Turn on thread page Beta

Can anyone explain why Hillary Clinton is the better choice? watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    I'm afraid your going to have to explain this to me.
    The Crips are a street gang. You said that Hillary is removed from the hazard of gun violence, my comment was a sarcastic one meaning that Trump is just as much removed from gun violence too, it's not like he lived in the ghetto.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    I won't berate you friend but you are wrong. I don't have a dog in this particular fight as I think they are equally vile in their own ways.
    They both have something of the night about them.
    The vagina quip was a reference to the tons of clips on yt from earlier on before Trump became the front runner when women where asked if they were supporting Clinton and said yes. Then when asked which of her policies did they like the best and tons of them couldn't come up with one. The only thing they could say was she was a woman.
    I actually find this quite stupid, no better than choosing a certain candidate for their religious belief. Hell, choosing a political candidate for their religious belief might even less dangerous as, at the very least, the majority of people in the West do choose their religion, unlike their gender.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    The Crips are a street gang. You said that Hillary is removed from the hazard of gun violence, my comment was a sarcastic one meaning that Trump is just as much removed from gun violence too, it's not like he lived in the ghetto.
    would say Trump grew up much farther from gun violence than did Hillary.

    Question; why does Hillary want to,(in her dreams), repeal the second amendment while Trump, (who, according to some on TSR is a fascist) want to defend it?

    Answer; Trump knows that everyday hundreds of Americans use their firearms to defend themselves, their families, others. Hillary doesn't care. She puts her left wing agenda above common sense and it cost her the election.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vino_M)
    Just my 2 cents. She is obviously the more qualified candidate but I'd love to see Trump hang her out to dry. Wouldn't it be nice to see a big time criminal see some justice for once?
    I'll take a successful person with a vision over someone with 30 yrs. of failed experience anyday.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Trump knows that everyday hundreds of Americans use their firearms to defend themselves, their families, others. Hillary doesn't care. She puts her left wing agenda above common sense and it cost her the election.
    You think that mass ownership of guns is common sense? Americans are as nutty as a fruitcake.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You think that mass ownership of guns is common sense? Americans are as nutty as a fruitcake.
    My dad used to say " nutty as a fruitcake". Really surprised me to see it.

    Since we both like sayings to express ourselves, Im sure you've heard the phrase, " Democracys' a *****'", well, "Freedoms a *****" also.
    Like millions of other Americans, I'm willing to put up with the abuses of firearms in order to retain the right to own them. I think that sometimes anti-gunners don't consider the countless times, everyday, firearms are used to defend innocent life.
    Remember also that total deaths from firearms has been on a downhill course .for the last 40 years according to FBI statistics. The last few years may have seen an uptick in those numbers thanks to violence in Chicago though.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    I think that sometimes anti-gunners don't consider the countless times, everyday, firearms are used to defend innocent life.
    That's funny, because we anti-gunners sometimes think that gun nutters don't consider the fact that those occasions are massively outnumbered by the number of accidental gun deaths.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That's funny, because we anti-gunners sometimes think that gun nutters don't consider the fact that those occasions are massively outnumbered by the number of accidental gun deaths.
    But they aren't massively outnumbered. They aren't in the news. Just the presence of a gun is usually enough to stop aggression and that doesn't make the news. Another thing to remember is the total number of gun deaths include justified shootings, accidental shootings, and police officer shootings. Many are gang member on gang member. The only down side to that is innocent people are hurt because the kids in these gangs have never handled guns and treat them like their in a hollywood movie.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    But they aren't massively outnumbered. They aren't in the news. Just the presence of a gun is usually enough to stop aggression and that doesn't make the news. Another thing to remember is the total number of gun deaths include justified shootings, accidental shootings,
    I'm shocked that you consider high numbers of accidental gun deaths and injuries to be a reasonable concomitant of mass gun ownership.

    The truth is that, in the USA in the period 1968-2011 only, mass gun ownership has caused your country more deaths (over 1.4 million) to American residents than all the wars it has ever taken part in, including the civil war, Vietnam and the two world wars. That is an amazing indictment of US gun policy.

    It is more dangerous to live as a civilian in peacetime USA than it is to be an American soldier in time of war.

    The situation is even worse than it seems from those figures, though, as the war deaths include the 50% that are non-combat deaths (disease, accident etc) that befall US military personnel as well as relating to a period going back to the revolution. Peacetime in the USA is twice as deadly a business as fighting in wars.

    More people die accidentally from gunshots per year in the USA than are murdered by all methods annually in the UK, where we average five accidental gun deaths per year. The USA annual toll (of accidental gunshot deaths) is 120 times higher than the UK number, for a population only five times bigger, so the proportional rate is 24 times higher.

    These numbers speak for themselves.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Because she's a liberal. Because she works for the people on Wall Street who have a few, just a few ties to major media cooperations. She works for the elite and they pass the message down to the voters who will never feel the progress but be told it's happening somewhere
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Would you rather they were submissive? Like Trump? Russia and China for that matter are authoritarian dictatorships trying to rival the US for global supremacy. A strong president doesn't compliment Vladimir Putin of all people.
    I don't support either candidates but have you ever listened to what Putin has said about the situation? You can only get a grasp of the reality of these situations by listening to both sides.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RogerOxon)
    It's a fair point - many will be voting against one candidate, rather than for the other. Having said that, it's clear to me that there is only one candidate to vote for, and one to vote against.

    Your list:
    - Experience
    - Diplomacy
    - More likely to listen to advisers on their specialist subjects
    - Published her tax returns
    - Accepting reality when things don't go her way
    - Getting permission before groping others
    - Not trying to throw all her enemies in jail
    - Knowing that we can't use nuclear weapons first

    P.S. By asking why she's a 'better' choice, you invite comparison.
    Ok, to counter this:
    - Very bad experience, some of the worst policy disasters.
    - Again, she has been involved in some of the worst policy disasters.
    - Unlikely as above.
    - Fair
    - Obvious bias
    - Lol
    - True
    - In which case, they're pretty pointless.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Would you rather they were submissive? Like Trump? Russia and China for that matter are authoritarian dictatorships trying to rival the US for global supremacy. A strong president doesn't compliment Vladimir Putin of all people.
    How is Trump the submissive candidate? Is it not Hilary who wanted to continue throwing jobs to the Chinese for cheap labour?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm shocked that you consider high numbers of accidental gun deaths and injuries to be a reasonable concomitant of mass gun ownership.

    The truth is that, in the USA in the period 1968-2011 only, mass gun ownership has caused your country more deaths (over 1.4 million) to American residents than all the wars it has ever taken part in, including the civil war, Vietnam and the two world wars. That is an amazing indictment of US gun policy.

    It is more dangerous to live as a civilian in peacetime USA than it is to be an American soldier in time of war.

    The situation is even worse than it seems from those figures, though, as the war deaths include the 50% that are non-combat deaths (disease, accident etc) that befall US military personnel as well as relating to a period going back to the revolution. Peacetime in the USA is twice as deadly a business as fighting in wars.

    More people die accidentally from gunshots per year in the USA than are murdered by all methods annually in the UK, where we average five accidental gun deaths per year. The USA annual toll is 120 times higher than the UK number, for a population only five times bigger, so the proportional rate is 24 times higher.

    These numbers speak for themselves.
    PRSOM
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    Couldn't help adding #5, could you?

    There's absolutely no denying that Clinton has far more experience in the political sphere, however, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Clinton is a career politician who changes her beliefs to better suit her chances (e.g changing her stance on gay marriage, and having hot sauce in her handbag at all times).

    Lashing out at the FBI for reopening their investigation on her wasn't really "accepting reality".

    She's ready to go at war with Russia if they do so much as cyber attack the US - her words.
    I'm sick of prefacing comments about Hillary with a 'I understand she isn't great but...' segment to prevent exaggerated backlash. Hillary was a good candidate for the Presidency and the US has missed out. To address your arguments here:

    1. Yet if she'd never changed her stances in 30 yeas of public service you'd be condemning her for holding anachronistic beliefs.

    2. They reopened their investigation around 11 days prior to the US election, which would obviously influence voting. Naturally she'd argue against such a course of action - and I imagine she did it with far greater dignity and rationality than Trump would have in her place.

    3. It's important to hold ground against Putin, not capitulate to him. She's also going to want to project an image of tenacity on the campaign trail, all politicians do. She's not trigger happy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    in terms of policies which they wanted to implement we didn't really get the chance to see who really is the better choice as most of the campaigning felt like "Keeping Up with the White House" and most of what they said was vague e.g. build a wall around mexico to reduce drugs use :P
    Offline

    14
    Honestly, it really isn't the matter on who is better. Hilary is not ideal either but Trump is a corporate pig who is just having a laugh. Hes a danger to every country, it doesn't matter if you're not muslim/lgbt/immigrant/black/jew - his values affect every human and every countries values. I really underestimated how racist America is and how real white supremacy is in America.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I'm shocked that you consider high numbers of accidental gun deaths and injuries to be a reasonable concomitant of mass gun ownership.

    The truth is that, in the USA in the period 1968-2011 only, mass gun ownership has caused your country more deaths (over 1.4 million) to American residents than all the wars it has ever taken part in, including the civil war, Vietnam and the two world wars. That is an amazing indictment of US gun policy.

    It is more dangerous to live as a civilian in peacetime USA than it is to be an American soldier in time of war.

    The situation is even worse than it seems from those figures, though, as the war deaths include the 50% that are non-combat deaths (disease, accident etc) that befall US military personnel as well as relating to a period going back to the revolution. Peacetime in the USA is twice as deadly a business as fighting in wars.

    More people die accidentally from gunshots per year in the USA than are murdered by all methods annually in the UK, where we average five accidental gun deaths per year. The USA annual toll (of accidental gunshot deaths) is 120 times higher than the UK number, for a population only five times bigger, so the proportional rate is 24 times higher.

    These numbers speak for themselves.
    Accidental gun deaths are irrelevant to the discussion, as are, justifiable homicides, police officer shootings, etc.. Lets not forget that some of those killed needed killing. According to FBI stats. there were about 480 incidences where someone picked up a firearm with the sole purpose of murdering someone in 2014, (FBI Expanded Homicide Statistics). Where did you come up with that silly number of 1.4 million from 1968-2011???
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Accidental gun deaths are irrelevant to the discussion,
    What is your logic for that silly claim? If the gun owners did not have guns those deaths would not have occurred. Those deaths are a direct and avoidable consequence of having your policy on gun ownership.

    The USA is so woefully out of line with the rest of the civilised world that the difference is truly astounding. See the graph here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/up...orld.html?_r=0
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    . Where did you come up with that silly number of 1.4 million from 1968-2011???
    It is 1.4 million deaths: about 20,000 gunshot deaths a year for 65 years. The comparisons are correct. Living in the USA in peacetime gives rise to more civilian deaths than fighting a war causes to its military personnel. That must make you sit back and think, surely?

    I agree with you that it is a silly number, though I suspect you think it is silly as you are in denial that it is accurate.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

4,060

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
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

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