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

Hillary or Trump?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Defraction
It's weird because in the UK we had a petition to stop Trump from getting in but in this website we choose to vote for Trump. How does that make sense????????????????


a) Both the petition and the worldwide vote website cover a fraction of a percent of the entire country.
b) You can vote several times on this just by opening the website again
c) This vote means nothing so people won't necessarily actually vote with what they believe. Clinton is obviously the better candidate of the two - she's the only one who isn't a petulant child unsuited for any sort of responsibility; so if I were American I'd vote for her, but given I'm not actually making a difference, I'd definitely vote Trump for ***** and giggles. He'd be a disaster, but it'd be hilarious.
Original post by BobBobson
If there was no oil left in the vacuum left by Hillary's incompetence, ISIS would have not been able to form and would not even be notable as an orgnisation. Airstrikes right now are really hurting key ISIS positions, so if we continue them and ramp up the efforts, we are going to cripple them. How is the combination of these two things not very bright?


Trump supporters are unbelievable; I knew that I couldn't put it past some of them to justify theft. If the Iraqi people had been robbed of their most valuable natural resource, IS would have probably ended up with a much larger support network, coming from both Iraq and neighbouring countries, not to mention the fact that the US would be guilty of war crimes.

Name one.


His lie about seeing thousands of Arabs celebrating on rooftops in New Jersey on 9/11, which could not be verified and was denied by New Jersey police. The way that he keeps backtracking on his original stance on immigration, the so-called Muslim ban and so forth. He looked like the scared little coward that he is when he visited Mexico.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by WBZ144
x


Newspaper straight from New Jersey:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html

Washington Post (left wing newspaper):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?postshare=7281448290025183&tid=ss_fb - "
In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners' plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river."

New York Mayor and New York Police Comissioner comfirming there were some celebrations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd52KkFwQWQ

He changed the wording of his policy from banning muslims to banning people from Muslim territories which have been compromised. How is that him backing down?

"He looked like the scared little coward when he visited Mexico"
Wow, nice ad hom, so he's a coward for meeting with the Mexican president, discussing plans and common goals? What about Hillary who was invited but didn't even go! That's just plain disrespectful! He's the coward when he was threatened by thousands of death threats and still went while Hillary slept?

I don't understand your logic. Are you implying that taking resources from a country is worse than that country being destroyed, decimated by a terrorist organisation who now threatens the safety of the entire world? ISIS has a large support network anyway, especially from Saudi Arabia, even though we left the oil. If we took the oil, however, they wouldn't be able to survive because they would have no money. These organisations will always have support, but if you can take away the money, that wouldn't matter.
Original post by BobBobson
Newspaper straight from New Jersey:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/exclusive_jersey_city_cop_residents_say_some_musli.html

Washington Post (left wing newspaper):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/18/northern-new-jersey-draws-probers-eyes/40f82ea4-e015-4d6e-a87e-93aa433fafdc/?postshare=7281448290025183&tid=ss_fb - "
In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners' plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river."

New York Mayor and New York Police Comissioner comfirming there were some celebrations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd52KkFwQWQ

He changed the wording of his policy from banning muslims to banning people from Muslim territories which have been compromised. How is that him backing down?

"He looked like the scared little coward when he visited Mexico"
Wow, nice ad hom, so he's a coward for meeting with the Mexican president, discussing plans and common goals? What about Hillary who was invited but didn't even go! That's just plain disrespectful! He's the coward when he was threatened by thousands of death threats and still went while Hillary slept?

I don't understand your logic. Are you implying that taking resources from a country is worse than that country being destroyed, decimated by a terrorist organisation who now threatens the safety of the entire world? ISIS has a large support network anyway, especially from Saudi Arabia, even though we left the oil. If we took the oil, however, they wouldn't be able to survive because they would have no money. These organisations will always have support, but if you can take away the money, that wouldn't matter.


So allegedly "some" people were questioned for celebrating, that could well be 4 or 5. No source confirms "thousands" celebrating and Trump claims to have seen it on camera, although no such video has been found. Still a big fat lie on his part.

I watched his speech during his Mexico visit, looking all uncomfortable, almost stuttering. He said that the payment for the "wall" had not been discussed, even though the Mexican president told him beforehand that the country would not be paying for it. Then as soon as he returned to the US he went back to his big, tough guy act, declaring that they will be paying for it. That is the sign of someone who can't stick to his guns.

He also recently claimed that he "didn't say anything about Muslims" when questioned about the ban. He clearly did, but now he is backtracking because he knows that support for him is painfully low among ethnic minorities.

Terrorist groups can and have received funding from external forces. If the US were to commit a war crime which would rob a country of its wealth and starve its people, there would inevitably be far more support for groups like IS from those outside of Iraq who are angry over what is being done to their "brothers and sisters". It's not as simplistic as "steal all the oil and the terrorist groups won't be able to afford weapons and other resources".

There are plenty of bigger threats worldwide than IS, an organisation that is losing ground and grows closer to dying every day. Natural disasters claim more lives, for an instance.
Original post by WBZ144
x

So it's a lie because there's no proof of the exact number of people celebrating even though there is clear proof that there were mutliple celebrations that took place on rooftops. His point wasn't the exact number of them but the fact that there were celebrations, the fact that these people were celebrating a tragedy. And there are people whose ideologies and compatible with those of the US.

How does someone almost stutter? lmao. Everything you said is subjective. I thought he looked great, very presedential. One thing you can say for sure is that he looked better than Hillary, since she didn't even show up, she gets a DNS.

""He also recently claimed that he "didn't say anything about Muslims"", Source?

It doesn't matter how much support they have, and even if it did, taking the oil wouldn't garner any more support. These terrorist organisations have the support of Saudi Arabia, the most powerful islamic country. If they don't have any money, it doesn't matter how much support they have, they wouldn't be able to get off the ground, and won't be a threat.

And just finish the essay off with a logical fallacy. Just because there are bigger threats, doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with it.
Original post by BobBobson
So it's a lie because there's no proof of the exact number of people celebrating even though there is clear proof that there were mutliple celebrations that took place on rooftops. His point wasn't the exact number of them but the fact that there were celebrations, the fact that these people were celebrating a tragedy. And there are people whose ideologies and compatible with those of the US.

How does someone almost stutter? lmao. Everything you said is subjective. I thought he looked great, very presedential. One thing you can say for sure is that he looked better than Hillary, since she didn't even show up, she gets a DNS.

""He also recently claimed that he "didn't say anything about Muslims"", Source?

It doesn't matter how much support they have, and even if it did, taking the oil wouldn't garner any more support. These terrorist organisations have the support of Saudi Arabia, the most powerful islamic country. If they don't have any money, it doesn't matter how much support they have, they wouldn't be able to get off the ground, and won't be a threat.

And just finish the essay off with a logical fallacy. Just because there are bigger threats, doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with it.


So articles saying that "a number of people" (which could have been a very small number) were questioned for allegedly celebrating is "clear proof of multiple celebrations"? You sure have a very low standard of proof. And even if there were about 10 people celebrating, that does not compare to thousands celebrating so yes, numbers do matter. And it's not just the numbers, it's the fact that he claimed that there was "well documented video evidence", which is a huge lie.

OK, if those are your standards for presidential material then so be it. I don't think that either of them would make a good president but I would rather the racist, sexist, bigoted one who has made comments which make him sound mentally unstable lost.

Watch the video in this link. A blatant lie that he didn't call for banning Muslims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/20/donald-trump-doesnt-call-his-position-racial-profiling-it-is/?0p19G=c

Their supporters have money, I mentioned external funding time and time again. So robbing a country won't solve anything but will only make matters worse, not to mention the fact that the international community wouldn't stand for it. And committing war crimes and atrocities isn't "dealing" with a problem. The group is already being dealt with in a much more effective way. But anything that your candidate says is justifiable, I suppose, no matter how horrendous.
Original post by WBZ144
So articles saying that "a number of people" (which could have been a very small number) were questioned for allegedly celebrating is "clear proof of multiple celebrations"? You sure have a very low standard of proof. And even if there were about 10 people celebrating, that does not compare to thousands celebrating so yes, numbers do matter. And it's not just the numbers, it's the fact that he claimed that there was "well documented video evidence", which is a huge lie.

OK, if those are your standards for presidential material then so be it. I don't think that either of them would make a good president but I would rather the racist, sexist, bigoted one who has made comments which make him sound mentally unstable lost.

Watch the video in this link. A blatant lie that he didn't call for banning Muslims
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/20/donald-trump-doesnt-call-his-position-racial-profiling-it-is/?0p19G=c

Their supporters have money, I mentioned external funding time and time again. So robbing a country won't solve anything but will only make matters worse, not to mention the fact that the international community wouldn't stand for it. And committing war crimes and atrocities isn't "dealing" with a problem. The group is already being dealt with in a much more effective way. But anything that your candidate says is justifiable, I suppose, no matter how horrendous.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-footage-shows-911-celebrations/story?id=35534125

Video evidence is there.
Trump
Pence
I'd say Trump, but it's a tough one and I'm not sure yet who I'll be voting for. I do think that Clinton has a more presidential look but trump has more experience in business and in creating jobs. He also seems like the kind of guy who will focus on America and put Americans first when signing trade deals and negotiating with other nations. America has been ripped off in the past and has been taken advantage of by other nations. I also feel that he'd the best candidate to deal with radical Islamic terrorism and the Middle East. We need to have a tougher policy in Syria and make sure that ISIS is weakened. We need to increase air strikes but I'm not sure whether we should deploy soldiers. At the moment, our Middle East policy is not of huge importance to me.

What I don't like about him is his economic policy. I feel that globalisation is good overall but America has not been doing it right. We haven't been negotiating trade deals properly and we need to make sure that our goods and services are internationally competitive. Tariffs aren't the answer. We need to make sure that Americans receive the training they need to work in the industries of the future, and I don't feel that either candidate has provided a good solution to this.Anyone who has read last week' special on globalisation in The Economist will know that tariffs and protectionism will hurt the poor the most. In the long run, trade with other nations benefits America more than it hurts us.

What I do like about Trump is his stance on guns and the Second Amendment, although I don't feel that either candidate will do anything huge in the guns department.

I also like Trump's stance on immigration. I'm of immigrant background myself like most Americans but I feel that illegal immigration needs to be dealt with and we need to have a proper border wall to reduce illegal immigration from Mexico. I don't believe that Mexico will pay all of it but I'm sure some sort of deal can be agreed.

I have been gravitating more towards Clinton recently but I am be much undecided. I want someone who can provide jobs most importantly and who can deliver an America that's stronger and more prosperous. This will be my first time voting but I've always admired the Republicans' economic policies as I like free markets, less welfare spending, more privatisation, less regulation and red tape. I feel like Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio would have been perfect but I'll have to compromise in this election.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by shanktheopps


That doesn't look like New Jersey.
This guy.

Deadpool funny.jpg
Reply 51
Avatar for wolvesS
wolvesS
4
Original post by WBZ144
That doesn't look like New Jersey.


I don't mean to insult you but your complete argument is stupid. You focus on small lies and things such as the muslim ban which, he has flipflopped on, I can admit but you fail to accept the fact that there is a pre-existing ban on specific immigration from specific countries and also you fail to accept THERE is a problem in the US with immigration especially culturally and socially, as it destroys social cohesion and also segregates MANY communities (look at Inglewood as an example)

You also ignore things such as Clinton smashing up devices to hide evidence then saying it was a "accident". Should we trust someone who can't even keep national security in the right hands, theres an email on wikileaks about the CIA funding Iranian Dissidents. What would happen if something like this got out?

Trump's entire ideology is founded upon what people feel, there is only a small minority of people who don't understand/feel what Trump feels. There was a poll, taken VERY recently that show Trump leading between independents 20%.

I don't want to jinx it, but I'd love to hear President Trump on the 9th November.
Hillary.

I don't like either of them tbh but I saw Trump's recent debate with Hilary and he was acting like a 5 year old with all those crude remarks. My neighbour's toddler's more mature than him.
Original post by wolvesS
I don't mean to insult you but your complete argument is stupid. You focus on small lies and things such as the muslim ban which, he has flipflopped on, I can admit but you fail to accept the fact that there is a pre-existing ban on specific immigration from specific countries and also you fail to accept THERE is a problem in the US with immigration especially culturally and socially, as it destroys social cohesion and also segregates MANY communities (look at Inglewood as an example)

You also ignore things such as Clinton smashing up devices to hide evidence then saying it was a "accident". Should we trust someone who can't even keep national security in the right hands, theres an email on wikileaks about the CIA funding Iranian Dissidents. What would happen if something like this got out?

Trump's entire ideology is founded upon what people feel, there is only a small minority of people who don't understand/feel what Trump feels. There was a poll, taken VERY recently that show Trump leading between independents 20%.

I don't want to jinx it, but I'd love to hear President Trump on the 9th November.


My point is that he has told lies, he has backtracked on statements which he made to appeal to the racists and bigots and which were probably the sole reason why they started to support him in the first place, once he realised that he had very little support among ethnic minorities. In short, this is a man who will say whatever he thinks it will take to win the presidency, as opposed to a man of principle, and if you really think that he is going to carry out these bizarre promises, you're in for a sore disappointment. Trump supporters claimed that he doesn't lie, I provided evidence that he has told multiple lies, they then insist that these are "small lies". If you do hear "President Trump" on the 9th, I will happily wait for a year or so to be entertained once his former supporters are crying about how the con artist didn't deliver anything that he promised.

I never said that Clinton was a good candidate, in fact I stated the opposite. I just happen to believe that the lesser evil is the one who appears less mentally unhinged. Besides, if it's a "small minority" who do not feel what Trump feels then why is it that Clinton has over an 60% chance of winning, according to Nate Silver's poll? And in the last official poll which showed him winning, the victory was very tight, whereas all polls would show him winning by a landslide if what you're saying really was true. So not only are you trying to speak for all Americans but also for all people. This is a man who people were calling to have banned from the UK.
Hillary is a lying shill, Trump is a lying baffoon.

Americans have made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. They could have had better candidates but they've wittled it down to dumb and dumber. And this after all the instability caused in the middle east that is now making its way into Europe. Team America isn't a satire or parody, it's reality.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you