The debate "Donald Trump and Hillary will hurt America. Trump will hurt it more." was started by
June 4, 2016, 9:00 am.
24 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 23 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
MichaelEaborn posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 13 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 5 arguments, MrShine posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
CoffeeWhite1, xXimmapersonXDXx, joplinnocera, DemonLlama, prajjwal, SwaggerPoptart, SueAnnMohr, cmt11, moneybagboyz, MichaelEaborn and 14 visitors agree.
Donald_J_Trump, sabrina, NyKai777, Nemiroff, joey, RogueAmerican, historybuff, jberry, Sally, Bestivitiness, MrShine, JLabang123, Bodaciouslady16, rob5998, fadi, DB8101, Dev and 6 visitors disagree.
Obama isn't much of a dove. just alternative means. too much dove is not good. I like Obamas style in foreign policy.
she's a hawk compared to obama. she's a Dove compared to "make the sand glow" "confront Russia militarily" and "let's bring back torture"
are you kidding? clinton is a hawk. she is much more likely to deploy troops. which to my mind is a very bad thing.
what would you have had the government do? continue spending billions policing a country that hates you because you won't stop meddling in its affairs? keeping American troops there suppressed the problem, but in the long run wasn't fixing the problem. Islamists only have to point to America occupation of Muslim countries to show how evil you are.
it was never intended for American troops to stay there forever. and they weren't very stable even with those troops there.
A poll taken by CNN shows that she is not trusted by 68% of the American people. She is being investigated by the FBI for putting our national security at risk and let's not forget all the scandals that have gone on throughout the time that Bill Clinton was in office. Everybody knows that she is against war so I see that as if we were attacked by lets say the terror group ISIS she would be hesitant to fight back. She would also most likely pull out troops from countries like Obama did. Afghanistan was stable with US troops there but he said we have to get them home. They were there to keep peace. After those troops were pulled out that is when the midddle east got destabilized and it is now corrupt.
I don't wish death on Muslims but I wish some of their organizations would die. they say death to America the, in their eyes, repressive regime that keeps destabilizing their region and bringing chaos. not death to Americans (people).
America isn't a person. it's like us saying death to ISIS or Hamas.
I'm not sure what you mean by negotiate. with who? Iran? that wasn't to make peace or be friendly. we negotiated with them to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. we weren't trying to be nice, but progress our own agenda.
This may have been a long tangent, but it goes back to the Obama opening doors statement. What purpose is there to negotiate if they dont even respect our lives
So why do we negotiate
I'm saying the relations were not hostile prior to ww1. I wouldn't say any people were completely friendly to foreign people... except the Indians and there are barely any of them left.
I didn't want to go all the way back to the crusades... but even then we were the ones attacking them, so still a valid reason for the to be mad at us.
indebted? both Russia and the US were using them to fight each other. The US did Afghanistan about as many favors as Russia did. None. As soon as Russia was gone, we disappeared too, leaving a vacuum that was promptly filled by the alqaeda. AL queda should thank us, the rest of Afghanistan should rightfully curse us for creating alqueda.
and Iran had a perfectly good secular government which we decided to topple creating a brutal Islamist regime. why wouldn't they hate us?
Are you implying there has been good west/east relations since before European occupation? The muslims who wish us ill are in the same mindset as the crusades; to kill the infidels. What then is the explanation for Al Qaeda; they were indebted to us after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and we were promptly repaid with 9/11. An occupation that has historically been brutal.
Im saying they dont care about what we do. All they want is for our deaths. Iran for instance has been intent on destroying us since the Shaw. And nearly a half-century later they are still angered to the point of killing us
"They hate western society. There is no reconciliation."
really? they just hate us for absolutely no reason. our very first interaction with Muslims was hearing them chanting death to America and we never interacted with them at all prior?
are you really that ignorant of the history of this country?
what is the personal benefit of bankrupting your country?
well you won't benefit from the economy afterwards, but you can easily benefit greatly from the scam that makes it collapse.
do you think the bankers who caused our recession can make more money in the recession or in a good economy?l noone benefits from a recession, but the benefitted greatly from causing it.
Trump has never shown himself to be anything but self interested so this is always a possibility. however there's another possibility on how he will ruin the nation. unintentionally.
replace country with company-
But what is the personal benefit of bankrupting your own company if you are a prominent business man in that company.
none, trump has bankrupted many of his ventures, probably not intentionally but through incompetence. Trump is an extraordinary charismatic and negotiator, he is clearly not the best businessman.
They hate western society. There is no reconciliation.
But what is the personal benefit of bankrupting your own country if you are a prominent business man in that country. A crashing economy doesnt aid him. Bankruptcy is sometimes a way to make profit for a business. But you aren't crashing an economy. Anyway the US is already nearly 20 trillion in debt, how can it get much worse.
4. Trump does what trump has consistently done, drive America into bankruptcy and failure while weaseling his way out of any personal liability.
I don't see how people are just allowing this to happen. we need change, but at least pick a better business man.
The outcomes I see are
1.Hillary is a Republican in hiding and will rule a house divided (unlikely) towards her weakness as a leader but strengthening the establishment.
2. Hillary is a Democrat as she says and ruling a place in her favor rules toward the tide strengthening the establishment but still a weak leader.
3.Trump is a Republican in his own self interest, or his own, who can say, but a divided house with a charged view that some Republicans won't back. Divided house further, fewer returns no matter how hard he works. That or America is made great again.
why are they chanting death to america?
Rightly felt wronged by America. I'll be sure to apologize in a civil manner while cheering death to america with them. They really want to make amends.
If we were looking at who has more sense in this election, it has to be Bernie Sanders
that article came from "the blog" section and wasn't an actual piece of journalism. Hillary is not to the right of obama, she petitioned for single payer as first lady, that is far more progressive than anything Obama suggested. she got pummeled by "the big money that loves her sooo much" and the movement failed spectacularly not only in Congress but everywhere in America cause of the ads that demonized her as a socialist.
the parties have been shifting right, that is true, but that doesn't say anything about individual candidates specifically and Hillary had always been far more left than her husband.
foreign policy she is hawkish, but that isn't always a bad thing. we need a balance between Obama style diplomacy and Hillary style hawkishness. while Obama can open doors to reasonable world leaders who rightly felt wronged by the US, Hillary hawks are needed for the world leaders playing dumb like assad and other dictators. I'm not saying invade... but let them think that we might.
I'm not assuming she will turn her back, you are. you assume she will turn on the people who got her elected. these people do not turn over that much money to a person they think might do any actual reforms that will undercut their greed. there is no evidence she will reform anything.
take a look at this.
she has always been a left wing Republican.
your just assuming she will turn her back because of $ but with no precedent to back it up. that is just a baseless shaming that can be aimed at any human being.
yeah she has had to continue kissing ass, just like every other politician. but she has supported and fought for good bills and causes. and your negative assumptions are just your personal bias.
please provide evidence, I have asked repeatedly, of anti progressive behavior in Clinton's legislative actions?
the way the system is now helps her. politically and personally. why would she possibly turn on her backers? they are her golden parachute. she crushes any attempts to achieve meaningful reform while doing some minor stuff and she gets to be President while still getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a speech every once in a while.
I'm not saying she couldn't make changes if she wanted to. I'm saying she doesn't want meaningful change. she wants a new coat of paint on the dilapidated system that makes her rich and well connected.
she takes money because national ads are expensive. heck a TV ad in a big city is expensive, imagine the nation. how can she not go begging for money if that's the game? the repub superpac will devour her.
change the rules and no one can spend billions Hillary isn't hurting herself. if she doesn't want to take that gamble she can do other things like fix Obama care or economics, save finance reform for term 2 when she has nothing to lose.
she will never do anything progressing. if she tried it would jeopardize a reelection. but I don't think she even wants to. she makes the proper lip service to being progressive to win the nomination but her she may as well be a Republican. she doesn't want progressive change. she wants the status quo. I admit she is better than trump because he is outright terrible. but she isn't good. she is just more right of centre oligarchic tyranny.
buff has a point though if you look at it from the left. She isnt a lame duck. If she wins, she cant afford to jeopardise a second chance at running.
do you not understand how elections work? she has to move or she won't win, which president has done differently?
why the double standard?
I'm not certain she will be a good thing. she is basically a moderate Republican. she is already starting to move farther right and she hasn't even won the nomination yet. the second she wins all pretense of any liberal ideas will be gone and she will become the Republican she longs to be.
disagree, only cause I don't think Hillary will hurt the nation.
it won't be as much change as some hope, but it will be better.