World Terrorism

Clinton or Trump, who do you think would deal with world terrorism better if they were president.

I feel terrorist may fear us more with Trump; however, he is likely to make radical quick decisions/statements which could get us in more trouble than what we are currently. Clinton would probably be conservative, and think the whole situation through before acting. (I feel her role on terrorism would be similar to how Obama handles it.)

Overall it depends on how you view things, for me personally I would want Clinton in office when dealing with terrorist.

« Last edited by K Dawg on Sep 28th 2016 »

You see things exactly the way I do, I'd be a bit worried too if Trump was in charge. I get the feeling he'd pull out of NATO given half the chance which would cause all sorts of problems in Europe.

Well considering Clinton sold weapons to the terrorists I'd say she'd absolutely get our troops killed and blame another YouTube video.

Trump is unpredictable and that's good. ISIS has no clue what he'll do. He won't even take nukes off the table and that should scare them. He actually keeps his plan a secret.

So what you're saying is the US is in trouble regardless who becomes the next President. Both candidates have big question marks hanging over them. It's no surprise then that it's a closely contested race with no clear winner, they're both as bad as each other.

If you were driving to somewhere (doesn't matter where, just any place) and you wanted to get there as soon as possible and there were two routes, which would you take?

The first route is the route you've been on for the past 7 or so years now. You know what to expect, where it will go, and you know that it is pretty safe.

However, there is the second route. You've heard a lot of talk that this route is meant to be faster and more interesting. It may be a pleasant change but could turn horribly wrong. You've heard that there have been several crashes that way.

Think of the Presidents as the routes. With Hillary and the Democrats you know what will happen while they are in office. With Trump, it is completely unpredictable, and also offers a change from a Democratic government. If it were me I'd stick more conservatively. Also Trump is a nutcase.

That's a good way of looking at, I'm going with the safe route that doesn't have any unexpected nasty surprises along the way, I want to get to my destination in one piece. 'It's better the devil you know' as the saying goes.

Didnt one of Trump�s team say "what is the point of having nuclear weapons if you're not going to use them?"

What is the point of having nuclear weapons if you're not going to use them? - Protection and safety.

What is the point of wearing a bullet-proof vest if you're not going to get shot? - Protection and safety.

What is the point of wearing a bike helmet if you're not going to crash? Protection and safety.

What is the point of wearing a seat belt if your driver isn't going to crash? - Protection and safety.


Geez they must be dumb.

« Last edited by Matt77 on Oct 1st 2016 »

Nuclear weapons are just supposed to be a detterent, nobody in their right mind including Russia would use them. Nobody wins and everybody loses if they are used. I think the problem arises when there is a country ruled by a dictator (like North Korea) who do have nuclear weapons and are crazy enough to use them.



« Last edited by Sanzano on Oct 5th 2016 »

North Korea is a total disaster. The people living there cannot leave, are fed lies, and believe that the rest of the world has been destroyed. Also the year is 105 there.

North Korea could end up being another Syria if they keep insisting on firing their nuclear weapons. If they carry on and the US and Russia retaliate the infrastructure of the country will be destroyed in a matter of days and the world will have more refugees to worry about.

All Trump could do was make rude comments about them, especially the female terrorists.