EPTOn August 03 2016 11:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Meg Whitman has jumped ship to say she's voting for Clinton.
Now Meg Whitman has jumped ship to say she's voting for Clinton.
Are there any billionaires besides Thiel that support Trump
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4632
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
Are there any billionaires besides Thiel that support Trump | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6204 Posts
On August 03 2016 12:26 LegalLord wrote: Alright, so here's the deal. Officially, Russia wasn't sending troops to Ukraine. Obviously that's not true - no country with as much at stake as Russia in the Ukraine crisis will go without sending at least some contingency force to ensure that things go well. As of late 2015 the role is that of an advisory/support role, similar to that of CIA attempts to train rebel forces. We'll find out the full truth in probably 20-50 years. Realistically it's probably a minor force that wasn't fighting the war, but that made sure that the rebels (and pro-Russian volunteers) were up to par to fight their own fight. After Minsk I the breakaway regions developed a force that strongly resembles a standing army and I really don't think they did that alone. However, that's pretty standard government intervention and I'm not sure that that's what you could call a straight invasion. In the US, the prevailing story is the one told by the Ukrainian government: the Ukrainian army was on the brink of victory, taking city after city, and the only reason they lost is because Russia sent a full invasion force to beat them back. That story is patently false (if Russia had actually done that then every Western country would have placed a full embargo on Russia as opposed to the limited sanctions in place right now), but it's the one spread by the US media during the height of the conflict. In reality, it was a pretty boneheaded effort by the Ukrainian government that overextended its military and lost it a lot of soldiers in return for temporary progress. The Ukrainian army was rather poorly provisioned and was defeated because it was weak and poorly managed. Pretty feasible for a nation whose weapons are all Soviet era and therefore no less than 30 years old. So if you take the Ukrainian story, what Trump says sounds absolutely ridiculous. If you take the official Russian story it sounds reasonable enough, though rather charitable even by that standard. He shouldn't have said it, but perhaps that was his line of thought. The Ukrainian story is what happened except exaggerated. The Ukrainians were pushing the rebels back into their main strongholds after which Russia intervened with both weapons and men. How do you think the rebels got their hands on BUK missiles and the like? The stories of Russian soldiers fighting with the rebels were numerous as well. It is true that corruption made their army a joke but not enough of a joke to lose to some rebels alone. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 03 2016 14:24 RvB wrote: The Ukrainian story is what happened except exaggerated. The Ukrainians were pushing the rebels back into their main strongholds after which Russia intervened with both weapons and men. How do you think the rebels got their hands on BUK missiles and the like? The stories of Russian soldiers fighting with the rebels were numerous as well. It is true that corruption made their army a joke but not enough of a joke to lose to some rebels alone. Not Ukraine thread, so one reply and that's it. As far as how the rebels got their hands on weapons, those were mostly stolen from Ukrainian army reserves. I'm sure some were supplied either by Russia or by volunteers, though not in large quantities given that the vast majority of rebel weapons were light weapons (infantry weapons, mines, artillery, transport vehicles) that you could expect a rebel force to have. That was done gradually and the scope of it was quite severely exaggerated. A rebel tank was a big deal. Anti-aircraft was mostly shoulder rockets and I think they had like 2-3 heavier AA weapons (and I'm not sure how many were operable). As for the Ukrainian army, yes it really was that bad, and while it wasn't really covered on Western news there were lots of stories that confirmed ridiculous logistical and political problems within their ranks. Military rations being hoarded by government officials and not reaching the troops. Large-scale failure of equipment due to failure to pay for upkeep (most of Ukraine's heavy equipment was inoperable). Lack of simple supplies like proper uniforms and insignia, non-ripped army tents, boots, and rations. Sending conscripts to die like cannon fodder with absolute minimal combat training, and lying about it when they died in battle. Terrible coordination and friendly fire. And so on. The rebels, while not exactly a top tier fighting force, were largely ex-Soviet military personnel and were at the very least experienced in combat to a much larger degree than West Ukrainians. They mostly won with simple light weaponry - artillery, mines, shoulder rockets, rifles, etc. - against a Ukrainian army with only a small number of outdated heavy weapons that otherwise also used mostly light weaponry. They also had the advantage of being housed by the local population and having much less logistical overhead than a government army. After the ceasefire of Minsk I they reorganized into a more effective standing army which was likely with the help of Russian soldiers; the second battle period was pretty short and more one-sided because of this. The period in which there was a massive turnaround was basically Ukraine deciding that they wanted to end the war quickly and decisively (for PR reasons; it was a bit of a media circus) and they gained a lot of ground but at a large cost in personnel. A few blunders later a significant number of soldiers were killed or captured and that (and unrest in Kiev) basically ended the military phase and led to Minsk I. So yeah, Russia played a small role in the active conflict while playing a significant advisory role, which is about what you could expect for a country with a vested interest but that doesn't want to openly send its military in. Ukraine also had paramilitary and mercenary forces fighting on its side in the conflict. At the core of it, with both sides receiving some degree of foreign support (as is true in every conflict in any nation ever), Ukraine was defeated by rebels. In a face-saving measure, the Ukrainian government severely exaggerated both the degree of Russian involvement and the effectiveness of its own army, and the Ukrainian version of events was the one that made the news in the US, and to some degree in Europe. My thought on Trump's comment is that "Russia didn't invade Ukraine" is just consistent with his idea of reducing NATO and is just a particularly favorable interpretation of how things actually did happen. Not sure what he was trying to say, and I don't think he's really right, especially from an American perspective. But it only sounds like a completely ridiculous statement if you take it from the perspective of the Ukrainian story. If you take a more realistic interpretation of the events, his comments just sound like a run-of-the-mill biased pro-Russian or anti-Ukraine/anti-NATO statement. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
And you will all cry how unfair life is. But its all of you who now don't step up against the media and blindly accept everything they say that will have made it possible in the first place. You have to step up against something that isn't right, even if it is in favor of the candidate you support. If you don't step up for what is right then you are even worse then trump. It will all come back and bite America in the proverbial ass, karma is a b. Plansix I think it was who complained about a cnn story that was not overly positive about Clinton. You can still find the post in this thread,and I assume many others had similar feelings. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7882 Posts
On August 03 2016 07:35 CosmicSpiral wrote: Narcissistic personality disorder explains most of his behavior. He's not crazy. I am not that sure. You all know the Chuck Norris joke : "Chuck Norris doesn't have a watch, he decides what time it is." It seems it applies perfectly to Trump's relationship with truth and reality. I don't think Trump even knows he is lying and making stuff up all day long, because someone who lies (especially under scrutiny) usually tries to make it look like there is some internal logic or consistency in what he is saying. I am no psychiatrist, and I can't do clinical diagnosis, but if madness means losing grasp with reality, I really wonder if Trump is not simply a bit crazy. He really does seem to believe that he can make up reality. The Washington Post has actually a whole article that explores that possibility and his extremely tenuous relationship with the truth in a very interesting article here : https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-donald-trump-just-plain-crazy/2016/08/01/cd171e86-581d-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 03 2016 17:54 pmh wrote: One day in the future the media will treat the candidate that you all love the same way as they treated trump. ... You're going to have to substantiate that before the rest of your argument has any merit. For that matter, you're going to have to substantiate that the media is treating Trump unlike any other candidate, in the context of the things he actually says. | ||
|
kapibara-san
Japan415 Posts
On August 03 2016 17:54 pmh wrote: One day in the future the media will treat the candidate that you all love the same way as they treated trump. And you will all cry how unfair life is. But its all of you who now don't step up against the media and blindly accept everything they say that will have made it possible in the first place. You have to step up against something that isn't right, even if it is in favor of the candidate you support. If you don't step up for what is right then you are even worse then trump. It will all come back and bite America in the proverbial ass, karma is a b. Plansix I think it was who complained about a cnn story that was not overly positive about Clinton. You can still find the post in this thread,and I assume many others had similar feelings. someone's said it before, but the vast majority of negative stuff i hear about trump is not from the media, which i barely follow, but from trump himself and his campaign | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9112 Posts
On August 03 2016 17:54 pmh wrote: One day in the future the media will treat the candidate that you all love the same way as they treated trump. And you will all cry how unfair life is. But its all of you who now don't step up against the media and blindly accept everything they say that will have made it possible in the first place. You have to step up against something that isn't right, even if it is in favor of the candidate you support. If you don't step up for what is right then you are even worse then trump. It will all come back and bite America in the proverbial ass, karma is a b. Plansix I think it was who complained about a cnn story that was not overly positive about Clinton. You can still find the post in this thread,and I assume many others had similar feelings. So often I've read articles about something Trump said that seemed so unbelievable idiotic that I had to check the speech/interview to hear him say it before believing it, and he always did. The way his worldview is presented is not a media parody, it's verifibly his. And the more flak he gets for something, the more likely he is to double down on it. Watch his speech from 2 days ago in Philadelphia where he rehashes his comments on NATO that were criticized by everyone across the board, from Democrats to Republicans to politcal scientists to military officials to allies. With bonus doubling down on 'wind power kills all your birds'. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9175 Posts
Note to our readers: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote: It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. That's huffington post. They wear their bias on their sleeve. That is not every news outlet. | ||
|
Reivax
Sweden214 Posts
I'll allow that Moore is a supremely polarizing figure, and very liberal/leftist. But is he correct in his base analysis here, his 5 points? I found it an interesting read, especially about the rust belt. If you look past his rhetoric, his actual points seem neutral. I did hear on the Slate Political Gabfest (I think) that essentially, the NAFTA agreement screwed over the manufacturing industry of the midwest, and todays economical minds in the US has nothing for all the disenfranchised people there. I.e. the jobs are gone, they're not coming back and you're on your own. Good luck. This is seems like a big failure of american politics, and is a severe negative for Clinton as she and her husband were among its supporters (although NAFTA had bipartiasan support, didn't it). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18824 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7882 Posts
On August 03 2016 19:06 Sent. wrote: It's not about Trump saying dumb things, it's about calling him literally mentally ill or adding: under every article about him, even when it's irrelevant to the article. I guess it's pointless complaining because it's impossible to control the media but it's still sad to see. Hillary is and has been under WAY bigger scutiny than Trump. Fact is, nobody talks about the numerous time Trump fucked investors who trusted him in the ***, when he abused credulous young students with his fake "university" etc etc etc. or simply the fact he lies to the nation every time he opens his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary's campaign has been a mountain of minor scandals blown out of proportion and simple defamation both from the right media and the gop (there is not a single piece of evidence she's ever been corrupt for example). Saying Trump is treated unfairly is really rich. If Clinton had ever done something as shit as the Trump university, she would have got a mountain of shit from everyone. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7882 Posts
On August 03 2016 20:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Holy shit... https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/760790261370753025 Fucking ooops | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21633 Posts
On August 03 2016 20:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Holy shit... https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/760790261370753025 Lets be real the nukes themselves are not the problem. There is no way the military is going to let him use them, president or not. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7882 Posts
On August 03 2016 21:07 Gorsameth wrote: Lets be real the nukes themselves are not the problem. There is no way the military is going to let him use them, president or not. The military is meant to obey and they specifically said that the system was designed to be swift and not let anyone interfeer.. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On August 03 2016 20:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Holy shit... https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/760790261370753025 Please tell me this is a fucking joke. There's no way anyone on the planet is that stupid let alone one of the two candidates for president of the united states.... | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On August 03 2016 21:07 Gorsameth wrote: Lets be real the nukes themselves are not the problem. There is no way the military is going to let him use them, president or not. Keep saying that and you will fall into the same trap as nazi germany or current day turkey. When you keep underestimating the power of dictators you play right into their hands. | ||
| ||
