Match Day Thread Trump v Clinton

So it's 'possible' rather than 'probable'. It's equally 'possible' it could be the best move, particularly if the EU implodes.

Which puts a different strength to using it to justify a choice in the US elections.

 

Yes. Nuclear war uncertainty was miles better in your day. Presumably Trump will make Nuclear war uncertainty great again.

 

Some unbelievable naivety on display here regarding who poses the greater threat to global peace. People bleating about the way America, under Obama, has 'brought us to the brink' and how Clinton is just more of the same, but potentially worse.

That's what America does. It's what America has done for decades. It exists in an ongoing state of war readiness, because that's what is required in order for it to maintain its military-industrial complex and therefore preserve its role as a pre-eminent global power. Obama is a good man - probably the most genuinely decent President since Jimmy Carter - but even he's been tarnished by the job, which is even more of a poisoned chalice than being England manager.

There's no doubt that the Clinton Dynasty is an unsavoury one; she gives a bad name to the Democrats, and the only decent candidate was Bernie Sanders. However, she's used to being around power, is used to the way America operates, and is used to the ongoing games of brinkmanship that are played with Russia and China and in The Middle East. Like every President before her, she knows how to stay just short of global nuclear conflict, and keep us all under control with the fear this brings, all the time justifying and feeding the War Readiness Machine.

Trump isn't smart enough to do this. He's the luckiest businessman alive, and I don't buy the notion that he knows what he's doing and that he's manipulating the media. He's just as much a puppet as anyone else. The difference is, whereas someone like Clinton - and just about every President of the last four or five decades - presents a threat with the global games she will undoubtedly play, this is par for the course. It's what America does, and it makes people feel frightened and disempowered, and creates an 'anti-establishment' mindset, which should be a good thing, creating space for someone like Bernie Sanders. He almost took the opportunity, but Clinton had too much behind her. So, instead of the educated, fair-minded, silent majority being mobilised and able to have a say in things by getting behind someone like Sanders, we have a vacuum, and that vacuum has been filled by an altogether different silent minority, mobilised by Donald Trump.

Trump doesn't know how to play the big power games. He's not smart enough. He's not an intelligent enough communicator to operate at those levels. However, his wouldn't be the finger on the Big Red Button; his military puppet masters have got that covered. What he does do though, is bring a threat much closer to home; while the threat of global nuclear conflict is an ever-present threat in the backs of the minds of most people, a much more real threat is felt by the people he rails against when setting out his political 'vision'. He wants to 'Take America back'. Back to what? The days when blacks could be beaten up for expressing their political views? The days when women could be insulted and assaulted by someone with power and money? Building a ****ing wall?

Forget the global threat; this vile individual poses a far more realistic threat to millions of people in his own country every time he opens his mouth.

So I'll say it again; if you support him, you're either an ignorant **** or a bigoted ****. Take yer pick.

 

There's a fair amount of truth and a fair amount of rhetoric in that, so forgive me if on balance, I take your points, but I reject your conclusion.

 

As you are perfectly entitled to do...

 

I think some of it comes down to the difference between 'supporting' him, which in reality few of us on here can do anyway, and considering the information available, and deciding which is the least worst of the two.

The perception that not picking Clinton, means you support Trump, and the associated baggage some hang on that, doesn't help discussions as it just becomes personal rather than policy driven. Daft pictures hardly help.

 

But for me, that's the reality of it; if you don't vote against what I believe to be the greater evil, you're effectively supporting it.

 

Funnily enough he could turn out to be at least two of those things himself soon.

 

<snooze>

 

I would say Clinton has created more racial problems and is a bigger threat to world peace than Trump would be, partly because of some of the things you mention. He hasn't got the political experience to get too much through the house anyway.

I'm anti-Clinton because of her actions, and what she and they represent. That doesn't make me pro-Trump.

 

Trumps really not a complete ****ing moron. Not even close. He may be many things, but he sure as **** is not stupid.

She's not just ****, she's kinda evil. Probably corrupt too.

It's a horrible choice. Her or him.

Like I said earlier, having to choose the lesser of 2 evils, in your own mind, is not the basis a leader of the US should be elected.

 

That does lay out his policies actually, and unusually clearly for a politician too (with the exception of the post Brexit daily £350m for the NHS, which was even clearer)
I don't support him, but he's very clear what he's going to actually do and when on lots of issues
To be fair people can't claim to not know his policies, they must presumably not like them or prefer Hilary's
(I might hunt them down now, cheers Dutch)

 

Don't mistake being a supposedly 'successful businessman' for being clever. Just look at the things he comes out with. These are not the measured statements of an intelligent man; they're the kind of things that, if they were uttered by some bloke down the pub, they'd be dismissed out of hand, but because a multi-billionaire comes out with them, they're given credence.

 

How does that differ from Clinton?

 

Maybe the world could do with someone like Trump. With the might, resources and technology the west has at its disposal, there's no way a group such as ISIS should ever have progressed beyond a handful of people plotting in a shed. The fact it has is a sad indictment of the nicey nicey tolerant soft touch society we've become. Just look at Corbyn and his comments about not shooting to kill terrorists in a hostage situation ffs.

 

You can only guess they're the same. She needs to explain as it's far from certain they agree.