Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mall-cop)
    YES!
    Maybe not his ideas since they're not very caring and a bit delusional
    but his personality and savvy is what I've insisted Obama needed since his first term. I said he needs to be pretty much a lunatic to get anything done in America. His boring, stoic, formal demeanour is just ineffective and impersonal; he probably acts that way because of a complex about being a person of colour in politics, and feels he needs to act a certain way to be taken seriously. But ironically it's not working. Trump on the other hand will throw the podium into the audience and throw his swollen little fists in the air about bullcrap and the crowd goes wiiiiiiild. He can get anything done! If only he had normal thoughts.
    Do you think he is interesting enough to win?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmartIndianMan)
    Foreign policy itself isn't the problem, what kind of policies are they. From the article u sent, I think atleast his intentions are to avoid wars. I only disagree on his policy on Iran. All countries should have the right to develop nuclear weapons if they wish so. How does a nuclear power like USA have a say on this.
    well, this is not a recognised right. the NPT confers upon signatories the right to peaceful nuclear energy, which is all iran ever stated they wanted (with their Supreme Leader issuing a fatwa - religious edict - against nuclear weapons, saying they are prohibited under Islam, and when Iraq invaded Iran and used chemical weapons against Iran, Iran didn't reciprocate despite having the capacity to do so because they are ideologically opposed to WMDs).


    nuclear-weapon states are an exclusive club that sought to solidify their exclusivity by making it illegal for others to join their club, but there have been exceptions - i.e. israel, india, pakistan and north korea.


    the problem is nuclear proliferation, do we live in a safer world where tyrannical regimes have nuclear weapons at their disposal, or a less safe world? there is also the problem, for example in pakistan, of terrorist groups getting access to nuclear material, and using 'dirty' bombs etc, so it does make sense to police the spread the nuclear weapons. i just dont think it applies to iran, for the reasons given.
    Offline

    17
    It's a damned shame that the major reason for voting trump is that he's 'entertaining'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shia Kafir)
    the problem is nuclear proliferation, do we live in a safer world where tyrannical regimes have nuclear weapons at their disposal, or a less safe world? there is also the problem, for example in pakistan, of terrorist groups getting access to nuclear material, and using 'dirty' bombs etc, so it does make sense to police the spread the nuclear weapons. i just dont think it applies to iran, for the reasons given.
    I don't really think it makes sense. Why can't Iran or any other country capable of developing nuclear weapons have it especially when North Korea has it? Not only that, the USA does support authoritarian regimes, even ones with low human rights, if they suddenly want to develop nuclear weapons, what say does USA have to stop them?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmartIndianMan)
    I don't really think it makes sense. Why can't Iran or any other country capable of developing nuclear weapons have it especially when North Korea has it?
    But virtually the entire world is opposed to NK having nuclear weapons and have been sanctioning NK for their violations of UNSC resolutions accordingly.

    Not only that, the USA does support authoritarian regimes, even ones with low human rights, if they suddenly want to develop nuclear weapons, what say does USA have to stop them?
    it's not just the USA, all permanent members of the UNSC supported opposed Iran's fictional quest for nuclear weapons.


    the world is a safer place with less nuclear weapons, not more, therefore it makes sense to try to limit what states can have nuclear weapons. and this is done according to the geo-political landscape, i.e. a world dominated by the interests of the USA, as the one remaining superpower.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taurthos)
    He's just telling the truth, he says it like it is.
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Is that why he regularly contradicts himself?
    (Original post by Drewski)
    He says it how he sees it, which is not the same thing.
    Politifact has him saying true or mostly true statements 9% of the time. In other words, he's a complete liar. But I guess 'telling it like it is' to many people is the same as saying 'lies, but what I want to hear'.

    By comarpison, the same figure for Clinton and Sanders is about 50%, and for Ted Cruz it's 22%
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.