Jump to content

Clinton or Trump

zen

By zen
in Chit Chat

 Share

US Elections  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?


Recommended Posts

vvvslaxman Grand Master

vvvslaxman

Posted
Posted

People demand his Tax return as it appears there are bombs there. But more than that people are increasingly asking a psych evaluation report of Trump. His incoherence, verbal diarrhea, utter ignorance is making republicans jump ship . So many life long republicans left the party to back Hillary. He has gone full retard.

Tibarn Community Regular

Tibarn

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Eh ?!

Working class whites are very much behind Trump, the protectionist tendencies in his speeches are very important to that demographic. They legitimately fear job loss to foreign countries through free trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP. They're going to feel devastated when he loses.    

 

Upper/middle class, college educated whites have trended toward voting more Republican, ie Romney beat Obama handily among this particular demographic,  they have distaste for both Trump and Hillary and are shifting toward either Gary Johnson or not voting. With either option, Hillary wins. They can't stomach Trump enough to vote for him, as he clearly doesn't represent them, and they have a rightful disdain of Hillary. The election is a lose-lose for them. 

 

Even the left wing whites preferred Sanders, and they will either have to hold their nose and vote Hillary, vote Jill Stein/Johnson, or not vote. Hillary is weak on all of Sanders's main issues ie protectionism, removing money from politics, a European style welfare state, student loan reform, free college, anti-interventionism, and in personal integrity. Once again, the issues that matter to these voters aren't going to be addressed, a lose-lose.  

 

In general, the white populace, left or right, for a range of different reasons, will have to begrudgingly accept Hillary as president.  

Edited by Tibarn
beautifulgame Newbie

beautifulgame

Posted
Posted
The betting odds say Hillary has >70% chance to win the election. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

 

Bad news for the US Caucasians as well as India in general IMO, she's no friend to us.

Hilary winning is far better for us .US relations have steadily improved with us since Bill Clinton.Didnt matter Democrat or Republican both parties have been very favourable to us generally.

But Trump (apart from that he is a racist moron)is way too unpredictable.Imagine if he decides not to back Japanese military arrangements as he is threatening now.Our entire South China sea policy to counter China will be in disarray .

And that's just an example .He will be a major disaster for us

Tibarn Community Regular

Tibarn

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, beautifulgame said:

Hilary winning is far better for us .US relations have steadily improved with us since Bill Clinton.Didnt matter Democrat or Republican both parties have been very favourable to us generally.

But Trump (apart from that he is a racist moron)is way too unpredictable.Imagine if he decides not to back Japanese military arrangements as he is threatening now.Our entire South China sea policy to counter China will be in disarray .

And that's just an example .He will be a major disaster for us

I agree that relations between the US and India have improved for a while. However, I put that more toward the solid relationships that have been built over the last few governments. Jaswant Singh-Strobe, Manmohan-Bush, Modi-Obama, all legitimately got along which made things much easier. Compare the previous three examples with Indira-Nixon, where the two had absolute disdain for each other. Diplomacy is heavily dependent on relationships, and I don’t think Hillary, and her likely cabinet, are likely to gel well with us.  The US defense establishment is still very stuck in the Cold War mentality, so an establishment candidate like Hillary wouldn’t necessarily be pro-India. Giving some examples: people like John Kerry and Huma Abedin, both pro-Pak, will likely hold high position. The VP Tim Kaine, regularly criticizes India about “religious freedom” and is close to Khalistanis in his home state.

Coming to Hillary herself, she is an interventionist and likes to mess with the internal matters of other countries. Articles like this: http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/obama-quietly-reverses-hillarys-get-modi-policy  or http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/03/24/hillary-clinton-gives-a-wake-up-call-to-modi/ .  

Or when she threatens to invade Iran:  https://twitter.com/internetarist/status/759010252868034560

 

On the other hand, Trump could potentially restore America to quasi-Isolationism: http://katehon.com/article/trump-doctrine-explained.   

 

Furthermore, on the issue of climate change, Hillary regularly hyphenates US-China-India, in terms of needing to reduce carbon emissions. While it is true that India is a large carbon emitter, hyphenating it with countries like the US and China is dangerous. To put it in perspective, 1 American uses as much carbon as 22 Indians, thus our carbon usage is comparable to the 1800’s US. Instead of targeting high/middle income countries like Australia or the Middle Eastern kingdoms which emit per person way more carbon, she wants the burden to be put on India, thereby torpedoing our economy, when we have states like Bihar and UP which don’t even have stable electricity.  


 On the China-Japan issue, Trump wants Japan to contribute financially to the stationing of American troops there, which I don’t think is an unreasonable demand. Even, if this became an issue, the current Japanese PM, Abe, is pushing toward changing the constitution, to openly allow Japan to have a military. I think a re-militarization of Japan may be arriving soon enough. Furthermore, the US and Japan are actual allies by treaties, so they virtually guaranteed to extend support to each other in case of conflict in the S. China sea. To strengthen India’s position in that area, the non-aligned nonsense of the government needs to be shed.

 

A secondary issue related to China that could benefit India is Trump’s possible trade war with China. Last US election, Romney threatened to put sanctions on China for artificially undervaluing their currency, which aides them in maintaining their low cost manufacturing. Trump has openly taken that stand as well. If he actually backs that up, that could have huge consequences on China’s economy and be an indirect boost to Make in India, by increasing our competitiveness.

 

In regards to the Trump is a racist statement, for what it’s worth, Hillary herself has been criticized for a racist joke she made about Gandhi running a gas station.

 

Finally, all this is just food for thought, and I think we should agree to disagree on this, as I have a feeling I am coming off as a Trump supporter, which I’m not, so I don’t really feel the need to defend or promote him. I think it’s more of a lose-lose election for the world in general, more than anything.     

 

Edited by Tibarn
Formatting
mishra Grand Master

mishra

Posted
Posted

Clinton is cause of all trouble starting from Crimea Tunisia Egypt Libya Syria Iraq and Yemen. I hoped that she wouldn't be choosen as presidential candidate.

Brainfade Newbie

Brainfade

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, mishra said:

Clinton is cause of all trouble starting from Crimea Tunisia Egypt Libya Syria Iraq and Yemen. I hoped that she wouldn't be choosen as presidential candidate.

Too late.  She is already chosen as the Democrats' Presidential candidate.  And I am not sure there is any real evidence for your first sentence.  I loathe her economic and healthcare policies and will not vote for her, but your insinuation is baseless.  

Tibarn Community Regular

Tibarn

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Moth2Flame said:

Too late.  She is already chosen as the Democrats' Presidential candidate.  And I am not sure there is any real evidence for your first sentence.  I loathe her economic and healthcare policies and will not vote for her, but your insinuation is baseless.  

I don't think America had much of a role in Crimea or Yemen, and I don't know about the Tunisia issue, but her government was directly involved in the other four: Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq. She was SoS as the US aided in overthrowing the Egyptian and Libyan governments. They armed "moderate Syrian rebels" in order to overthrow an actual secular dictator in Assad in Syria. She continues to advocate the removal of Assad. She was also SoS when the Obama government decided to scale down troops in Iraq, which weakened the hold of the Iraqi government and strengthened the extremists. Not to mention she supported the Iraq war when it first started under Bush. SoS is arguably the 2nd most powerful member of American government, at least in terms of foreign policy. I am not sure mishra's post was "baseless."  

Edited by Tibarn
maniac Grand Master

maniac

Posted
Posted (edited)

I know a guy at work who votes for Mickey Mouse every election on the ballot and that too when there were better candidates in the running.....we know for sure whom he will be voting for this election and Mickey might get a lot more votes this year from what I hear.

Edited by maniac
mishra Grand Master

mishra

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Moth2Flame said:

Too late.  She is already chosen as the Democrats' Presidential candidate.  And I am not sure there is any real evidence for your first sentence.  I loathe her economic and healthcare policies and will not vote for her, but your insinuation is baseless.  

Check what Happened in the name of revolution in Ukraine 2014. Then Check how it happened and then figureout why it happened. After all USSR was not there anymore. Infact, some time back (9/11 period Bush War against Terror) even Putin seem to have hinted to join NATO in some form (If only, this would have meant a end to arm race, aggressive global militarization)

For terrorism and middle east, Barack Hussein Obama wanted to separate Mohammed's middle east with Hussain's middle east, to certain extent, he succeeded hence now some people realize that there is two middle east and its unfair to blame Hussain's Middle East for issues of Mohammed's middle east but in later part of his presidential era, Mohammad's middle east lobby was spearheaded by Clinton.

Edited by mishra
sandeep Grand Master

sandeep

Posted
Posted

I never thought I would see the day where someone like Trump can be a realistic candidate for President of the US.  Its actually a bit scary how ignorance can be this widespread in such an educated country.  Its a bit scary actually.  I remember telling my friend a year ago, that Trump is only in this to burnish his brand, I don't think he is going to get past the primaries.  But I was wrong, and how.  I think Trump is as bad, if not worse, than Laloo Prasad Yadav.  At least his foilbles had the excuse of rustic lack of education.  What's Trump's excuse?  

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...