Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

If you were american, who would you vote for in the elections?

Scroll to see replies

It seems like a lot of criticisms of Trump are either just labels without a lot of evidence, or the genuine points are from decades ago. Then on the other hand, Hillary has, rightfully, I suppose, had a lot of ad hominem attacks thrown at her. Either way, I'd love to see more talking about what their policies might be rather than "He's a bigot! He hurt my feewings!" or "She's a lizard! I can see the devil in her eyes!".

I think Clinton's only appeal to some people is that she would keep the states on the road they're on, if not accelerate it. Well, that and she's a woman, which is a big turn-on for certain 'Murricans, I guess. On the other hand she's corrupt as hell and some people might not like her plans for the country.

Trump doesn't think enough about what he says a lot of the time, and he clearly doesn't care about not offending people, which isn't going to go over well with people on the left or anyone who's sensitive. As for the positives, I think he's improved a decent amount lately now that he's looked at the polls, and his anti-establishment message resonates with a lot of people, usually libertarians/anti-authoritarians.

Personally, I'd vote for Trump. He's the only person who's bringing up immigration and Islamic terrorism without tip-toeing around them with soft language and fake pandering messages, which I'd hope would transfer over to Europe and help as an example of how to deal with things like the refugee problems we're having. Just my opinion, though.

Reply 41

Crijjkal

Original post by macromicro

Trump is against same-sex marriage

He doesn't give a **** about gay marriage, if he said that it's pandering to evangelic Republicans

Reply 42

macromicro

Original post by Crijjkal

What's Aleppo ?

Acronym isn't it? Algeria-Libya-Egypt... Pact... Promise... Organisation...?

Original post by IYGB

Trump
I do not even have to think

Irony intended?

Reply 43

jamiep151

Gary Johnson, he is a terrible candidate (not even an actual libertarian( but voting for the libertarian party sends the right message to the major two parties.

Reply 44

TercioOfParma

Original post by jamiep151

Gary Johnson, he is a terrible candidate (not even an actual libertarian( but voting for the libertarian party sends the right message to the major two parties.

So could Jill Stein, or Darrell Castle.

Reply 45

jamiep151

Original post by TercioOfParma

So could Jill Stein, or Darrell Castle.

Should have clarified I want to send a message of a smaller government and more personal liberty rather than just a "I'm unsatisfied message" so libertarian party is the right choice.

Reply 46

macromicro

Original post by Crijjkal

He doesn't give a **** about gay marriage, if he said that it's pandering to evangelic Republicans

It's one of the few opinions he's stuck with since 2000.

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/

Reply 47

TercioOfParma

Original post by jamiep151

Should have clarified I want to send a message of a smaller government and more personal liberty rather than just a "I'm unsatisfied message" so libertarian party is the right choice.

Constitution party seems to be somewhat like that as well though, although far far more religious.

Reply 48

jamiep151

Original post by TercioOfParma

Constitution party seems to be somewhat like that as well though, although far far more religious.

Yer that's the problem with them, although I would be a strong supporter of the constitution if I was American the party are too much like traditional christian conservatives rather than just supporters of the constitution.

Reply 49

Crijjkal

Original post by macromicro

It's one of the few opinions he's stuck with since 2000.

http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/

Dear Lord your own link says that Trump wants it to be a state issue

Reply 50

macromicro

Original post by Crijjkal

Dear Lord your own link says that Trump wants it to be a state issue

From the horse's mouth:

I think I’m evolving, and I think I’m a very fair person, but I have been for traditional marriage. I am for traditional marriage, I am for a marriage between a man and a woman.

Link

I am not in favor of gay marriage

Link

Reply 51

macromicro

Original post by AH127

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4314454

Original post by AH127

Personally, I'd vote for Trump. He's the only person who's bringing up immigration and Islamic terrorism without tip-toeing around them with soft language and fake pandering messages, which I'd hope would transfer over to Europe and help as an example of how to deal with things like the refugee problems we're having. Just my opinion, though.

Simply bringing up the issues doesn't mean his solutions won't be a step backwards.

This isn't a loaded question, but have you actually read into the feasibility of deporting 11 million illegal immigrants in terms of the cost per immigrant, the effect on the economy, and the ethical implications? Can you explain how banning muslims will help with the Islamism crisis? I don't want Islam spreading anymore than the next atheist, but I just can't understand how banning them will get us closer to a solution. I mean, what's the long-term strategy here? The only way Islamism will be solved is with the reformation of Islam which requires better east-west relations. Lefties can say what they want in defence of Chomsky's gleeful self-flagellation, but western values need to reform the east, and this requires a relationship.

Reply 52

Crijjkal

Original post by macromicro

From the horse's mouth:
Link
Link

>linking to Huffington Post unironically
>ever

OK, but you realize he's running for Republican Party which is social conservative ? I don't think gay marriage is even close to being top priority in this election anyway. Also he never even mentions it at his rallys so obviously he doesn't care about the issue.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 53

AH127

Original post by macromicro

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=4314454

Simply bringing up the issues doesn't mean his solutions won't be a step backwards.

This isn't a loaded question, but have you actually read into the feasibility of deporting 11 million illegal immigrants in terms of the cost per immigrant, the effect on the economy, and the ethical implications? Can you explain how banning muslims will help with the Islamism crisis? I don't want Islam spreading anymore than the next atheist, but I just can't understand how banning them will get us closer to a solution. I mean, what's the long-term strategy here? The only way Islamism will be solved is with the reformation of Islam which requires better east-west relations. Lefties can say what they want in defence of Chomsky's gleeful self-flagellation, but western values need to reform the east, and this requires a relationship.

I've heard Sam Harris go over his support for Hillary on the Rubin Report, but I'll check that video out and get back to you.

I don't necessarily agree with all of his positions on immigration, but the fact that he isn't spouting "Islam is a religion of peace and sunflowers" is a massive step up from Clinton and Sanders, in my opinion.

I think the idea that he can deport that amount of illegal immigrants is pretty unreasonable, but on the other side you have Clinton bring on illegal immigrants to speak at her rallies, which is just nonsense. The word 'illegal' doesn't seem to matter to a lot of leftists, they just see a poor little Mexican girl crying about having to go back to Mexico; as if letting all the Mexicans who don't like their country come live in a better one would help their country of origin.

The cost doesn't seem like that great of an issue when you take in to the cost of keeping them in the country: providing food, housing etc. Not to mention that taking action against illegal immigrants would deter some who were thinking to cross the border, as well as the big ****-off wall. It might cost a decent amount in the short term, but I think it'd be an overall gain when considering how much it costs the country to provide for them for the rest of their lives. Personally, I think funding to welfare could be re-routed to deportation if he really wanted to combat them, but that's just me.

As for banning Muslims, I think there would be a few things that would happen, assuming he'd actually manage to pass any law even close to that, which I doubt as well. Obviously, existing Muslims in the country would most likely outrage and kill a few people, burn a few buildings down. As they do. On the other hand though, it would put out the idea to the world that what the moderate Muslims are currently doing simply isn't enough for the states to trust their community as a whole. Hopefully it'd be a rocket up the backside for moderates to do more than just publicly condone on Facebook the actions of a person committing the weekly Islamist attacks.

Reply 54

macromicro

Original post by Crijjkal

OK, but you realize he's running for Republican Party which is social conservative ? I don't think gay marriage is even close to being top priority in this election anyway.

Of course it's not a priority, and I care very little about the LGBT debate. I made a simple, objective statement that Trump is against same-sex marriage.

Reply 55

username2371841

Original post by saraxh

Kanye West

Yeezys for president <3

aha to begin with i was going to write nobody, but i forgot kanye!

Reply 56

TheUnknownDude

Lol 😂

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 57

Crijjkal

Original post by macromicro

Of course it's not a priority, and I care very little about the LGBT debate. I made a simple, objective statement that Trump is against same-sex marriage.

Interesting policy that just came out will apply to Gay parents

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3788213/Trojan-horse-Trump-childcare-proposal-extend-tax-benefits-sex-couples-makes-evangelicals-uneasy.html

Reply 58

macromicro

Original post by AH127

I don't necessarily agree with all of his positions on immigration, but the fact that he isn't spouting "Islam is a religion of peace and sunflowers" is a massive step up from Clinton and Sanders, in my opinion.

Which should speak volumes on how leading atheists like Harris, Murray and Dawkins criticise Trump, despite the last decade of their lives revolving around dispelling the myth that Islam is a religion of peace. The former, in his frustration, even wrote a speech for Clinton as you may have seen.

Original post by AH127

I think the idea that he can deport that amount of illegal immigrants is pretty unreasonable, but on the other side you have Clinton bring on illegal immigrants to speak at her rallies, which is just nonsense. The word 'illegal' doesn't seem to matter to a lot of leftists, they just see a poor little Mexican girl crying about having to go back to Mexico; as if letting all the Mexicans who don't like their country come live in a better one would help their country of origin.

The cost doesn't seem like that great of an issue when you take in to the cost of keeping them in the country: providing food, housing etc. Not to mention that taking action against illegal immigrants would deter some who were thinking to cross the border, as well as the big ****-off wall. It might cost a decent amount in the short term, but I think it'd be an overall gain when considering how much it costs the country to provide for them for the rest of their lives. Personally, I think funding to welfare could be re-routed to deportation if he really wanted to combat them, but that's just me.

If you agree that his solution is unreasonable then you agree he has no real solution. All he does is feed the audience with impossible fantasies. His proposals cannot even work in conjunction with one another. For example, he wants to slash taxation while also carrying out this multi-billion (and including projection - trillion) dollar deportation of illegal immigrants.

Republicans seem to think that anyone anti-Trump is indifferent to illegal immigration and this simply isn't true. The WSJ wrote a brilliant article on Arizona's mass decrease in illegal immigrants - it's a perfect case study to extrapolate to other states. Everyone has analysed this article in their favour on both sides of the debate, but there are two things we can be certain of: 1. in the short and medium-term, mass departure of low-skilled illegal immigrants has an adverse effect on an economy and 2. In the long-term, it will most likely benefit the economy but not because of the common myths, such as that native workers will have more jobs (the article shows that only 10% of the illegal workers' jobs were taken up by natives and legal workers) but because it forces businesses to improve their production via investing in technology and machinery now that low-skilled labour is in short supply. In other words, it prompts the country to increase the definition of "low-skilled" in line with raising intelligence levels of the world. Humans cannot keep picking fields and working manual labour jobs when we are becoming increasingly educated and intelligent. Reliance on low-skilled employment stunts progression.

The conclusion we can draw is that the prompted mass deportation Trump proposes would cripple the economy, perhaps irrecoverably due to the far more complex nature of carrying this out on an entire country rather than one state. A more realistic solution is to encourage incentives for businesses to invest in capital rather than low-skilled labour while also gradually making stricter the laws on illegal immigration to reduce its cost to the US. Simply kicking them out is ineffective, expensive and short-sighted (unless they are criminals).

Original post by AH127

As for banning Muslims, I think there would be a few things that would happen, assuming he'd actually manage to pass any law even close to that, which I doubt as well. Obviously, existing Muslims in the country would most likely outrage and kill a few people, burn a few buildings down. As they do. On the other hand though, it would put out the idea to the world that what the moderate Muslims are currently doing simply isn't enough for the states to trust their community as a whole. Hopefully it'd be a rocket up the backside for moderates to do more than just publicly condone on Facebook the actions of a person committing the weekly Islamist attacks.

It would do far more damage than good in reforming Islam in the long-term. I understand why Trump and his supporters want to click their fingers and erase the problem of Islam. I don't think Trump is immoral or despicable for his muslim ban proposal, I just think it shows his one-dimensional thinking and inadequate intelligence. People who vilify Trump (i.e. SJWs across the internet) for wanting to exile Islam from the US simply do not understand its threat and crisis. They are mostly the same people who have been bullying everyone into multiculturalism for the last decade while muslims have tried at every turn to push Islam beliefs onto our secular values and while Islamists have happily knifed, bombed, run-over and shot westerners while screaming "Allahu Akbar" in broad daylight - and we're supposed to pretend this has nothing to do with Islam.

The answer is clear: restrict immigration with tighter borders and more sensible requirements for muslim immigrants such as high English proficiency, an integration system (i.e. no faith schools, no private Sharia courts) and welfare stringency, in-depth background checks with a focus on secular values, and racial profiling of muslim illegal immigrants. None of which Trump has the tact or intelligence or patience to orchestrate. He only has one answer: get rid of everyone. Here is a great article detailing this by Douglas Murray, essentially the right's equivalent of Harris.

And remember, any muslim Islam-reformers like Asra Nomani would be banned from returning to the US under Trump if they ever went on holiday. And those outside the US, such as Maajid Nawaz (by far the most influential reformer), would undoubtedly be banned from living there due to his past.