The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

US Presidential Election 2016 official thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by oldercon1953
That should have read, Stokely Charmichael


Yeh. Everyone was talking about Malcolm X but you were talking about Stokely.
Reply 6421
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbqtAuT4zbk

Lets not pretend America is not still great.
At least trumps wall is on the border we (the uk) are building a wall in France to cut illegal immigration.
Original post by joecphillips
At least trumps wall is on the border we (the uk) are building a wall in France to cut illegal immigration.


The French have built, we have paid for, a two mile fence around their port, not the town of Calais.

How does that compare with Trump trying to persuade Mexico to pay for a 2000 mile wall along their border?
Has anybody else noticed that all we seem to hear from the pro Clinton media is how Trump has allegedly received funding from Russia, even from US sources? So even they realise how bad she is?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Has anybody else noticed that all we seem to hear from the pro Clinton media is how Trump has allegedly received funding from Russia, even from US sources? So even they realise how bad she is?

Posted from TSR Mobile


I don't know why you dislike Clinton, given how economically right wing and free market she is.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Has anybody else noticed that all we seem to hear from the pro Clinton media is how Trump has allegedly received funding from Russia, even from US sources? So even they realise how bad she is?

Posted from TSR Mobile


The actual truth is that the mainstream media know how many of the smears against Clinton are fabricated, whereas with Trump, they know that the visible stuff is bad enough and yet there is more to discover. He's a crook basically.
Reply 6427
Avatar for Aj12
Aj12
18
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The actual truth is that the mainstream media know how many of the smears against Clinton are fabricated, whereas with Trump, they know that the visible stuff is bad enough and yet there is more to discover. He's a crook basically.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

Krugman puts it nicely in that piece above. He's been writing consistently that the media has gone to great efforts to draw equivalency between Trump and Clinton in terms of corruption. In the above piece he lays out how Gore was destroyed by subtle digs and misconstruction positions, the same may be happening to Clinton.

That is not to say that Clinton is a clean candidate, or even a particularly good one, but she is not on Trump's level in terms of corruption or downright nastiness.
Original post by Aj12
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

Krugman puts it nicely in that piece above. He's been writing consistently that the media has gone to great efforts to draw equivalency between Trump and Clinton in terms of corruption. In the above piece he lays out how Gore was destroyed by subtle digs and misconstruction positions, the same may be happening to Clinton.

That is not to say that Clinton is a clean candidate, or even a particularly good one, but she is not on Trump's level in terms of corruption or downright nastiness.


The fact that Trump's supporters see him as beacon of honesty and integrity is deeply worrying. Clinton is far from honest and she certainly is fairly corrupt but at least here supporters and voters admit that, unlike Trump's supporters who seem to think he's infallible.

Trump is far more corrupt than Clinton.
Original post by Aj12
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

Krugman puts it nicely in that piece above. He's been writing consistently that the media has gone to great efforts to draw equivalency between Trump and Clinton in terms of corruption. In the above piece he lays out how Gore was destroyed by subtle digs and misconstruction positions, the same may be happening to Clinton.

That is not to say that Clinton is a clean candidate, or even a particularly good one, but she is not on Trump's level in terms of corruption or downright nastiness.


There is actually no comparison. Clinton's worst offences are that she turned a blind eye to her husband's blatant womanising for the good of her daughter and her country (to me that shows her in a good light, but to rednecks and bible thumpers?), she wasn't always completely on the ball as Secretary of State and made a few inappropriate remarks that betrayed a certain crassness and she has what some perceive to be an arrogance problem, although to me it looks more like the entitlement of a woman who was close to supreme power for a long time.

Trump on the other hand, let's see. He is a serial destroyer of businesses. He burned his way through several fortunes without clear results. He borrowed from Russian mobsters to recover and is deeply in their debt, to the extent that he is happy to compromise his country's entire set of values to kowtow to their dictator, Putin. He has also had connections with the mafia and may be in their debt as well. He tells numerous lies, he's brutal and arrogant to staff, he pays below minimum wage and sacks people when they protest, he's anti-union, he's a committed racist with depressingly public statements, some of which he doesn't even believe himself but feels will play well with blue collar voters. He's also a regular flip-flopper on policy and until recently he was a Democrat. He pretends to be a Christian with Christians, a regular guy with poorer people and a rabid Republican right winger with Tea Party types, when actually he's an elite New York upper class buffoon with a gigantic silver ladle stuck up his pampered behind.

Apart from that, they are just the same! :lol:
Original post by joecphillips
At least trumps wall is on the border we (the uk) are building a wall in France to cut illegal immigration.


The wall that will never happen and will do little to nothing to curb illegal immigration on the whole even if it was built.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Apart from that, they are just the same! :lol:


And this is not at all biased tosh of the kind you would condemn if it was coming from a Trump supporter. 10/10 for objectivity. :rolleyes:
Original post by Fango_Jett
The wall that will never happen and will do little to nothing to curb illegal immigration on the whole even if it was built.


The main problem with illegal immigration is people staying illegally rather than entering illegally.
Such as overstaying a visa for example.

I'm really not sure how a wall would help in that respect.
Original post by Bornblue
The main problem with illegal immigration is people staying illegally rather than entering illegally.
Such as overstaying a visa for example.

I'm really not sure how a wall would help in that respect.


It wouldn't. The wall will never be built. Once a bill for funding reaches the House (if it even gets to that stage) and people see how obscene the costs are then it will just be quietly scrapped or put in eternal standstill.

Net illegal immigration to/from Mexico has been falling rapidly, peaking in 2007 and dropping into the negative since, but you will never hear Republicans actually admit that.

Putting up the fence already took billions and had major headaches. A wall would just multiply those rapidly.
Original post by Fango_Jett
It wouldn't. The wall will never be built. Once a bill for funding reaches the House (if it even gets to that stage) and people see how obscene the costs are then it will just be quietly scrapped or put in eternal standstill.

Net illegal immigration to/from Mexico has been falling rapidly, peaking in 2007 and dropping into the negative since, but you will never hear Republicans actually admit that.

Putting up the fence already took billions and had major headaches. A wall would just multiply those rapidly.


It's simply so he can appeal to peoples fears, even though the wall will not actually remedy the issue they fear.

Its feels before reals.
Original post by Aj12
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html

Krugman puts it nicely in that piece above. He's been writing consistently that the media has gone to great efforts to draw equivalency between Trump and Clinton in terms of corruption. In the above piece he lays out how Gore was destroyed by subtle digs and misconstruction positions, the same may be happening to Clinton.

That is not to say that Clinton is a clean candidate, or even a particularly good one, but she is not on Trump's level in terms of corruption or downright nastiness.


FiveThirtyEight did a podcast on it a while back. An 'equal' horse race is a better story than a one sided cakewalk. Also, after a while Trump's gaffes are no longer newsworthy but expected, so they only bother to pick up if it's particularly unusual. Meanwhile, they try to pick up Hilary on everything because otherwise they're only ever talking about Trump.

It's an exaggerated version of 2012, where the media kept insisting that it was too close to call right up to election night, when in reality Obama had a modest but clear poll lead virtually the entire campaign.

The Gore case is particularly interesting. After one of the debates in 2000 (I think the first, but not sure), immediate polls said most people thought Gore had won the debate. Pundits nevertheless declared Gore had lost, and within a week or two, it had become 'common knowledge' that Bush had won the debate.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The actual truth is that the mainstream media know how many of the smears against Clinton are fabricated, whereas with Trump, they know that the visible stuff is bad enough and yet there is more to discover. He's a crook basically.


If the same story has been pumped out over and over again and they cannot back up the claim then doesn't that say something? It seems to be the standard move of MSM though because we saw the exact same thing in the referendum campaign when things weren't going so well.

You don't even need to fabricate smears against Clinton, she shoots herself in the foot.
Video of Clinton being put into the van today:

https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200

Seems fine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The actual truth is that the mainstream media know how many of the smears against Clinton are fabricated, whereas with Trump, they know that the visible stuff is bad enough and yet there is more to discover. He's a crook basically.


Can you point to any examples of smears against Hillary that are fabricated?
Original post by KimKallstrom
Can you point to any examples of smears against Hillary that are fabricated?


I'm sure you know perfectly well what they are. I'm not going to enter into a pointless saga about conspiradroid sites and their crap.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you