Quote:
Originally posted by Tsuko
OK, Hillary supporters, which of my points aren't true?
- Hillary Clinton is more likely to go to nuclear war than Donald Trump. FACT. Even Jill Stein (who any left-wing person who has morals should be voting for) agrees.
- Lots of innocent people all over the world will die because of Hillary (Hillary is already responsible for many deaths). FACT. Read her e-mails.
- She needs to be put in prison. FACT. She's already been proven a criminal. Again, read her emails.
- Having a few more forms to fill in and/or more checks at the airport when you travel to the US is NOTHING compared to a full blown nuclear war. FACT. Donald Trump wants to have stronger checks on people travelling into the US to help combat terrorism, and limit immigration by barring people who have criminal records. Sounds fair enough to me.
Then again, it's no surprise Hillary Clinton might get elected considering George W. Bush managed to get elected. - FACT. George W. Bush got elected.
I'm not the one living in fantasy land. The truth hurts. It's sometimes uncomfortable to come to terms with, but the truth is the truth. Christians once found it difficult to come to terms with evolution, but it won out in the end because it's FACTUAL. Truth will always prevail.
|
Jill creates pretty policies (although many are hilariously sketchy) and talks about how she's above it all, when she has never been in a position of power or had her ideas seriously contested. She's never been in a setting where she could put her ideas into action. You'll find that in practice, compromise is necessary and that comes at the expense of the outline of your principles.
I would argue that a vote for Jill is immoral because there is no realistic expectation for her to win, and it is best for you to support that which is most likely to have an influence on your future and that of your fellow citizens. Perhaps a vote for Jill is good for your own conscience, but it comes at the expense of the welfare of others.
Regarding Hillary, the fact that she is more likely to get in a war is an unfortunate side-effect of her willingness to keep American influence on the global sphere. Perhaps Americans don't know this, but the fact that the USA acts as a global watch dog is a major factor in the suppression of autocratic regimes from going all out.
I don't understand why people think the concept of war is bad from a functional viewpoint. The USA is not in an isolated environment. If war (IE intervention) can save lives, then it's worth it. This is the reasoning behind the USA entering WW2. By current logic, the USA should have never intervened. This may have some racial connotations in that Middle Easterners are viewed less than Europeans, but it is what it is. The current situation in the Middle East is protracted, but that's because it's a far more complicated situation (no big bad).
That brings up the second point you made. The only time this would make sense is if Hillary instigated a war on a country not currently facing its own far share of killings. There is literally no history of this. Even the Iraq conflict had more deaths under Saddam than the entire operation, and that was a horrible war that spiraled out of control to the present situation (NOT the fault of the USA as many like to believe).
Now for the nuclear bit, that's just stupid. Mutually assured destruction is what keeps that from happening. It's not going to happen. Stop being dramatic. It dilutes any potential for a serious discussion.
Although in fairness, the fact that you call Hillary a criminal despite the fact that she has never been charged with a crime is indicative of a "guilty until proven innocent" mob mentality that has no place in an actual intellectual discussion.
It all makes sense now. I didn't realize how pressed the USA had the UK prior to this election.
it isnt high school where you unfollow people when you get mad at them