Sign in to follow this  
Bleep1673

President of USA (Merged threads)

Who will win?  

45 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is going to win the US Presidential Election

    • Trump (Republican)
    • Clinton (Democrat)
    • Don't care (English)


Recommended Posts

bazzzz65    45

One mad, one corrupt as hell. Great choice.

I agree Trump is mad but has Hillary been convicted of any offences? Trump is the most horrible main party candidate since Barry Goldwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnoco    3,347

I agree Trump is mad but has Hillary been convicted of any offences? Trump is the most horrible main party candidate since Barry Goldwater.

I'd never vote for Trump but equally would never vote for Clinton. Him being a knob doesn't mean she's any better by default.Jimmy Saville never got convicted of any offences either.

I've seen people on Twitter urging votes for Clinton, who ordinarily spend a lot of time decrying crooked politicians. Its bogus, what's wrong with NOTA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Toppy    875

Whoever wins its a sad day for America.

Clinton epitomises the greedy, corrupt state of politics in the US at the moment and with her it will just be more of the same for the next 4 years. Trump is a complete loose cannon and god only knows what turmoil could ensue of he wins.

 

I actually think from a British point of view Trump may be the lesser of 2 evils as our future relationship would be built from the ground up, where as with Clinton were stuck with the same old faces we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Drake    1,906

I'd never vote for Trump but equally would never vote for Clinton. Him being a knob doesn't mean she's any better by default.Jimmy Saville never got convicted of any offences either.

I've seen people on Twitter urging votes for Clinton, who ordinarily spend a lot of time decrying crooked politicians. Its bogus, what's wrong with NOTA?

 

In a two horse race, pick the least worst option or the other one wins.

 

I'd vote for Clinton. I hope she wins. I think it would be a positive thing for the US to elect its first female President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Griff9of13    2,459

Whoever wins its a sad day for America.

Clinton epitomises the greedy, corrupt state of politics in the US at the moment and with her it will just be more of the same for the next 4 years. Trump is a complete loose cannon and god only knows what turmoil could ensue of he wins.

I actually think from a British point of view Trump may be the lesser of 2 evils as our future relationship would be built from the ground up, where as with Clinton were stuck with the same old faces we have now.

Can you say Trump isn't both of those things as well and keep a straight face? He's got 17 outstanding law suits against him. He refuses to publish his full tax returns and his health records. For everything you can accuse Clinton of there is probably an equivalent for Trump plus a whole host of others. Clinton may be the candidate of the establishment but I can't see anywhere near as many faults, and she is very far from faultless, in her as in Trump.

This week it emerged that his aids had eventually managed to get Trump off Twitter. So a guy who potentially has his hand on the nuclear button isn't trustworthy enough to go on Twitter; just let that thought sink in. :fie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnoco    3,347

In a two horse race, pick the least worst option or the other one wins.

I'd vote for Clinton. I hope she wins. I think it would be a positive thing for the US to elect its first female President.

Not sure that the fact she's female overrides everything. I can only hope there's some sort of dead heat 50-50 split and both are forced to start again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saint Toppy    875

Can you say Trump isn't both of those things as well and keep a straight face? He's got 17 outstanding law suits against him. He refuses to publish his full tax returns and his health records. For everything you can accuse Clinton of there is probably an equivalent for Trump plus a whole host of others. Clinton may be the candidate of the establishment but I can't see anywhere near as many faults, and she is very far from faultless, in her as in Trump.

This week it emerged that his aids had eventually managed to get Trump off Twitter. So a guy who potentially has his hand on the nuclear button isn't trustworthy enough to go on Twitter; just let that thought sink in. :fie:

Trump has never been in the political world before so its impossible to say how he will behave in public office, where as Clinton has been in public office for years and is about as untrustworthy as they come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Drake    1,906

Not sure that the fact she's female overrides everything. I can only hope there's some sort of dead heat 50-50 split and both are forced to start again.

 

If we are to accept that both candidates are as bad as each other (I'm far from convinced that's true, btw), then the only positive that can emerge from this campaign is the proof a Clinton win would provide that it is possible for a woman to be elected President of the United States. I think it is understated just how big a deal that is.

 

If Clinton loses, her failure will probably be used for years to come by both parties as a reason not to pick another female candidate as its nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trojan    1,414

Trump has never been in the political world before so its impossible to say how he will behave in public office, where as Clinton has been in public office for years and is about as untrustworthy as they come.

Do you have any proof positive of that statement?  The Republicans spent millions (of public money) trying to find dirt of both Bill and Hillary. I'm not sure anyone in public life could withstand that sort of scrutiny.  And yet they never really found anything they could make stick.  The fact is that, like the Tories here they hate to be out of power and by fair means or foul will try to disrupt their opponents. 

Anyone remember the fuel strikes of 2000?  It was said on the quiet that it was the Tory party that organised them.  The Blair government nearly fell.  Had Blair and Campbell not been as cunning as a barrel load of monkeys I think they would have fallen too.

I've no doubt that even now the Republicans have contingency plans to torpedo a Clinton presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnoco    3,347

If we are to accept that both candidates are as bad as each other (I'm far from convinced that's true, btw), then the only positive that can emerge from this campaign is the proof a Clinton win would provide that it is possible for a woman to be elected President of the United States. I think it is understated just how big a deal that is.

 

If Clinton loses, her failure will probably be used for years to come by both parties as a reason not to pick another female candidate as its nominee.

I've heard a lot of criticisms of Hilary Clinton but none of them have been about her gender. We have to accept bent lying politicians now simply because they are female? This is just quota nonsense. If a half decent female candidate was standing i don't believe her sex would be an issue, it's panic to think that no more women will stand a chance, just panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martyn Sadler    659

If we look at this election purely from the standpoint of what is good for the UK, while putting everything else aside, it's interesting to note that Trump has promised that a trade deal with the UK would be a priority for him, while Clinton appears to back Obama's position that the UK would go to the back of the queue for a trade deal.

 

Meanwhile Clinton would pressurise us to do a deal with the Argentineans for joint sovereignty of the Falklands.

 

In January 2012 the State Department responded to a question on the subject during a regular press briefing by issuing a statement entitled “U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands.”

 

“This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom,” it said.
 
“We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels. We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.”
 

So Clinton doesn't recognise UK sovereignty over the Falklands.

 

I don't think Trump would adopt the same stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnoco    3,347

Do you have any proof positive of that statement?  The Republicans spent millions (of public money) trying to find dirt of both Bill and Hillary. I'm not sure anyone in public life could withstand that sort of scrutiny.  And yet they never really found anything they could make stick.  The fact is that, like the Tories here they hate to be out of power and by fair means or foul will try to disrupt their opponents. 

Anyone remember the fuel strikes of 2000?  It was said on the quiet that it was the Tory party that organised them.  The Blair government nearly fell.  Had Blair and Campbell not been as cunning as a barrel load of monkeys I think they would have fallen too.

I've no doubt that even now the Republicans have contingency plans to torpedo a Clinton presidency.

Are you having a laugh? Bill 'I did not have sex with that woman' Clinton? Why yes, he's a part time monk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gingerjon    2,476

 

 

I don't think Trump would adopt the same stance.

 

I wouldn't trust Trump to have the same stance at the end of his sentence as at the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Drake    1,906

I've heard a lot of criticisms of Hilary Clinton but none of them have been about her gender. We have to accept bent lying politicians now simply because they are female? This is just quota nonsense. If a half decent female candidate was standing i don't believe her sex would be an issue, it's panic to think that no more women will stand a chance, just panic.

 

In my view, Clinton is a better candidate for President than Trump. That she is a woman is the least of the reasons I believe that, but nevertheless, the US has never had a female President, nor even a female candidate for President before, so it shouldn't be underestimated what a big deal it will be for a lot of people if she wins.

 

Trump himself has made so many misogynistic comments (a handy guide here) a Clinton win would be the ultimate rebuke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
walter sobchak    956

I don't know who'll win between trump and Clinton but I do know who'll lose and that's the American people. The political process is broken in the U.S. and the 2 party dictatorship needs to be smashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
walter sobchak    956

In a two horse race, pick the least worst option or the other one wins.

I'd vote for Clinton. I hope she wins. I think it would be a positive thing for the US to elect its first female President.

The U.S. Electing its first female president will be about as positive as the U.S. Electing its first African American president. Not at all. The rich will be looked after and get richer while the working man/woman will get screwed over. Edited by walter sobchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed    1,532

If we look at this election purely from the standpoint of what is good for the UK, while putting everything else aside, it's interesting to note that Trump has promised that a trade deal with the UK would be a priority for him, while Clinton appears to back Obama's position that the UK would go to the back of the queue for a trade deal.

 

Meanwhile Clinton would pressurise us to do a deal with the Argentineans for joint sovereignty of the Falklands.

 

In January 2012 the State Department responded to a question on the subject during a regular press briefing by issuing a statement entitled “U.S. Position on the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands.”

 

“This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom,” it said.
 
“We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels. We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.”
 

So Clinton doesn't recognise UK sovereignty over the Falklands.

 

I don't think Trump would adopt the same stance.

 

 

Trump has said he will only do trade deals that are great for America (so we would be the very minor party?), that bring jobs back to America (bye bye banks) and that bring offshore money back (bye bye those HQs that moved here.

 

As for the Falklands, they have a neutral stance?  Has Trump ever mentioned the Falklands?  How do we know his stance?  We do know he has said he won't support NATO countries, so why you think he would support us on the Falklands?

 

And as for the messages on NATO, I put them slightly higher than any risk to the Falklands (mainly because, the Argentinians have no current or future 5 - 10 yrs chance of doing anything about it).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed    1,532

The U.S. Electing its first female president will be about as positive as the U.S. Electing its first African American president. Not at all. The rich will be looked after and get richer while the working man/woman will get screwed over.

 

At least Clinton has a policy to tax the rich more.  Trumps policies give more money to the rich.

 

But they are equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martyn Sadler    659

Trump has said he will only do trade deals that are great for America (so we would be the very minor party?), that bring jobs back to America (bye bye banks) and that bring offshore money back (bye bye those HQs that moved here.

 

As for the Falklands, they have a neutral stance?  Has Trump ever mentioned the Falklands?  How do we know his stance?  We do know he has said he won't support NATO countries, so why you think he would support us on the Falklands?

 

And as for the messages on NATO, I put them slightly higher than any risk to the Falklands (mainly because, the Argentinians have no current or future 5 - 10 yrs chance of doing anything about it).  

 

 

I only said that a trade deal with us would be a priority for Trump. I have as little insight as you have into what the trade deal would comprise, although I assume it would be better to have one than not have one.

 

You're right that there is no recorded statement of Trump's about the Falklands.

 

But if Clinton wins we know that she will owe a debt to the Hispanic voters in the USA, so one way to make a partial repayment of that debt will be to pressurise the UK in relation to the Falklands.

 

Trump is unlikely to feel the same degree of indebtedness to the Hispanic community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
walter sobchak    956

At least Clinton has a policy to tax the rich more.  Trumps policies give more money to the rich.

 

But they are equivalent.

I'm no expert on the political process of the U.S. But I'm guessing that Hillary Clinton would have to get her tax policy through both the house and senate which could be a challenge. Especially if 1 or both are controlled by the republicans. Personally I just think she's paying lip service like Obama did with closing Guantanamo bay and single payer healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bedford Roughyed    1,532

Noticeable the lines forming to vote in the USA.  How can this happen in such a modern country? As far as I know, they have a lower turnout than us, yet we seem to manage without a 3hr queue in the rain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 28th Aug 2017

Rugby League World - Sept 2017