Who Would You Trust With The Bomb: Clinton or Trump?

nuclear war

As we move closer to the elections, Americans around the country are actively weighing their options for the ballot box come November of next year. Democratic front-runner Hilary Clinton and her perennial nemesis, the Republican Party’s Donald Trump, are still exchanging salvos. The other candidates are also very vocal, but it seems that the die has been irrevocably cast. We are looking at a Trump-Clinton face-off, unless a shift of monumental proportions rears its head over the next 8 months.

At this point, I guess the most pertinent question is: Who among these two would you trust with The Bomb?

A World of Differences

These two fierce rivals are as different as two people can be. Clinton is a seasoned brawler with decades of experience in the political cauldron that is Washington, and Trump is a business operator of notable decibels. Where the latter is calm and calculated, the former likes to wade into issues, showcasing a fiery nature that has worked like a magic wand on the campaign trail. On terrorism, Trump believes that there is absolutely no need to negotiate with radical groups such as ISIS and its affiliates across the world. Clinton believes we should negotiate. While the former First Lady wants to manage the military through a systematic approach, the real estate mogul merely offers that he will be “so great with the military that your head will spin.”

Overall, Trump has taken a hard stance against terrorism, immigration and job creation, while Clinton seems content to sit back, soak up the pressure and put her negotiation skills into practice. The two agree that radicalization is a major concern within and outside the country. However, no one wants a candidate that will “talk” us out of this problem; meanwhile, the other candidate wants to “bomb the hell out of ISIS” and other radical entities that pose a threat to Americans both here and overseas.

Clinton has been attacked for being “weak,” and it is feared that she will simply build upon the legacy of president Obama. On the other hand, Trump is considered too brash, hypothetical and unrealistic. A November survey conducted by ABC and the Washington Post indicated that when it comes to combating terrorism, 50% of Americans trust Clinton, as opposed to 42% who favor “The Donald.” It will be interesting to see how things pan out.

Who Will Destroy America Faster If Elected: Trump or Clinton?

america trump clinton

There is no doubt that Americans will have to make a tough choice in the 2016 presidential elections. Based on the way things are going, there is a real possibility that they will have to choose between Trump and Clinton. Donald Trump is a man surrounded by controversy. His policies are seen by many as ridiculous. And Hillary Clinton has a questionable past.

Trump has said (several times) that he will build a big wall along the border between the United States and Mexico to prevent immigrants from coming into the United States. He says that he will make Mexico pay for the wall. Furthermore, he claims that he will deport all immigrants that are already in the United States because they are “criminals.” Most experts state that these approaches will not stop immigrants from coming into the United States, and say that any of them will just be a waste of taxpayers’ money. Trump makes his claims and proposals without thinking about the hardworking Mexicans currently in the U.S.

Trump has also said that he is planning to “bomb the hell out of Iran, Iraq and ISIS,” This statement shows that Trump does not understand what is really going on in the Middle East. He can’t see the consequences of his ideas. Bombing the Middle East will no doubt promote extremism and make terrorist groups more influential than they are today.

Some Americans feel that they can’t trust Hillary because of her past. For example, the use of private email accounts when she served as Secretary of State. She has done other questionable things in the past and supported many policies that ended up hurting the American people. Americans may find it hard to believe that Hillary will make the right decisions as Commander in Chief.

Which Presidential Candidate is More Dangerous: Hillary or Donald?


November 2016 promises to usher in a presidential election that will have media and public alike pulled in two opposite directions of the spectrum of political leadership. Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton, rivals for the world’s most important presidential candidacy, have both been criticized as poor choices for America. While one is an aggressively outspoken real estate tycoon who’s dabbled in reality television, the other is a former First Lady who’s served as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State. The poles couldn’t be any further apart.

Trump on one hand has been a little too open about his stance against illegal aliens, terrorism and pretty much anything unsavory that crosses his path. While this has built his appeal for many who want a tough president, there’s no denying that his unabashed display of wealth draws many disapproving glares. Trump once sued a writer for under-reporting his wealth and has recently expressed a childish desire to dump traitors from planes. A staunch opponent went so far as to sponsor ads that compared Trump to hated dictators, condemning him as a “bullyionaire.” His image swings between drunk uncle and baby adult, but that hasn’t prevented him from dominating in the polls, despite other, promising Republican candidates in the mix.

Hillary, on the other hand, has a reputation infamously overshadowed by a perception of dishonesty and lies. This brings out Trump’s bluntness to many voters as positively likeable. She comes across to many as too charming and established within the corridors of power. She probably won’t bring anything new or interesting to the presidential chair. It doesn’t help that she proclaims her intentions to “run as a woman” but is still too old-crowd to offer anything novel to the thinking public. Many feel that America under Hilary would just be Obama’s dissatisfactory policies all over again.

Well, it’s like they say: All’s fair in love and war. It’s certainly a little more fair when the public gets to make the final call. Take our quick poll to let us know what you think about this debate.

Who Would be the Ideal President, Hillary or Trump?

As the U.S. election primaries draw ever closer, it is looking increasingly plausible, if not very likely, that Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump will be the candidates to last the course and battle it out in the general election in November. But what would each of these two political heavyweights be like if they became president of the United States?

Hillary Rodham Clinton brings to the presidential race what no other candidate can lay claim to (not just her gender — she is not the only female candidate at this point). She has enviable experience and a real track record in foreign policy and other facets of government. (And, of course, she actually spent eight years in the White House).

While there are some who feel that Hilary’s association with Bill Clinton is baggage in her bid for the highest office in the land, this needs not be the case. And, indeed, she can use the Hillary-Bill dynastic angle to her advantage. The years she spent at Bill’s side give her a uniquely well-informed viewpoint of what the presidential life involves, and how to make compromises on policy and emerging issues.

Many are in agreement that the United States is long overdue to elect a female president. Whether or not Hillary Clinton is the right woman to take the honor is neither here nor there. The country has seen far less qualified male candidates ascend to the highest office.

Many of Hillary’s detractors contend that she is too hawkish on some issues. Moreover there are some, even in her own Democratic camp, who feel she is not liberal enough to effect some significant social change in the mold of her predecessor Barack Obama. Could these traits be impediments to an effective presidency?

There is no doubt that Donald Trump is the most polarizing figure in the current bunch of would-be presidential contenders. He has offended  minority groups and flip-flopped on major issues. While some of Trump’s views on issues like immigration are overtly radical, they help him stand out as a man of action, someone who would decisively confront issues many Americans feel have not been addressed.

As the United States is not a dictatorship, some of the more radical policies of Donald Trump would be tempered with reason by the time they underwent the legislative process. So a Donald Trump presidency could end up effective without creating the chaos some have raised fears about.

Donald Trump is unlikely to be anything other than Donald Trump, even as president. You can bet there would be at least a few cringe-worthy, off-the-cuff remarks that would affect America’s international diplomacy. And would he resist firing appointed officials and executives on a whim?

Between Hillary and Donald, Would Make an Ideal President of the USA?

Each of the two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, bring very different profiles to the table in the U.S. presidential contest. They both have some obvious strengths and not-so-subtle chinks in their armor. Which one do you think would make an ideal president? Make your view heard by taking part in our online survey.

Who Will Destroy ISIS If Elected: Trump or Clinton?


ISIS has managed to anger a whole lot of people, including superpowers like the United States, Russia and China. Of course, the recent terrorist attack in France has prompted several otherwise unusually “tolerant” nations to initiate and support bombing runs over Islamic State’s territories. How effective this sudden revival in interest in defeating them will actually be remains to be seen.

Would either candidate be better at dealing with the ISIS menace? Can Hilary, after the fiasco in Libya that saw a U.S. ambassador murdered during the period when she was Secretary of State, be trusted with handling the immeasurably larger threat that the Islamic State poses? Would Trump, who has no experience in actual politics, be able to lead a coalition tasked with defeating multiple facets of ISIS terrorists?

The answer is both yes and no. Whether any single person as leader of the United States will be able to achieve what Obama has failed to achieve since ISIS emerged is a rhetorical question. There is no fixed personality formula for success in defeating terrorism, especially not when homegrown terrorists have struck in the U.S. every year since Obama won office, and the threat has not diminished but amplified with each passing day.

Neither Clinton nor Trump seems to be a trustworthy leader. The email scandal and Hilary’s refusal to even acknowledge any wrongdoing (until the evidence mounted high enough to threaten her Democratic candidacy) has left many thinking that she tells lies more fluidly than her husband. Trump appears to be the current default Republican candidate simply because no one else is making as many controversial statements.

Both candidates boast of their individual successes, but neither has shown anything in their decades of public life that demonstrates the capacity to destroy an evil threat as large and malevolent as the Islamic State.