Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Trump vs Clinton Round 3. Probably the biggest debate ever.

983 replies

claig · 16/10/2016 13:57

Oct 20th 2 am UK time.

Last chance for the Establishment to stop the Trump surge in the polls.
World leaders will be watching, Establishments will be tuning in on the edge of their seats in trepidation.

People will be laughing, diving into the popcorn and knocking back the alcohol.

Round 3. Rock'n'roll.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Lweji · 19/10/2016 10:35

Maybe some are, but what makes me feel ill are those politicians and their advisers who KNOW that a course of action will not benefit the citizens of this country, and is entirely the result of their ideology. They want to put in place an ideology that is contraindicated for the welfare of the population.

I don't know if its due to ideology.

Quite a lot of politics seems to be driven to get votes, or simply work out a budget.
Ideology may get in the way, but it also leads to reduce funds to things like the NHS (or equivalent elsewhere) and increase defence expenditure. Or lowering taxes for businesses and higher incomes and reducing support for families. It gets in the way of the good of the people for the left as for the right.

I don't think it's a problem with any whizzkids, or any political side, or any system. It's almost inevitable. You have to make choices that will be informed by different aspects. Whether it benefits the population at large or not, is often a matter of perspective.

And it's probably true that many people, including many in government, fail to understand the complexities of government and economics.
It's inherently a chaotic system, in that small changes can produce huge effects, and our current models aren't good at predicting the effects. Not to mention that some events are basically unpredictable.
Even for the those with the best intentions, they can only do the best they can with the knowledge that they have. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

Sadly, politics (and high finance) attract many people who are only after power or money. Take them all with a pinch of salt (or a truck load).

That includes Trump, btw. Wink

ClaudeBottom · 19/10/2016 10:52

If Trump is being truthful about why he stood as a candidate, then I laud him. He knows about all the scandals that his opponent has been involved in, and the fines she has been given, so if he is standing for office to follow in Hillary's footsteps to get to the White House in order to enrich himself personally, then he will be found out quickly.

fourmummy · 19/10/2016 10:52

Lweji - I agree with your last post. My huge objection, and what Claude is saying, is that 'elites' who do one thing for themselves but something else entirely for everyone else are duplicitous. The Chakrabarti and selective education scandal is just the most recent example. We all understand living together is complex, and are willing to ride with that, but it doesn't have to be duplicitous. WW said that we all want the same thing - and we do, actually.

ClaudeBottom · 19/10/2016 10:58

*So the elites are the people without power, who lost the election?"

Sorry, but this is a dumbass way of posting. The political elites and their chattering class thought they had Brexit in the bag because they were depending on people staying with the devil they know rather than 'going for the wall'. And of course, that TV debate in which Clegg was saying of course we can control EU immigration but did not go on to explain how. When it was Farage's turn to speak he blew that lie out of the water. He said there was absolutely NO WAY, we have no sovereignty and we signed up for No Control.

If people have the facts, can check them, they can make informed decisions.

fourmummy · 19/10/2016 11:00

Actually, it's about the level of duplicity we are willing to tolerate. Personally, I won't tolerate someone who duplicitously takes us to war, who duplicitously sells arms to others for personal enrichment, and who does one thing while preaching something else. I can deal with other things and am willing to tolerate duplicity in other, what I perceive as lesser, evils.

Lweji · 19/10/2016 11:03

I'm afraid that being duplicitous is a common feature in politics.
And often a problem for ourselves too. We can all think that overall for the population in the UK it's best to have the NHS, but if I can afford it I'd rather go private and I'm glad private health exists so that I can use it. It's not many that would rather go NHS given the choice.

But, going back to the US election, ahem, what I find striking is when people defend Trump almost as a saint, or someone as only has the interest of the "people" at heart. He is just like any other politician. He may not need the money (we don't actually know...), but he certainly seems to crave the power.

If he was doing it for the people, he would have a more inclusive message. Less of hate and discord. He wouldn't focus so much on slights on his own person. Or on winning.

He is an amateur politician, but not in a good way either.

Lweji · 19/10/2016 11:05

Actually, it's about the level of duplicity we are willing to tolerate.

Do you tolerate someone who is prepared to give Putin free rein because they have financial interests in Russia?

Kaija · 19/10/2016 11:05

Claude, the comment about the elites was in response to whoever was using Ed Miliband as an example,

What if it that makes Ed Milliband "elite" as opposed to, say, Arron Banks?

ClaudeBottom · 19/10/2016 11:07

If all of those thousands of people in GB who have private health insurance but could no longer sustain it were to come back to the NHS, that would cause a major crisis within weeks.

ClaudeBottom · 19/10/2016 11:10

Do you tolerate someone who is prepared to give Putin free rein because they have financial interests in Russia?

No. The leader of his/her country should put the interests of that country first. Putin is looking after his, but USA is selling theirs out to the ME. Did you hear de Niro trashing Trump? Could that be something to do with the fact that he's got a business taking off in one the ME countries (Dubai I think) - a leisure resort or some such?

Lweji · 19/10/2016 11:13

Claude, did you read my post with all the business interests Trump has in all those countries?

fourmummy · 19/10/2016 11:23

Do you tolerate someone who is prepared to give Putin free rein because they have financial interests in Russia?

Will this take us to war?

Lweji · 19/10/2016 11:48

is take us to war?

That is a very simplistic view.

The US hasn't been to war since Iraq, although it is militarily involved in some regions.
Unless you're saying they should back out of engaging with ISIS.

Democrats (and Hillary too) in general side towards diplomacy and reducing military engagements.
Trump, on the other hand, and I understand he's not your classical Republican, is prepared to engage, just as long as there is profit to be made (not sure if by the US or himself). He has financial interests in gun manufacturers such as Daewo (and that's just from memory) as well as in oil companies. Direct interests that will line his own pockets, not his foundation.

Hillary got a rep for being a hawk, but it's Trump with the aggressive stances (bar for dictators, funnily enough) and claiming to be able to "sort ISIS" in a week, or that nuclear weapons are to be used.

www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/08/12/why-hillary-clinton-wouldnt-be-a-foreign-policy-hawk-as-president/

"But while there is no doubt that Clinton has often supported the use of force, she just as frequently supported diplomacy and negotiations as the nation’s first line of defense."
And
"she has always reserved her greatest passion and vision for domestic issues"

If anyone will take the US to war (one like Iraq or Vietnam) is more likely to be Trump. Impulsive, reckless, big mouth, and little understanding of foreign issues.

claig · 19/10/2016 11:50

Trump says he has no business interests in Russia. Can you list the business interests in Russia you say he has, Lweij?

OP posts:
Lweji · 19/10/2016 11:57

Look at my earlier post about his financial interests abroad and the link, claig.

Also, he hasn't released his tax returns for anyone to check.

claig · 19/10/2016 11:58

'Look at my earlier post about his financial interests abroad'

Yes, I am asking about Russia.

'Also, he hasn't released his tax returns for anyone to check.'

And yet you state that he has interests in Russia.

OP posts:
claig · 19/10/2016 12:13

"Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War With Russia
...
On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.

He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia."

www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html

Trump is independent, no one, no banker or lobbyist, tells him what to do. Trump sad that "Hillary Clinton is the vessel of the corrupt global establishment that is raiding our country".

OP posts:
ClaudeBottom · 19/10/2016 12:14

What do you mean by giving Putin "free rein"? Where & how exactly?

Kaija · 19/10/2016 12:15

Trump's Russian interests:

ig.ft.com/sites/trumps-russian-connections/

Kaija · 19/10/2016 12:18

And here:

time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

Lweji · 19/10/2016 12:22

What do you mean by giving Putin "free rein"? Where & how exactly?

Erm... Syria? Ukraine? just a couple?
He's a great guy.

fourmummy · 19/10/2016 12:23

Why are you worried about Putin? Look first at what is before your very eyes:

"President Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president".

Some publications state that while he was reluctant to do so, Hillary was instrumental in provocating conflict (again, and again, and again).

Obama has been at war longer than any other American president

He supports Hillary; Hillary supported him.

Sexism and racism don't scare me. I understand them. I know why we have them, why we haven't got rid of them, whose interests they serve, why they are constructed as inevitable, and how we can get rid of them (and I have written about this in my posts). War scares me.

claig · 19/10/2016 12:28

The Time Magazine looks like a lot of nonsense. He has some investors who are Russian-Canadians and a man called Arif from Kazakhstan who is involved in a company called Bayrock. So what? Trump is not in the pocket of Putin as his opponents pretend. Tony Blair, leader of the Orifice of Tony Blair, has interests with Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan etc.

OP posts:
nauticant · 19/10/2016 12:46

Tony Blair, leader of the Orifice of Tony Blair, has interests with Russia and Ukraine and Kazakhstan etc.

In that case people might be advised not to vote for Tony Blair in the forthcoming US presidential election.

claig · 19/10/2016 12:46

Sergiy Brin is a Russian born american and is teh cofounder of Google.

As far as I can make out, Arif is a Kazakhstan born American businessman.

Leonard Blavatnik, the richest man in Britain, is a Ukrainian born American businessman educated in Moscow and had been invited to an excluisve "No. 10 party" by the Orifice's Tony Blair.

So what?

"Blair invites billionaires to exclusive No. 10 party"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-440120/Blair-invites-billionaires-exclusive-No-10-party.html

OP posts: