Off Topic Trump vs Hillary - Who would you vote for?

Hillary isn't going to start world war 3. Things were much tenser than this for 30 years without anything happening except a lot of people getting killed in unimportant countries, the latest of which is Syria. This is business as normal.

With Trump, **** knows

 

Trump wont start a war, he is that kid the playground that will rib you, call you names and perhaps through the occasional kick in whilst someone's laying on the floor being pelted. but as soon as it becomes a one on one, no Trump will back down, he can't stand losing and the risk of losing is a lot worse than the reward of winning.

 

Think of it this way -

90% of the time when people complain about Trump it's regarding something he said.

90% of the time when people complain about Hillary it's regarding something she actually did.

 

You know this? She stated she's strongly for creating a no fly zone over Syria which could very likely lead to conflict with other super powers.

She also states she'd be for arming the kurdish with super weapons which could do serious damage and further fund terrorism like she's been doing all along.

Trump stated he'd also consider fighting with and possibly arming the Kurdish but he's not adamant about it.

But in terms of Syria and Russia. Trump is far more likely to get along with Putin which is good for everyone.

 

Neville Chamberlain was great for our relationship with Hitler, doesn't mean he was the right person to be PM.

 

Hillary's no fly zone stance would bring her into direct conflict with Russia as Putin is not going to back down over Russian military operations in and over Syria, that's the big worry on WWIII.

 

Is this for real? If you're illiterate without access to the outside world - sure, vote for Trump, if you can find the ballot box and if you know how to write an "X". Anyone else? Vote for any alternative, because anything else is better. Hilary's ok, she's done a lot for humanitarian aid, women's rights, equality, and so on. EVERYONE is corruptible. Everyone. Trump abuses it, that's the key difference.

Here's one for ya - rumours abound that Trump only set about doing this to make a reality show!!!! He STILL intends to release the edited footage as a reality show. That's a measure of the man.

All I will add is that a vote for Trump isn't a vote for Trump, for the most part. It's a vote for something different. It's anti-capitalism, its anti-establishment. Like Farage in the UK; that idiot thought HE was the hero, and once it became about him as an individual - like Trump - the wheels fell off, because the message isn't real. It becomes about power, fame, greed. People aren't voting for that, so as soon as it becomes apparent that's the goal, the voted disappear.

It's strange - we all got on the Capitalist bus, then end up having to vote for those we think have the best chance of driving it. Then we all scratch our heads and say "well, how comes the rich capitalist pigs are just getting richer?"!! Hilarious, the grave we all had a hand in digging!!

 

I would like to have the option to vote for an anti establishment party, a genuine one who has everyone's best interests at heart instead of their own. I doubt I'll ever see the day, but someone who would stick it to the corporal conglomerates and not be controlled and dictated by them, who would ensure that companies like Apple, facebook, starbucks and alike pay the correct amount of tax. someone or a party that would stick it to the bankers, that would strive to make general living conditions for the general public better. The standard of living is probably worse than it's ever been, but we have the internet and TV's so we live in this bubble, as the world around us erodes, we casually ignore it, whilst people die, we post FB statuses praying for the wounded, Pray for Paris, what the hell is that going to do. Anonymous need to get off their ass a rid everyone of their debt, restructure the financial positioning and re-level everyone off at a nice £100,000.00 and start again.

 

Being pally with Putin isn't a good way to avoid a war. It is a way to find yourself forced into a war you didn't see coming, rather like Neville Chamberlain. Putin will pursue expansionist policies for as long as he is allowed to do so.

As for a no fly zone over Syria, this may well lead to further war by proxy: Korea, Viet Nam, Syria. Sickening, but only slightly more so than the current situation.

 

You can't have any single group that would have the interests of everyone at heart because people have so many differing needs and opinions, one reason why the system is based upon a majority consensus, you would also find that no matter what, an anti establishment party would still have it's own agendas and interests, whilst our current system is no where near perfect it is one of the most stable in the world. As for living standards being probably worse than ever I don't what criteria you are applying to this but I would think that they are actually better than they ever have been in our history.

 

Spot on. Only thing to add is that it's much easier to be anti-establishment than pro a viable alternative.

 

Strictly speaking, I think living standards were probably a bit better 8 or so years ago but your general point is a good one.

As for complaining about the system, capitalism is like fire. Anyone who thinks we can do with out it is daft. Anyone who thinks it should be uncontrolled is mad. The only real questions are technical ones as to how to protect against burnt fingers without making it go out.

 

You have a fine memory

 

There are two additional points to consider:

1- The Cult Of Personality
I've read a lot about this in the past and folk like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin and Pol Pot had an auro about them which appealed, and in may cases hooked in an entire nation. This is why some hate Corbyn within the Labour party or conversely crack one off the wrist reminiscing about the good old days under Blair.. Tone had that 'cult of personality'.. The average citizen in the US (I have 183 relatives in Cali) ain't particularly well educated and so will vote for who they 'like' as a person and of course who will put the dollars into their pocket. Trump v Hilary set against this measure sees Trump win all day long because he says the right things at the right time, to the right people and the 'average Joe' buys it.

2- Global Conditions
Hitler rose to power on the back of post 'crash' bounce back in the late 20's and early 30's. People were scared and skint. Fast forward to now... and Trump is in the right place at the right time to capitalise on people being skint (post recession) and also, more importantly SCARED of 'all things foreign' (whether ISIS or Mexican). Trump simply offers people an outlet for their society driven fears and something 'different'.

Personally I'd take Hilary all day long (despite her flaws) as she is the more stable option for world peace.

 

I suggest you watch this video -

 

I don't think Trump is a Hitler figure, I think he would be a weak president who is easy to flatter or get angry, and therefore easy to control.

He's also economically illiterate and would either bankrupt the USA with his policies, or delegate responsibility to his Republican minders, who would bankrupt the USA with their policies. If you're interested to see how states with Democratic policies fare compared to those with Republican policies, go and compare Democratic California and Republican Kansas. One is the 6th largest economy in the world, on its own, and the other one brought in massive tax cuts and is now a complete financial basket case.

 

California has legalized child prostitution.

Probably not the best place to cite as an example for progressives even if it is quite apt.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...alizes-prostitution-1474918476-htmlstory.html

 

Looks to me from reading the article like they've moved it from being a criminal justice issue to being a child protection issue (i.e. a 12 year old girl being exploited isn't thrown in the back of a van and sent to jail, but might be sent to a social worker instead). How is that a bad thing?

 

It's saying children involved in prostitution are victims and not criminals. It's very progressive policy making.

 

De-criminalising and making something legal is completely different, I agree with the comments that have appeared whilst typing this. Why should children be treated like criminals for this type of offence/crime when they are indeed the victim, why should they have a criminal record which could affect them for years to come? The ability for officers to take children when they believe they could be in danger is a powerful and useful tool which should be utilised.