Who would you support to be President of the United States: Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton?

[Imaginary_Friends]

This is not a great citation and it clouds the issue. The US is not Israel and we do not pursue identical policies and strategies. The world is not symmetrical and thinkers understand this. Trump is not a thinker. He acts, first for the profitability of his business, second, to promote fear in the electorate.

Sure it is. This is a uncomfortable citation that illustrates the hypocrisy (and potential bigotry) of some. Supporting another country that has policies which are benign , like providing universal healthcare as opposed to your home country is one thing. Supporting another country whose policies you consider bigoted, hateful and divisive in your home country is another. They are objectively that way or they are not.

to promote fear in the electorate.

We have had several terrorist attacks already. Is there not legitimate security concerns?

 

[Jake1001]

Sure it is. This is a uncomfortable citation that illustrates the hypocrisy of some. Supporting another country that has policies which are benign , like providing universal healthcare as opposed to your home country is one thing. Supporting another country whose policies you consider bigoted, hateful and divisive in your home country is another. They are objectively that way or they are not.

First, my objection to the citation is that it is an unreliable source. Second, you do not know my position on Israeli policy issues, so I suggest you refrain from assumptions. Third, I do not stick to absolute or blind value judgements. In my experience, the principle of assymetric understanding is important to success.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Do you believe torture works? You know they used to extract "confessions" out of people who didn't do it, but for information? Trump said (at least he was quoted) that he would use torture even if it didn't work, because "they" deserve it. What if "they" are innocent and you torture them for years and get no information.

I don't know how effective torture is, and it is certainly something I am very uncomfortable with, but I don't think it's an easy question either, if someone holds information which could save America from a nuclear attack, as a very extreme example, would you still hold to the principle of no torture and risk letting a city or number of cities burn?

In general though, I oppose torture, but I understand the viewpoint of those who support it as a necessary national security measure. Personally I think it gives a government far too much power, and at the very least it should never be used on a citizen of the country, who must always be presumed innocent.

Good reference, thank you. This might be suitable to a separate thread.

This thinking is along the lines of "exceptions are permitted during times of war".

However, isn't it exactly during times of war that we need to maintain our ethical standards ?

You may very well be correct, I suppose it can be something that separates the civilised men from the barbarians, but I simply wanted to point out it's not an easy issue that makes a candidate 'not serious' for suggesting, and is used by many countries across the world.

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

First, my objection to the citation is that it is an unreliable source. Second, you do not know my position on Israeli policy issues, so I suggest you refrain from assumptions. Third, I do not stick to absolute or blind value judgements. In my experience, the principle of assymetric understanding is important to success.

No no, I wasn't making assumptions on you. I was just curious because you said from a Jewish perspective you objected to Trump. That's why I found it ironic because Israel has policies that are very closely aligned to what Trump wants to do and Israel garners unanimous Jewish support. Trying to figure out what the disconnect is.

 

[Jake1001]

No no, I wasn't making assumptions on you. I was just curious because you said from a Jewish perspective you objected to Trump. That's why I found it ironic because Israel has policies that are very closely aligned to what Trump wants to do and Israel garners unanimous Jewish support. Trying to figure out what the disconnect is.

There are many disconnects. I do not follow or support Israel as a reflexive action. When she is wrong, when she attacks innocent civilians in the West Bank or Gaza, I speak out. One cannot compare Israeli policies on self-defense to the US. The US is the most powerful nation in the world. Israel has been struggling for survival for over 2,000 years.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Please explain your answer.

I wouldn't want to vote, to be honest.
It's like asking which is the lesser evil when they are about equal in comparison.
I would say Trump, because he or the people in his ear are clever, but he's kinda a danger to a few races.
Hillary will likely make life harder and more expensive to live, but at least she wont try to deport my boss.

I don't know. I'll have to think about it more.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I wouldn't want to vote, to be honest.
It's like asking which is the lesser evil when they are about equal in comparison.
I would say Trump, because he or the people in his ear are clever, but he's kinda a danger to a few races.
Hillary will likely make life harder and more expensive to live, but at least she wont try to deport my boss.

I don't know. I'll have to think about it more.

Your boss is an illegal immigrant? Doesn't sound like great job security.

 

[YmirGF]

Hillary = Unmitigated Disaster
Trump = Uncertainty... which could be a total disaster or could work to keep things in line because forces against him would not know how he would react.

If I were a Democrat, I'd probably slit my own throat given the choices offered this go around. If I were a Republican, Trump would not be my first choice.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Your boss is an illegal immigrant? Doesn't sound like great job security.

No, she's just Mexican.

 

[YmirGF]

No, she's just Mexican.

If she is in the country legally, I don't see any problems for her.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No, she's just Mexican.

Then there's no issue.

 

[Deathbydefault]

If she is in the country legally, I don't see any problems for her.

Then there's no issue.

The problem is that he's going to try.
He also loves to spread hate and scapegoat in his responses.

I doubt she will get deported, that's not likely at all.

 

[YmirGF]

The problem is that he's going to try.
He also loves to spread hate and scapegoat in his responses.

I doubt she will get deported, that's not likely at all.

Personally, I have no sympathy for people who have entered the US illegally.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Personally, I have no sympathy for people who have entered the US illegally.

I don't think they should be treated as rapist and murderers, oppressed for the sake of a scapegoat.
Just deport them or deal with them, no need to spread hate. That's just me, though.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The problem is that he's going to try.

Based on what? And how? His problem has always been with illegals.

 

[LuisDantas]

I so wish that were an option for me. As I see it, both will screw things up even more than things already are screwed up, but Clinton will maintain a few shreds of a country for the next president after her, while voting for Trump is voting to bring on the end-game.

I so agree with this.

 

[LuisDantas]

Being prepared to do anything to protect the country, including torture, hardly qualifies for 'non-serious', and is a view many countries take.

I hope you are kidding.

 

[Jumi]

I don't know how effective torture is, and it is certainly something I am very uncomfortable with, but I don't think it's an easy question either, if someone holds information which could save America from a nuclear attack, as a very extreme example, would you still hold to the principle of no torture and risk letting a city or number of cities burn?

Sounds like a movie scenario. If it worked then destroying some innocents might be necessary, even if they gave wrong leads just to try to give themselves some reprieve? Could you afford a wrong lead in such a situation?

Even FBI's Rober Mueller said the "intelligence" gained from torture by waterboarding suspects was by no means impressive. I doubt he was being idealistic there.

In general though, I oppose torture, but I understand the viewpoint of those who support it as a necessary national security measure. Personally I think it gives a government far too much power, and at the very least it should never be used on a citizen of the country, who must always be presumed innocent.

Torture is well used to make innocents confess to things they didn't do. Even witch trials stopped using them because of how bad the results were.

You may very well be correct, I suppose it can be something that separates the civilised men from the barbarians, but I simply wanted to point out it's not an easy issue that makes a candidate 'not serious' for suggesting, and is used by many countries across the world.

Then we might question why were tyrants such bad guys to be removed from power, when all they did was torture people who were against them.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Based on what? And how? His problem has always been with illegals.

Based on his answers in debates. He doesn't define illegals very well.
Several times it's been brought back to him, the articles of people who've committed hate crimes because they agree with his policies.
How does he answer? Usually with 'they just love their country and want to make it better'.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Oh, I just watched a video this morning about trump and his affinity for torture.
The guy hosting his show gives a pretty solid base for why torture shouldn't be.