Hilary or Trump (and why?)

[Saabstory]

Can't be any worse than the last 30 years of presidents we've had already.

Only 2 presidents in the last 30 years have entered us into wars; both were republicans.

Clinton seems more likely to get us into another war than Trump.

Not even close. One is respected in international politics, one is a joke who is bought and paid for by Russians. One is generally calm in international negotiations, one is an insufferable 2 year old who's only response to criticism is to attack... Which would make a better leader?

Everyone thought Obama would be the president of peace and keep his word about pulling boots off the ground, but he increased the military presence overseas in the middle east, and see what good that has done for us?

Not saying you are wrong, as you aren't entirely; but it is a convoluted issue that isn't black and white. 2 things:

1. We wouldn't even be there to start with except for The Bush legacy of failed wars... You can't blame Obama for trying to clean up the mess made by Bush(es).
2. He hasn't exactly increased our presence, he has expanded it to more countries but overall troop deployment is still down, and more importantly casualties are down. This, however, is a very simple explanation to a very convoluted issue...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-wars-numbers/474531/

Sometimes it's necessary, but I'm pretty sure we just handed Iran some ridiculous amount of money for a pay off ransom. Since when do we negotiate with terrorists?

We didn't pay Iran a ransom; we used leverage as a bargaining chip. And yes, there is a very big difference...

We didn't PAY Iran anything; we gave them back their own money we'd confiscated and held for years. While doing so; we forced them to give us back our citizens being held hostage; thereby using their own money as leverage to get our people back.

We still don't negotiate with terrorists. :thumbsup:

 

[Uberryan]

Only 2 presidents in the last 30 years have entered us into wars; both were republicans.


Not even close. One is respected in international politics, one is a joke who is bought and paid for by Russians. One is generally calm in international negotiations, one is an insufferable 2 year old who's only response to criticism is to attack... Which would make a better leader?



Not saying you are wrong, as you aren't entirely; but it is a convoluted issue that isn't black and white. 2 things:

1. We wouldn't even be there to start with except for The Bush legacy of failed wars... You can't blame Obama for trying to clean up the mess made by Bush(es).
2. He hasn't exactly increased our presence, he has expanded it to more countries but overall troop deployment is still down, and more importantly casualties are down. This, however, is a very simple explanation to a very convoluted issue...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-wars-numbers/474531/



We didn't pay Iran a ransom; we used leverage as a bargaining chip. And yes, there is a very big difference...

We didn't PAY Iran anything; we gave them back their own money we'd confiscated and held for years. While doing so; we forced them to give us back our citizens being held hostage; thereby using their own money as leverage to get our people back.

We still don't negotiate with terrorists. :thumbsup:

Eh I stopped at your 2 repubs entering wars comment. Not interested in dissecting politics as you'll probably follow any candidate who spins lies in your favor and has a (D) next to their name on air. We definitely entered into middle eastern conflict outside of desert storm under Bill Clinton, and we definitely have perpetuated further conflict in the middle east past liberation of Iraq under Obama. Your argument there is invalid, but I know it's hard for some leftists to not believe everything they hear/read on CNN and Huffington Post.

I'm a libertarian. I sided mostly with Sanders' position, but opted out when he backtracked and endorsed Clinton. I don't like Trump, not one bit, but in a match of lesser evils here, he is the lesser. I'm still not convinced this isn't some clever ploy or ruse, as prior to this election, the two were good friends from Clinton's NY senate days where they'd scratch each other's backs all fucking day.

 

[Saabstory]

We definitely entered into middle eastern conflict outside of desert storm under Bill Clinton, and we definitely have perpetuated further conflict in the middle east past liberation of Iraq under Obama.

First: Look up the definition of war. Continuing conflicts are not wars (and are, by definition, continuations of current deployments), everything I stated was true.

Second: Desert Shield; initiated by President Bush, was the reason Clinton did anything with troops in the middle east. Like I already said...

And lastly:

Eh I stopped at your 2 repubs entering wars comment. Not interested in dissecting politics as you'll probably follow any candidate who spins lies in your favor and has a (D) next to their name on air.

Your blanket assumptions and gross mis-characterizations just invalidated anything you have to say in this thread... Not my fault you are incapable of discussing politics with someone who has a different opinion than yours...

"Using insult instead of argument is the sign of a small mind."
Laurie R. King

 

[SirClimax]

First: Look up the definition of war. Continuing conflicts are not wars (and are, by definition, continuations of current deployments), everything I stated was true.

Second: Desert Shield; initiated by President Bush, was the reason Clinton did anything with troops in the middle east. Like I already said...

So you blame Clinton's actions on Bush Sr. because he was the previous president but blame Bush Jr. for his own actions and completely ignore what Clinton did leading up to it? Not saying I like any of them but that is at least a little biased and unfair.

 

[lostk]

Sometimes it's necessary, but I'm pretty sure we just handed Iran some ridiculous amount of money for a pay off ransom. Since when do we negotiate with terrorists? We need to bow out, and let Russia handle it for a decade.

america has negotiated with terrorists for decades tho

 

[lostk]

ok so how many of u think white ppl are being "oppressed" in america?

 

[light-spigot!]

johnson/ Libertarian. tired of right wing religous idealogues and liberal hypocrites

 

[SirClimax]

I'm a libertarian. I sided mostly with Sanders' position, but opted out when he backtracked and endorsed Clinton.

How can you at the same time say that you are libertarian and also wanted Sanders? His fiscal policy is more liberal than every other liberal candidate combined.

 

[SirClimax]

ok so how many of u think white ppl are being "oppressed" in america?

Literally no one has said this in the entire thread. So move on or shut up and go home.

 

[Saabstory]

So you blame Clinton's actions on Bush Sr. because he was the previous president but blame Bush Jr. for his own actions and completely ignore what Clinton did leading up to it? Not saying I like any of them but that is at least a little biased and unfair.

I don't think I was clear earlier, let me try to clarify. I don't blame Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. for the actions taken by their respective successors. I stated that Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. are the two who, regardless of reasons, actually started wars. I mean literally declared war through congress.

Clinton and Obama were both handed a mess, again regardless of reasons, and tried to clean it up. We can discuss success or failure of those attempts if you like, that's fine too; but my point is we were already there and they had to address that further.

You say it is biased and unfair; so tell me this: Did Bush Jr. have a valid reason to go to war? Not talking 9/11 war on terror; I mean invading Iraq. Was there an actual valid reason for it? His efforts on terror aren't at issue (my opinion) any more than Clinton's or Obama's, just talking about the war itself.

As I said previously the "whole" middle east conflict bit is a convoluted issue, so separating parts is tough in many instances. Where is it a storm, where is it a shield, where is it for freedom, where is it against terror... :thumbsup:

But declarations of war are pretty direct and clear...

 

[lostk]

Literally no one has said this in the entire thread. So move on or shut up and go home.

ur boy trump and his alt-right douchenozzles think white ppl be "oppressed" :lol:

 

[Uberryan]

ur boy trump and his alt-right douchenozzles think white ppl be "oppressed" :lol:

Who is being oppressed and in what context?

Do you personally believe racism only comes from whites? I've lost count of how many times I've seen and/or experienced racism due to being white myself. However, since I'm not petty, I don't let it get to me.

 

[lostk]

Who is being oppressed and in what context?

Do you personally believe racism only comes from whites? I've lost count of how many times I've seen and/or experienced racism due to being white myself. However, since I'm not petty, I don't let it get to me.

do u get paid less than non white ppl...do u get pulled over often for being white in black neighborhoods now...do u cry over political correctness and then cry bout supposed persecution of white ppl...

 

[SirClimax]

do u get paid less than non white ppl...do u get pulled over often for being white in black neighborhoods now...do u cry over political correctness and then cry bout supposed persecution of white ppl...

In the US Asians make more money, have a lower chance of being arrested, and have a higher rate of education. They also aren't being blamed for everyone else's problems. So sure, why not, we are being oppressed by Asians just like everyone else but they have slipped out of the lime light and pointed straight at white people.

 

[DUBPL8]

Who is being oppressed and in what context?

Do you personally believe racism only comes from whites? I've lost count of how many times I've seen and/or experienced racism due to being white myself. However, since I'm not petty, I don't let it get to me.

Dude, you have to admit that a lot of Trump supporters in general really have some sort of weird victimization mentality going on. They honestly truly believe they are being persecuted for being white, and that's why they have no problem being a sucker for clowns like Milo Yiannopolous of Breitbart fame.

Plus, I don't know if you're aware, but being white has a lot of benefits that would not be possible if you were of another race. Throughout the world, people associate white people with wealth and enlightenment somehow. Trust me, I come from a former British colony, and being white has its benefits in many decolonized nations that still exist today. Go to Japan or South Korea or even Singapore, and being a white guy you'd get more of an advantage than you would if you were brown or black.

In the US Asians make more money

Only certain Asian groups do, not all make more money than whites in general:

have a lower chance of being arrested

Eh, Asian gangs and crime rings show no signs of slowing down. Just look at the recent arrests of a Vietnamese crime ring in San Jose for proof.

and have a higher rate of education.

Not true. Go to page 16 in the link and it will show a graph that shows only 17% of Pacific Islanders, 14% of Cambodians, 13% of Laotians and 13% of Hmong people have a Bachelor's degree.

They also aren't being blamed for everyone else's problems.

You haven't been paying attention to Trump's attacks against Asian trade policies, have you? And if you don't think that doesn't translate to hostility against Asian-Americans, Google Vincent Chin for a history lesson.

So sure, why not, we are being oppressed by Asians just like everyone else but they have slipped out of the lime light and pointed straight at white people.

No one needs to because Asian-Americans in general are lacking in leadership positions to this day, even in tech.

From the perspective of a white male executive, why would he be willing to promote his Asian employees who will work like Hell and stay up 24/7 if the status quo is being maintained without any worry? What threat would there be if they are kept under control?

If they blame whites, it may be rooted in past historical grievances. I mean the British did get the Chinese hooked on opiates in order to attempt to take over in the 1800s. Divide and conquer, a tactic still being used today, in one way, shape, or form.