Trump is winning

[Hassknecht]

Trump also talked about getting out of the WTO.
Why are people taking anything he says for granted? It's just words that make sense to him at the moment, there's no real thought behind them, no actual meaning.

 

[olestra]

Men shouldn't be allowed to vote, so I don't even understand why he's allowed to run.

 

[welsh]

It's the end of the world as we know it....
But maybe we get Celebrity Apprentice, White House edition next year, and we can see if Gary Busey wins Secretary of Defense of National Security Advisor.

 

[Ilosar]

Trump's going to be in trouble if he continues running his mouth, I'd wager.

I mean, encouraging the Russians to pirate and find Hilary's missing e-mails? Even as a joke, that's an utterly stupid thing to say, especially in the context where said Russians seem to openly favor Trump; small wonder since he's an isolationist, but still. He could get away with saying bullshit like that when his opponents were mostly nobodies, but against the Democrat-backed Clinton war machine, any slip up will be elevated to titanic proportions.

He needs to get a hold on himself and stop being provocative for its own sake now. That stuff worked when he was rallying grumpy Republicans against the establishment, but the presidential election is another game altogether.

 

[Crni Vuk]

We don't know what he's yet. We have to wait till he's actually in office to see whathe will do. Trump flip floped and lied about so many situations, just like Hillary that I have no clue what he will actually do.
Trump and Hillary are not the two sides of the same coin, they ARE the same coin. It's just that Trump is louder and Hillary is more sleezy. But that's about it. You can decide who of them is Kang and who is Kodos. But in the end, you're getting your space canon either way.

 

[welsh]

Well, give it to Hillary. She's been getting heat from the press since 1969 and is still in the game. If she was as crooked as everyone says, either she's very slick, the Republicans are hugely incompetent, the institutions are all corrupt.... Or it is mostly bullshit character attacks. I don't think her character is bullet proof, she is a career politician. But when the folks behind the attacks are also the ones behind the "birther movement" I think there is more than a bit of bullshit in all of it.

Trump- a con man and a fraud. His business record speaks clearly to that. You don't need to go much past the last year to disqualify him as unfit to preside.

 

[TheGM]

You don't need to go much past the last year to disqualify him as unfit to preside.

After this guy anybody is qualified to be President.

Spoiler

Admit it, you thought it was going to be Bush.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Well, give it to Hillary. She's been getting heat from the press since 1969 and is still in the game. If she was as crooked as everyone says, either she's very slick, the Republicans are hugely incompetent, the institutions are all corrupt.... Or it is mostly bullshit character attacks. I don't think her character is bullet proof, she is a career politician. But when the folks behind the attacks are also the ones behind the "birther movement" I think there is more than a bit of bullshit in all of it.

I think you have a point with some issues like Benghazi and the email things, it's pure partisan politics, and they'll latch onto any foothold they can grab to pull her down. Conversely the dems will downplay and overlook it. However, the Clinton Foundation stuff is really scummy, and this is not just birthers, it's the NYT.


BTW welcome back Welsh.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think the best we all can do is to start collecting bottle caps, for the case that Trump gets really ellected.

 

[Ilosar]

I think you have a point with some issues like Benghazi and the email things, it's pure partisan politics, and they'll latch onto any foothold they can grab to pull her down. Conversely the dems will downplay and overlook it. However, the Clinton Foundation stuff is really scummy, and this is not just birthers, it's the NYT.


BTW welcome back Welsh.

It's par for the course in politics (especially American ones) to focus on the negative, but the fixation on Clinton's errors as Secretary of State really seem out of proportion to me.

I mean, the whole ''she's a traitor that needs to be locked up!'' shtick doesn't seem to hold to any sort of factual analysis from what I saw. You can only go to jail if you maliciously transfered state secrets, yet there were, what, a half dozen comitees that said it was merely an error when she set up her own server, thus not open to criminal punishments. But people still charge back at her with that as if she had been videotaped giving sealed letters to Putin himself in exchange for a wallet of money or something.

I mean, it does reflect badly on her that she ignored the normal, secured channels and was so obsessed with keeping her cards so close to her own chest, but if they locked up everyone who was ever careless with state secrets the US would probably have to jail half of Washington.

Maybe it's one of those things that are repeated so often that they become true. Politics are mostly a matter of perception, after all.

Then again, it's kinda the same with Trump's bankruptcies. The guy had many businesses I figure, that some don't work out and go bankrupt doesn't seem extraordinary. Asset diversification is funny that way. But the hate on that still seems lesser than the absolutely visceral bile hurled at Hilary on her past as Secretary of State.

 

[DarkCorp]

IMO, Hillary is a traitor because she has openly favored and brokered deals that are CLEARLY against U.S. interests. The Iran deal was a huge mistake and so is wanting to lift the embargo on Cuba without Cuba doing jack shit in return.

She also failed big time on Benghazi.

It is funny how everyone judges Trump on his words but when it comes to things foreigners like about Trump (how he will weaken the U.S. and shit all over our allies by gutting NATO), fans of that are all of a sudden adopting a wait and see attitude.

Overall, I prefer Trump because, he at the very least, is really an unknown. Maybe he won't gut NATO, or his open support of nuclear proliferation as an alternative to paying for U.S. defense is just to reign in the gullible. However, Clinton has SHOWN that she has weakened us and is WILLING to weaken us some more.

To me, after some thinking, Trump is marginally better than Clinton. Trump at the very least will not fuck over our economy by adopting INSANE social programs that CLEARLY will bankrupt us (70k per student at 100,1000 students, is already $7,000,000,000. That is only 100,000 students. We are going to have WAY more students than that and that is only for FREE TUITION. We haven't even SPOKEN about the other free shit). Whether his proposed tariffs on imports will work or instead just screw over the average joe is worth debating.

Remember, ending ME wars is going to LOWER the debt, it is not actually free money.

PS: WELSH welcome back you crazy mofo. I miss your balanced approach to geopolitics from our early days of debating. Especially the alternate scenario of what if Allende had taken a more middle ground instead of his hard leftist stance in Chile.

 

[Ilosar]

IMO, Hillary is a traitor because she has openly favored and brokered deals that are CLEARLY against U.S. interests. The Iran deal was a huge mistake and so is wanting to lift the embargo on Cuba without Cuba doing jack shit in return.

She also failed big time on Benghazi.

That's utterly subjective, however. Certainly nothing that warrants accusations of treason and jail time. To say nothing of the fact that she wasn't exactly alone in coming to those decisions, the Iran deal wasn't sealed under her watch for one thing. Might as well jail the entire Department of State, Kerry and Obama while you're at it. Cripes, if everyone who made decisions you don't agree with is a traitor, go shoot Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. because they are far, far more reponsible than her of all that shitty mess from where I stand.

Myself, I think the Iran deal is potentially a good idea. The US can't win by pure force of arms in the Middle East, that's rather plain to see. So trying to make friends (at at least, calm tensions with) Iran doesn't seem too far-fetched. This is realpolitik we're talking about. A nation doesn't view the world in black and white, and shouldn't. It's not like any moral qualms should stop a deal with Iran when America happily deals with a theocratic absolute monarchy already.

What can Cuba even give in return anyway? Their economy isn't exactly in a position to shower the US in gifts. They will slowly but steadily adopt the capitalist model and potentially go back to the good ol' days of being the US's cheap backyard to send tourists to. That's more than enough of a victory for Washington, who also gets to keep their torture camp at Guantanamo. And IIRC the embargo ain't even lifted yet.

As for Benghazi, I'm no expert, but from what I read it was a bit of an illegal mission, so sending help was diplomatically tricky, and ultimately they couldn't save the place. Shitty, sure, but this is war we're walking about. Shit happens, and not just to the other side. I'd much rather blame the people who started the war, rather than those who are stuk with managing it now. Not that the Obama administration were angels at that either, but still.

 

[GonZo_626]

That's utterly subjective, however. Certainly nothing that warrants accusations of treason and jail time. To say nothing of the fact that she wasn't exactly alone in coming to those decisions, the Iran deal wasn't sealed under her watch for one thing. Might as well jail the entire Department of State, Kerry and Obama while you're at it. Cripes, if everyone who made decisions you don't agree with is a traitor, go shoot Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. because they are far, far more reponsible than her of all that shitty mess from where I stand.

Myself, I think the Iran deal is potentially a good idea. The US can't win by pure force of arms in the Middle East, that's rather plain to see. So trying to make friends (at at least, calm tensions with) Iran doesn't seem too far-fetched. This is realpolitik we're talking about. A nation doesn't view the world in black and white, and shouldn't. It's not like any moral qualms should stop a deal with Iran when America happily deals with a theocratic absolute monarchy already.

What can Cuba even give in return anyway? Their economy isn't exactly in a position to shower the US in gifts. They will slowly but steadily adopt the capitalist model and potentially go back to the good ol' days of being the US's cheap backyard to send tourists to. That's more than enough of a victory for Washington, who also gets to keep their torture camp at Guantanamo. And IIRC the embargo ain't even lifted yet.

As for Benghazi, I'm no expert, but from what I read it was a bit of an illegal mission, so sending help was diplomatically tricky, and ultimately they couldn't save the place. Shitty, sure, but this is war we're walking about. Shit happens, and not just to the other side. I'd much rather blame the people who started the war, rather than those who are stuk with managing it now. Not that the Obama administration were angels at that either, but still.

The USA could totally win in the middle east, but nobody has the stomach anymore for that. Just think of the level of force used by the allies to subdue both Japan and Germany in WWII. Could anybody actually get away with carpet bombing cities, executing enemies, and nuking two cities nowadays? But they could do all that and spend another 20 years there beating it into everybody's heads that you can't pull that crap anymore, and then probably win. But we in the west see these images in the news, and hear about it on facebook and twitter, and most people go we shouldn't be doing that, it's not civilized.... because beheading people is......

As far as the election in the USA, they are screwed either way. Pick the one that might screw you but your not sure or the one that has before.

 

[Ilosar]

The USA could totally win in the middle east, but nobody has the stomach anymore for that. Just think of the level of force used by the allies to subdue both Japan and Germany in WWII. Could anybody actually get away with carpet bombing cities, executing enemies, and nuking two cities nowadays? But they could do all that and spend another 20 years there beating it into everybody's heads that you can't pull that crap anymore, and then probably win. But we in the west see these images in the news, and hear about it on facebook and twitter, and most people go we shouldn't be doing that, it's not civilized.... because beheading people is......

As far as the election in the USA, they are screwed either way. Pick the one that might screw you but your not sure or the one that has before.

Yeah, sure, pour even more untold amounts of money in a ruinous war that will last for decades (unlike Germany and Japan, there is no central authority in the Middle East that can surrender to the US this time), perhaps not even solve the problem in the end as you just fuel even more martyrs to the cause, alienate most of America's allies in the region, to say nothing of that fact that Iran could potentially also have and/or use nukes if pushed, and Pakistan (which is also part of the larger problem) actually does have them, too, so they can push back if desperate.

Nukes changed the game completely. Total war is no longer an option. Vietnam also changed the West's outlook towards warfare, we can't just pretend it's heroic soldiers doing brave stuff all day long in the name of truth, justice and the American way anymore. It's brutal, shitty and kills innocents more than anyone else.

All-out war also didn't work for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and they certainly weren't shy with using every tool in their shed. Didn't work for France in Algeria either, just like it didn't work for the US in Vietnam. Some problems can't be solved by just killing more people, unlike what Hollywood action movies teach us.

Plus, in a coldly realpolitik way, the US isn't suffering from the troubles in the Middle East that much. What do they lose since they mostly left, a few soldiers or ''advisors'' here and there, with the occasional kidnapped journalists, two whole terrorist attacks where one was basically because the guy was a self-hating gay dude, and one fuck-up at Benghazi that killed more people. Sucks for those people sure, and I'm not saying they should take it lying down, but that's far from something that justifies total war. In the end, they probably benefit from the wars in fact, since they are now defusing tensions with one of the region's main powers (good for diplomacy and, of course, moar markets), keep the Muslims fighting each other rather than Israel or Saudi Arabia, and rake in all the juicy oil by playing the guardian angel to a variety of regimes.

Europe suffers from the wars much more, by way of increased terrorist attacks and now the refugee crisis. The US are sufficiently far that they barely feel the aftershocks.

 

[Crni Vuk]

That's the problem. They can create the mess. But they can't bothered to clean it up. You really have the luxury that refugees can't cross into the US just like that, where as they come to Europe. To have two whole oceans between you and the people you fuck is really a nice thing. Thank you Bush. Thank you for all the shit you left us with. Oh, and Obama too. But some of the blame can be also put on the French and Britain. From all those nation ONLY France, has actually taken a lot of refugees. You know what Europe should do? They should take ALL the Syrian refugees and send them to the US. Germany sends their regards. But, that wouldn't be fair for the refugees.

 

[Zerginfestor]

That's the problem. They can create the mess. But they can't bothered to clean it up. You really have the luxury that refugees can't cross into the US just like that, where as they come to Europe. To have two whole oceans between you and the people you fuck is really a nice thing. Thank you Bush. Thank you for all the shit you left us with. Oh, and Obama too. But some of the blame can be also put on the French and Britain. From all those nation ONLY France, has actually taken a lot of refugees. You know what Europe should do? They should take ALL the Syrian refugees and send them to the US. Germany sends their regards. But, that wouldn't be fair for the refugees.

Wow, think you need to take a step back and relax there, chief. If it's anyone's fault with Germany's issues, it's their terrible leader, Angela Merkel.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Can you tell me who invaded Iraq and created a huge power struggle in the middle east in 2003 in search of Weapons of Massdestruction?

 

[Ilosar]

Wow, think you need to take a step back and relax there, chief. If it's anyone's fault with Germany's issues, it's their terrible leader, Angela Merkel.

The refugee crisis is almost completely due to the various power struggles in the Middle East, and those power struggles were vastly exacerbated when the US invaded in 2003 and left a big power vacuum in their wake. To say that it would not have happened had Bush not decided to invade may be taking ita bit too far, but for my part I'm certain it wouldn't be as bad as what we see today. The Americans (mostly) kicked down the hornet's nest then got out of Dodge when they were stung too much. Now Europe is starting to have some of those hornets come their way and have to deal with the refugees, while the Americans (especially Trump) start making declarations at how immigration sucks but isn't their problem anymore.

If I were a European, I'd be pretty pissed at the US for helping a lot in causing the problems the continent faces today on that front.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, to say this A LOT of the immigration problem in Europe is our fault too. Like when you're looking at all the shitty deals the EU made with African Nations, where we literaly destroy their economies.

How has a deep frozen chicken out of the poultry farms of Europe managed to chase the local rooster from the menu of an up-country restaurant in middle of Africa? The story of the frozen chicken goes back to the years when Europeans started to worry about oversize and cholesterol. Women's magazines and cooking books no longer recommended half chicken, but only the leaner parts. What to do with the rest? For years the remains were fed to our cows till the BSE crisis convinced us that this was not such a good idea. You can't just throw away dead chicken, you have to burn them and that is costly. Obvious the next best idea is to export them at throw-away-prices, which becomes even more profitable when the European Union pays you a substantial export subsidy. And so Europe's chicken reach African markets at half the price of the cost price of local producers. Housewives are the same the world over, they buy what they can get for the best price, even more so if they have just one Euro a day to feed the family. Add to this the fact that most of these local chicken farmers had built up their small businesses with loans from EU development programmes and you begin to grasp the absurdities and contradictions of European policies. EU trade policies destroy what EU development grants try to build up.
http://www.africamission-mafr.org/chicken.htm

When will people realize, that even if we really don't want to deal with the issues of immigration, we have to finally stop to CAUSE some of it at least ... be it with military interventions or economical motivations. To get stabile and decent economies in Africa is only in our interest. But as long as profit is the only margin here ... I doubt people will even realize the conection between refugees, immigrants and why chicken is the cheapest meat you can get in Europe ... because people want only to consume the special parts of each animal.

 

[DarkCorp]

Subjective I grant you that.

Benghazi, as far as I am concerned, the CIA stuff and the diplomatic stuff were two DIFFERENT things. The presence of Ambassador Stevens backs up this explanation. The only people who are screaming about them being the same thing are 'anonymous sources', who could be total wackjob conspiracy nuts. Either way, Clinton and company dropped the ball.

And I blame Obammy too. I was never happy with that guy. He was centrist regarding the Patriot Act and drone strikes, everything else was lefty. I was never big for PA but it wasn't the FASCIST POLICE, NWO herald the crazies said it was either.

Lets go with devils advocate. At the very least, we had an American ambassador there and Clinton and co still dropped the ball. CIA presence included, doesn't change the fact that the embassy still had a diplomatic function.

Iran is still an issue.

I never said we needed to use military force. That was democratic fear mongering at its finest. Give the Iranians money or WE INVADE. We didn't invade N. Korea did we??

The sanctions were doing great. We could have added more. Even if the Iranians got their nukes ALA N. Korea, their regime, which is fanatical, is no different than N. Korea. They would have developed them anyways as the will was there and the stipulations in regards to surprise inspections is laughable. What we got instead was a cash infused Iran who wasted no time putting those billions to further their ambitions. What we got was an official action that further legitimized the Iranian leadership, in turn, giving them not only an ECONOMIC victory, but a PROPAGANDA one too.

Lastly, we promised to aid the Saudis, for good or bad. To go back on our word makes us look like assholes in the eyes of our allies like NATO, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Israel, etc.

Cuba I have stated already.

Force Raul to PUBLICALLY acknowledge the human rights situation. If we can give the PRC shit then we absolutely can give Cuba shit for it. Work out some kind of deal in regards to the nationalization of American companies. Lastly, make sure the Cubans do not stealthily fuck us in the ass in the form of a mutual defense agreement, one where they would not allow foreign military assets onto their soil to stop anything like the missile crisis from happening again.

Guantanamo

If you haven't heard already, Bammy, Clinton and Sanders want to close Gitmo and dump a fuckload of terrorists onto U.S. soil, IN U.S. prisons where they risk escape or indoctrinating other criminals.