Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Will the UK have to be nice to President Trump?

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    how even is hillary better when she's proven she's extremely corrupt, fickle, fake and murderous? why would she change her ways simply for becoming more powerful? in fact, surely this would potentiate her corruption? :|
    Because she actually knows the way things work. She has been in government for almost three decades, she's been Obama's right-hand woman for 4 years.

    Trump is this outsider who has had NO EXPERIENCE in politics whatsoever. Therefore, all of his dream-like proposals of making America great again, building the wall, extreme vetting, becoming stronger, making great deals - all of them are complete assumptions. He has no realistic idea of whether they can be achieved or not, he is sitting aside and nitpicking the various faults of the Obama administration as if he could do better. He can't, he has no political experience, his economic experience alone isn't enough to facilitate the US, he is rich and completely out-of-touch with educated people.

    And this is ignoring all of the racism, hatred and vileness that his campaign is causing. True, he isn't racist himself, but his position as the Republican nominee legitimises the hate of the average racist American. They have a massive figure suddenly blaming other races and countries for problems, whether they are responsible or not, this sentiment is increasing racial tensions in the US. If he becomes president, the average hillbilly Alabama/South Carolina racist whiteman will feel better about his anti-black or anti-latino or anti-Muslim feelings such that he would be more willing to dispense what he now sees as legitimate justice.

    Hillary Clinton is no gem, I hate her for stealing the nomination from a far more inspirational and qualified candidate, and I don't like her record. But at least she has a record. She knows how to be realistic, Trump is purely idealistic and there is nothing whatsoever to prove that Trump will accomplish his dumb claims, not forgetting the nation-wide controversy he has caused, the world-wide problems he is highlighting. And the fact that he is an isolationist. There's nothing wrong with putting America first, but shutting off America's responsibilities on the world stage is stupid. Putin and Kim Jong Un will be under less pressure from the US and they will have one less superpower opposing them.

    So when it comes to Trump vs Clintom, Clinton wins a thousands times over because she is a realist and not an idealist.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eulers_)
    Because she actually knows the way things work. She has been in government for almost three decades, she's been Obama's right-hand woman for 4 years.
    she got kicked out of office though. that's not exactly a sign of competence in office, mate.

    Trump is this outsider who has had NO EXPERIENCE in politics whatsoever.
    on a scale of 1 to 10, how important is this criterion to you? because honestly, you're putting *waaay* too much emphasis on this, because it's like you're assuming a president has no aids. or generals. or chiefs of staff.
    also, what "experience" did obama have?

    Therefore, all of his dream-like proposals of making America great again, building the wall, extreme vetting, becoming stronger, making great deals - all of them are complete assumptions. He has no realistic idea of whether they can be achieved or not, he is sitting aside and nitpicking the various faults of the Obama administration as if he could do better. He can't, he has no political experience, his economic experience alone isn't enough to facilitate the US, he is rich and completely out-of-touch with educated people.
    how rich. you think he's out of touch while hillary somehow is?
    and at least he's actually laying out *some* ****ing policies, right? what is *****n offering? except her gender?

    And this is ignoring all of the racism, hatred and vileness that his campaign is causing. True, he isn't racist himself, but his position as the Republican nominee legitimises the hate of the average racist American.
    err, say what now? :| you're calling republicans racists? ...why? why would you blindly buy into a cultural stereotype? how degenerative of you. I expected better - it's like if somebody said "most muslims are sexist" or something - how "racist" that would be, right?

    They have a massive figure suddenly blaming other races and countries for problems,
    ...what? "races"? or countries? there's a stark difference.

    whether they are responsible or not, this sentiment is increasing racial tensions in the US.
    as if racial tensions weren't already bad enough for reasons relating more to liberals than conservatives? you think black lives matter is a symptom of republican racism? I'd take it as "liberal" racism. and oh yeah, whatever did mr symbol himself do for race relations? you know who I'm referring to. the lame duck.

    If he becomes president, the average hillbilly Alabama/South Carolina racist whiteman will feel better about his anti-black or anti-latino or anti-Muslim feelings such that he would be more willing to dispense what he now sees as legitimate justice.
    nahhhh. you're being ridiculous. I could just as easily say that obama legitimised anti-white sentiments in black communities.

    Hillary Clinton is no gem, I hate her for stealing the nomination from a far more inspirational and qualified candidate, and I don't like her record. But at least she has a record.
    a ****ing appalling record, sure.

    She knows how to be realistic,
    yeah, like the way she realistically accepts millions of dollars from massive corporations and expects the people to think that they're not bribing her. very realistic of her.

    Trump is purely idealistic and there is nothing whatsoever to prove that Trump will accomplish his dumb claims,
    what are you referring to?

    not forgetting the nation-wide controversy he has caused, the world-wide problems he is highlighting. And the fact that he is an isolationist.
    oh boy, do I really have to play teacher here and educate you on the differences between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism"? ffs

    There's nothing wrong with putting America first, but shutting off America's responsibilities on the world stage is stupid. Putin and Kim Jong Un will be under less pressure from the US and they will have one less superpower opposing them.
    you're sounding a lot like rumpsfeld right now. very neo-con.

    So when it comes to Trump vs Clintom, Clinton wins a thousands times over because she is a realist and not an idealist.
    trump isn't even that though, he just has spelled-out policy objectives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    she got kicked out of office though. that's not exactly a sign of competence in office, mate.



    on a scale of 1 to 10, how important is this criterion to you? because honestly, you're putting *waaay* too much emphasis on this, because it's like you're assuming a president has no aids. or generals. or chiefs of staff.
    also, what "experience" did obama have?



    how rich. you think he's out of touch while hillary somehow is?
    and at least he's actually laying out *some* ****ing policies, right? what is *****n offering? except her gender?



    err, say what now? :| you're calling republicans racists? ...why? why would you blindly buy into a cultural stereotype? how degenerative of you. I expected better - it's like if somebody said "most muslims are sexist" or something - how "racist" that would be, right?



    ...what? "races"? or countries? there's a stark difference.



    as if racial tensions weren't already bad enough for reasons relating more to liberals than conservatives? you think black lives matter is a symptom of republican racism? I'd take it as "liberal" racism. and oh yeah, whatever did mr symbol himself do for race relations? you know who I'm referring to. the lame duck.



    nahhhh. you're being ridiculous. I could just as easily say that obama legitimised anti-white sentiments in black communities.



    a ****ing appalling record, sure.



    yeah, like the way she realistically accepts millions of dollars from massive corporations and expects the people to think that they're not bribing her. very realistic of her.



    what are you referring to?



    oh boy, do I really have to play teacher here and educate you on the differences between "isolationism" and "non-interventionism"? ffs



    you're sounding a lot like rumpsfeld right now. very neo-con.



    trump isn't even that though, he just has spelled-out policy objectives.
    Its experience, not competence. She was secretary of state for 4 years. Ignoring other factors, this alone makes her more qualified to be president. Trump has NO experience whatsoever.

    And experience in politics is almost vital, so 9, because Trump is making all of these promises but he has no realistic idea about whether he can achieve them. Hillary knows what she can and can't achieve.

    Trump's policies are all based around the assumption that he can just walk into the presidency and that he will just be able to achieve what the democrats haven't because its him. He will not get Mexico to pay for the wall, trade deals will not be negotiated in favour of the US, Putin will not back off, Kim Jong Un will not demilitarise, Assad will not step down JUST BECAUSE Trump is Trump. If Obama and his administration can't achieve these things, Trump's bullish rhetoric and uninformed ideas certainly won't.

    I'm not calling all Republicans racists, but Trump undeniably collects the support of racists. Their feelings are therefore legitimised, as they now have a strong, anti-establishment medium through which to resonate - and that is Trump.

    IDK what to say to this one, you're tying yourself up in knots over the small details.

    And there we go, attacking me with this liberal stereotype. You complain about me stereotyping some Americans, but you think that anyone who opposes racial tensions or otherwise dismisses it with regard to your interpretation is a 'liberal'. Trump's presence has caused more racial tension, that is a fact, because suddenly all of the left-behind racist Americans who don't even have a passport are feeling legitimised. Mitt Romney or any of the republican nominees in the last 30 years hardly commanded racism, but Trump, regardless of whether he is racist or not, does. The support for Trump from racists is undeniable.

    Obama isn't promoting racist views, Trump is. Obama stands for equality, Trump stands for America-first which is primarily interpreted by some of these people as whites first.




    Can't be bothered to reply to the rest of your nitpicks because they're full of insults and you're ignoring the point of everything I am concerned with.

    Trump has nothing over Hillary apart from confidence to oppose mainstream political correctness. He does not know if any of his things can be achieved because he has no political experience whatsoever. Some of his supporters don't even care half the time about America, they just want to *****-slap the establishment. His policies are purely idealistic, the wall will not be built, Mexico will not pay for it, he will not negotiate magic trade deals, he will not make America great again. Hillary will keep things the same as they are now, which is better than the Trump trajectory.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have exam superstitions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.