ties to the donor class, remains to be seen (I suspect a bit of both). What should be of concern is that Trump is all thing you listed, but HRC couldn't land a knock out blow in Debate #2 after previous two days he had. She's opened up a bit of a lead now, but this race should never have been close to begin with.
As to women being judge to different standards than men in these thing, yes I agree to a point. I think what is more prevailent is that in the US, is the left and the right are judged to different standards. Traditionally (from my time of following presidential debates) as long as the Republican candidate doesn't cry and vomit allover themselves it's seen as a positive (exaggeration of course). This cycle has though has not been far off that standard. Trump did however win on some issues that he had know right to win on especially the taxes. His line about hillary doing nothing about taxes because of her rich donors was probably the best line in the whole debate. How true it is, I'm not 100% certain of but stuff like that lands with people. All that speaks to her weaknesses as a candidate.
i remember reading something about hilary health few weeks back..is she even fit to run for presidential.
But looking at Hillary's donors I see her as much more dangerous than Trump
................
She is nowhere near as dangerous as Trump. You can't have a man prone to temper tantrums like a five year old with his finger on the nuclear button.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 8 minutes ago
One of the things I have trouble with is why the Democrats threw their weight behind Hilary Clinton.
They could have picked any other candidate, even someone like Martin O'Malley and he would have trounced Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was her "turn". There's a bubble certain people lived in that no matter who the GOP put it she would win. I'm convinced Kasic/Rubio possibly even "Jeb!" could have beaten her on a national stage. Her trustworthiness is a major issue.
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
8bit
In truth, neither will. Well not unless they go cap in hand to the Saudis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably not. But looking at Hillary's donors I see her as much more dangerous than Trump and certainly more motivated by self interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t really agree with that, as DT has had his share of donors too. Due to his conduct however most have had no option but to sever ties with him. Including the GOP.
HC may represent the status quo but DT (as evidenced throughout) has been more divisive than any nominee in history. The last thing the US needs is further division. I believe HC is the lesser of two evils TBH.
comment by Yohan's Kebab Van (U8691)
posted 3 minutes ago
Rooney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Rooney has had a great career, but what has he done recently to get people excited to come out and vote. Rich donors like Nike and the fawning of the media over him don't play well with Joe the Plumber.
comment by Mumbai Mkhitaryan (U3867)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Yohan's Kebab Van (U8691)
posted 3 minutes ago
Rooney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Rooney has had a great career, but what has he done recently to get people excited to come out and vote. Rich donors like Nike and the fawning of the media over him don't play well with Joe the Plumber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
atleast he has the grannies on his side
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Mumbai Mkhitaryan (U3867)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 11 minutes ago
This idea that they're basically the same is ludicrous.
Clinton isn't a historically terrible candidate. She's a very normal mainstream politician who has made compromises and mistakes. This makes her far from ideal if you believe (as I do) that the system itself is corrupted by big money. But her positions and methods are much the same as those of the people who have been running the country for a long time, albeit slightly left of centre insofar as she's more liberal on issues like abortion, gay rights and accepting climate science than the Republicans, and wouldn't tilt quite so far in favour of the super-rich in terms of economic policy (though still tilting in that direction). She has this reputation for unprecedented evil because she has been in the public eye for such a long time, has been subjected to right-wing smears and politically motivated investigations, which give the impression there's no smoke without fire. There's probably no one in the US today (certainly no one in public office) whose actions have been scrutinised to the same forensic degree. The fact that she hasn't been jailed suggests her mistakes haven't been that grave. Her lack of folksy charm and probably the fact that women are judged to a different standard (just imagine if she had said and done the same things as Trump) don't help. She's a normal candidate with extensive knowledge of how government works, how the world works, and a curiosity about policy.
On the other side there's a candidate who has demonstrated he's a racist and misogynist, who seems to abhor the basic protections of liberal democracy. He's a populist demagogue who appeals to the worst sentiments of the population while clearly standing for the interests of the super-rich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree slightly RR, in that I don't think historically both parties have produced two universally unpopular candidates. Whether HRC's unpopularity is due to decades of GOP mudslinging, or genuine concerns over various ties to the donor class, remains to be seen (I suspect a bit of both). What should be of concern is that Trump is all thing you listed, but HRC couldn't land a knock out blow in Debate #2 after previous two days he had. She's opened up a bit of a lead now, but this race should never have been close to begin with.
As to women being judge to different standards than men in these thing, yes I agree to a point. I think what is more prevailent is that in the US, is the left and the right are judged to different standards. Traditionally (from my time of following presidential debates) as long as the Republican candidate doesn't cry and vomit allover themselves it's seen as a positive (exaggeration of course). This cycle has though has not been far off that standard. Trump did however win on some issues that he had know right to win on especially the taxes. His line about hillary doing nothing about taxes because of her rich donors was probably the best line in the whole debate. How true it is, I'm not 100% certain of but stuff like that lands with people. All that speaks to her weaknesses as a candidate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is insane! TRUMP obviously pays next to no tax. He is the exact person he attacked Hillary of supposedly supporting. It is literally the definition of hypocrisy. According to Trump, she did nothing to stop him rorting the american public and he is a genius for it, and he has said he's going to give cuts to the top end of town, namely him. INSANE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree with what he said. He IS that exact type of person he claims to be against. I'm talking about perception. It was a issue she should have buried him on but she didn't have a response. The truth of it doesn't actually matter in the context of an election (look at Brexit) it plays into the whole "Crooked Hillary" narrative.
My post was about her weakness as a candidate not the strengths of nutjob, racist, mysogynist billionaire.
The Democrats just wanted to pander to the progressive left with successive presidential candidates.
They got the first black president. Now they want the first female one. There's absolutely no other explanation for Clinton's nomination - she's a truly ridiculous candidate compared to some of her colleagues, and the only one who could've given Trump a sniff of victory.
I am truly astounded that this is even a debate...!!!???
Trump should not be allowed any where near the decision making process of a 'super power' nation!!
It would be like letting that racist buffoon Boris Johnson attempt to create positive foreign relations with other countries at a time when the UK needs to secure its financial future...!!!..... oh wait...hang on....
<awkward>
I'm convinced Kasic/Rubio possibly even "Jeb!" could have beaten her on a national stage. Her trustworthiness is a major issue.
...............
Ted Cruz would have beaten her.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 29 seconds ago
I'm convinced Kasic/Rubio possibly even "Jeb!" could have beaten her on a national stage. Her trustworthiness is a major issue.
...............
Ted Cruz would have beaten her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think one of many other Republican candidates could and would have beaten her.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
8bit
In truth, neither will. Well not unless they go cap in hand to the Saudis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably not. But looking at Hillary's donors I see her as much more dangerous than Trump and certainly more motivated by self interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t really agree with that, as DT has had his share of donors too. Due to his conduct however most have had no option but to sever ties with him. Including the GOP.
HC may represent the status quo but DT (as evidenced throughout) has been more divisive than any nominee in history. The last thing the US needs is further division. I believe HC is the lesser of two evils TBH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The divisions have been there for a long time and Trump has taken advantage of that, but he didn't create them. it's the failed politics which has created divisions and Clinton represents that. US politics is corrupt because of lobbyists and donors, candidates need so much money to fund their campaigns that they have to accept the money and then offer things in return and they have big influence. Trump isn't running for special interests so that alone makes him a better candidate.
Clinton isn't the ideal however Trump is simply dangerous to all of us across the World
He is one of the very worst examples of privilege that you could ever find. In the words of John Stewart he is a complete Manbaby! This moron cannot be allowed to gain any power
It's embarrassing for America that so many are supporting Trump despite the obvious issues but there are a lot who undoubtedly see Clinton as more of the same and want change. However you can vote for change when it is someone credible and sane....you cannot say Trump is credible or sane. He is the worst possible candidate so you have to go with Clinton. I don't think she'll be amazing as President but then again America has a Republican controlled Senate and HOR so like Obama found there will be more of the political stalemate there has always been
I say its embarrassing for America however as the Brexit vote showed many people are frankly brain dead when it comes to Elections. Trump still has a chance despite everything which is absurd
comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 1 hour, 52 minutes ago
As for the Syrian issue, I think Putin and Assad should be supported, not vilified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upwards of 25 civilians killed in the latest raid on Aleppo.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Is Trump really that dangerous, though? With all of the checks and balances in the US system, could he really do that much harm? Furthermore, will anything he does be as bad as what Obama and Clinton have already done in the Middle East? There's a lot of pots in Washington.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
This idea that they're basically the same is ludicrous.
Clinton isn't a historically terrible candidate. She's a very normal mainstream politician who has made compromises and mistakes. This makes her far from ideal if you believe (as I do) that the system itself is corrupted by big money. But her positions and methods are much the same as those of the people who have been running the country for a long time, albeit slightly left of centre insofar as she's more liberal on issues like abortion, gay rights and accepting climate science than the Republicans, and wouldn't tilt quite so far in favour of the super-rich in terms of economic policy (though still tilting in that direction). She has this reputation for unprecedented evil because she has been in the public eye for such a long time, has been subjected to right-wing smears and politically motivated investigations, which give the impression there's no smoke without fire. There's probably no one in the US today (certainly no one in public office) whose actions have been scrutinised to the same forensic degree. The fact that she hasn't been jailed suggests her mistakes haven't been that grave. Her lack of folksy charm and probably the fact that women are judged to a different standard (just imagine if she had said and done the same things as Trump) don't help. She's a normal candidate with extensive knowledge of how government works, how the world works, and a curiosity about policy.
On the other side there's a candidate who has demonstrated he's a racist and misogynist, who seems to abhor the basic protections of liberal democracy. He's a populist demagogue who appeals to the worst sentiments of the population while clearly standing for the interests of the super-rich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best post on the thread.
Trump or Clinton
Page 5 of 107
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
They should start with the second amendment, and amend it.
...............
They actually can't get to this very simple concept.
posted on 12/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/10/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
8bit
In truth, neither will. Well not unless they go cap in hand to the Saudis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably not. But looking at Hillary's donors I see her as much more dangerous than Trump and certainly more motivated by self interest.
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 6 seconds ago
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
They should start with the second amendment, and amend it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But, but, but, IT"S THE SECOND AMENDMENT, you can't change the amendment!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that they can't make a change. They simply don't want to.
posted on 12/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 11 minutes ago
This idea that they're basically the same is ludicrous.
Clinton isn't a historically terrible candidate. She's a very normal mainstream politician who has made compromises and mistakes. This makes her far from ideal if you believe (as I do) that the system itself is corrupted by big money. But her positions and methods are much the same as those of the people who have been running the country for a long time, albeit slightly left of centre insofar as she's more liberal on issues like abortion, gay rights and accepting climate science than the Republicans, and wouldn't tilt quite so far in favour of the super-rich in terms of economic policy (though still tilting in that direction). She has this reputation for unprecedented evil because she has been in the public eye for such a long time, has been subjected to right-wing smears and politically motivated investigations, which give the impression there's no smoke without fire. There's probably no one in the US today (certainly no one in public office) whose actions have been scrutinised to the same forensic degree. The fact that she hasn't been jailed suggests her mistakes haven't been that grave. Her lack of folksy charm and probably the fact that women are judged to a different standard (just imagine if she had said and done the same things as Trump) don't help. She's a normal candidate with extensive knowledge of how government works, how the world works, and a curiosity about policy.
On the other side there's a candidate who has demonstrated he's a racist and misogynist, who seems to abhor the basic protections of liberal democracy. He's a populist demagogue who appeals to the worst sentiments of the population while clearly standing for the interests of the super-rich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree slightly RR, in that I don't think historically both parties have produced two universally unpopular candidates. Whether HRC's unpopularity is due to decades of GOP mudslinging, or genuine concerns over various ties to the donor class, remains to be seen (I suspect a bit of both). What should be of concern is that Trump is all thing you listed, but HRC couldn't land a knock out blow in Debate #2 after previous two days he had. She's opened up a bit of a lead now, but this race should never have been close to begin with.
As to women being judge to different standards than men in these thing, yes I agree to a point. I think what is more prevailent is that in the US, is the left and the right are judged to different standards. Traditionally (from my time of following presidential debates) as long as the Republican candidate doesn't cry and vomit allover themselves it's seen as a positive (exaggeration of course). This cycle has though has not been far off that standard. Trump did however win on some issues that he had know right to win on especially the taxes. His line about hillary doing nothing about taxes because of her rich donors was probably the best line in the whole debate. How true it is, I'm not 100% certain of but stuff like that lands with people. All that speaks to her weaknesses as a candidate.
posted on 12/10/16
Rooney
posted on 12/10/16
i remember reading something about hilary health few weeks back..is she even fit to run for presidential.
posted on 12/10/16
But looking at Hillary's donors I see her as much more dangerous than Trump
................
She is nowhere near as dangerous as Trump. You can't have a man prone to temper tantrums like a five year old with his finger on the nuclear button.
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 8 minutes ago
One of the things I have trouble with is why the Democrats threw their weight behind Hilary Clinton.
They could have picked any other candidate, even someone like Martin O'Malley and he would have trounced Trump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was her "turn". There's a bubble certain people lived in that no matter who the GOP put it she would win. I'm convinced Kasic/Rubio possibly even "Jeb!" could have beaten her on a national stage. Her trustworthiness is a major issue.
posted on 12/10/16
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
8bit
In truth, neither will. Well not unless they go cap in hand to the Saudis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably not. But looking at Hillary's donors I see her as much more dangerous than Trump and certainly more motivated by self interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t really agree with that, as DT has had his share of donors too. Due to his conduct however most have had no option but to sever ties with him. Including the GOP.
HC may represent the status quo but DT (as evidenced throughout) has been more divisive than any nominee in history. The last thing the US needs is further division. I believe HC is the lesser of two evils TBH.
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Yohan's Kebab Van (U8691)
posted 3 minutes ago
Rooney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Rooney has had a great career, but what has he done recently to get people excited to come out and vote. Rich donors like Nike and the fawning of the media over him don't play well with Joe the Plumber.
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Mumbai Mkhitaryan (U3867)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Yohan's Kebab Van (U8691)
posted 3 minutes ago
Rooney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure Rooney has had a great career, but what has he done recently to get people excited to come out and vote. Rich donors like Nike and the fawning of the media over him don't play well with Joe the Plumber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
atleast he has the grannies on his side
posted on 12/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Brightdave: (U11711)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Mumbai Mkhitaryan (U3867)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 11 minutes ago
This idea that they're basically the same is ludicrous.
Clinton isn't a historically terrible candidate. She's a very normal mainstream politician who has made compromises and mistakes. This makes her far from ideal if you believe (as I do) that the system itself is corrupted by big money. But her positions and methods are much the same as those of the people who have been running the country for a long time, albeit slightly left of centre insofar as she's more liberal on issues like abortion, gay rights and accepting climate science than the Republicans, and wouldn't tilt quite so far in favour of the super-rich in terms of economic policy (though still tilting in that direction). She has this reputation for unprecedented evil because she has been in the public eye for such a long time, has been subjected to right-wing smears and politically motivated investigations, which give the impression there's no smoke without fire. There's probably no one in the US today (certainly no one in public office) whose actions have been scrutinised to the same forensic degree. The fact that she hasn't been jailed suggests her mistakes haven't been that grave. Her lack of folksy charm and probably the fact that women are judged to a different standard (just imagine if she had said and done the same things as Trump) don't help. She's a normal candidate with extensive knowledge of how government works, how the world works, and a curiosity about policy.
On the other side there's a candidate who has demonstrated he's a racist and misogynist, who seems to abhor the basic protections of liberal democracy. He's a populist demagogue who appeals to the worst sentiments of the population while clearly standing for the interests of the super-rich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree slightly RR, in that I don't think historically both parties have produced two universally unpopular candidates. Whether HRC's unpopularity is due to decades of GOP mudslinging, or genuine concerns over various ties to the donor class, remains to be seen (I suspect a bit of both). What should be of concern is that Trump is all thing you listed, but HRC couldn't land a knock out blow in Debate #2 after previous two days he had. She's opened up a bit of a lead now, but this race should never have been close to begin with.
As to women being judge to different standards than men in these thing, yes I agree to a point. I think what is more prevailent is that in the US, is the left and the right are judged to different standards. Traditionally (from my time of following presidential debates) as long as the Republican candidate doesn't cry and vomit allover themselves it's seen as a positive (exaggeration of course). This cycle has though has not been far off that standard. Trump did however win on some issues that he had know right to win on especially the taxes. His line about hillary doing nothing about taxes because of her rich donors was probably the best line in the whole debate. How true it is, I'm not 100% certain of but stuff like that lands with people. All that speaks to her weaknesses as a candidate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is insane! TRUMP obviously pays next to no tax. He is the exact person he attacked Hillary of supposedly supporting. It is literally the definition of hypocrisy. According to Trump, she did nothing to stop him rorting the american public and he is a genius for it, and he has said he's going to give cuts to the top end of town, namely him. INSANE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't agree with what he said. He IS that exact type of person he claims to be against. I'm talking about perception. It was a issue she should have buried him on but she didn't have a response. The truth of it doesn't actually matter in the context of an election (look at Brexit) it plays into the whole "Crooked Hillary" narrative.
My post was about her weakness as a candidate not the strengths of nutjob, racist, mysogynist billionaire.
posted on 12/10/16
The Democrats just wanted to pander to the progressive left with successive presidential candidates.
They got the first black president. Now they want the first female one. There's absolutely no other explanation for Clinton's nomination - she's a truly ridiculous candidate compared to some of her colleagues, and the only one who could've given Trump a sniff of victory.
posted on 12/10/16
I am truly astounded that this is even a debate...!!!???
Trump should not be allowed any where near the decision making process of a 'super power' nation!!
It would be like letting that racist buffoon Boris Johnson attempt to create positive foreign relations with other countries at a time when the UK needs to secure its financial future...!!!..... oh wait...hang on....
<awkward>
posted on 12/10/16
I'm convinced Kasic/Rubio possibly even "Jeb!" could have beaten her on a national stage. Her trustworthiness is a major issue.
...............
Ted Cruz would have beaten her.
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 29 seconds ago
I'm convinced Kasic/Rubio possibly even "Jeb!" could have beaten her on a national stage. Her trustworthiness is a major issue.
...............
Ted Cruz would have beaten her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think one of many other Republican candidates could and would have beaten her.
posted on 12/10/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by 8bit (U2653)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
8bit
In truth, neither will. Well not unless they go cap in hand to the Saudis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably not. But looking at Hillary's donors I see her as much more dangerous than Trump and certainly more motivated by self interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t really agree with that, as DT has had his share of donors too. Due to his conduct however most have had no option but to sever ties with him. Including the GOP.
HC may represent the status quo but DT (as evidenced throughout) has been more divisive than any nominee in history. The last thing the US needs is further division. I believe HC is the lesser of two evils TBH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The divisions have been there for a long time and Trump has taken advantage of that, but he didn't create them. it's the failed politics which has created divisions and Clinton represents that. US politics is corrupt because of lobbyists and donors, candidates need so much money to fund their campaigns that they have to accept the money and then offer things in return and they have big influence. Trump isn't running for special interests so that alone makes him a better candidate.
posted on 12/10/16
Clinton isn't the ideal however Trump is simply dangerous to all of us across the World
He is one of the very worst examples of privilege that you could ever find. In the words of John Stewart he is a complete Manbaby! This moron cannot be allowed to gain any power
It's embarrassing for America that so many are supporting Trump despite the obvious issues but there are a lot who undoubtedly see Clinton as more of the same and want change. However you can vote for change when it is someone credible and sane....you cannot say Trump is credible or sane. He is the worst possible candidate so you have to go with Clinton. I don't think she'll be amazing as President but then again America has a Republican controlled Senate and HOR so like Obama found there will be more of the political stalemate there has always been
I say its embarrassing for America however as the Brexit vote showed many people are frankly brain dead when it comes to Elections. Trump still has a chance despite everything which is absurd
posted on 12/10/16
comment by The Sniper (U21079)
posted 1 hour, 52 minutes ago
As for the Syrian issue, I think Putin and Assad should be supported, not vilified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Upwards of 25 civilians killed in the latest raid on Aleppo.
posted on 12/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/10/16
Is Trump really that dangerous, though? With all of the checks and balances in the US system, could he really do that much harm? Furthermore, will anything he does be as bad as what Obama and Clinton have already done in the Middle East? There's a lot of pots in Washington.
posted on 12/10/16
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
This idea that they're basically the same is ludicrous.
Clinton isn't a historically terrible candidate. She's a very normal mainstream politician who has made compromises and mistakes. This makes her far from ideal if you believe (as I do) that the system itself is corrupted by big money. But her positions and methods are much the same as those of the people who have been running the country for a long time, albeit slightly left of centre insofar as she's more liberal on issues like abortion, gay rights and accepting climate science than the Republicans, and wouldn't tilt quite so far in favour of the super-rich in terms of economic policy (though still tilting in that direction). She has this reputation for unprecedented evil because she has been in the public eye for such a long time, has been subjected to right-wing smears and politically motivated investigations, which give the impression there's no smoke without fire. There's probably no one in the US today (certainly no one in public office) whose actions have been scrutinised to the same forensic degree. The fact that she hasn't been jailed suggests her mistakes haven't been that grave. Her lack of folksy charm and probably the fact that women are judged to a different standard (just imagine if she had said and done the same things as Trump) don't help. She's a normal candidate with extensive knowledge of how government works, how the world works, and a curiosity about policy.
On the other side there's a candidate who has demonstrated he's a racist and misogynist, who seems to abhor the basic protections of liberal democracy. He's a populist demagogue who appeals to the worst sentiments of the population while clearly standing for the interests of the super-rich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best post on the thread.
Page 5 of 107
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10