| 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. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Take with a grain of salt: in that vein: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ACHvVha.png) you clearly see the shift, and that is with most of the timeframe still being pre-release. Perhaps the Reuters one can be trusted a bit more than I thought | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:18 Nevuk wrote: I'm fairly convinced that Trump thinks 9/11 happened under Obama. Is that not the right wing narrative? Everything bad ever is because of Obama. Even good things are actually somehow bad and are Obama's fault. | ||
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:11 zlefin wrote: claiming he won't necessarily uphold the NATO treaty. advocating violating the geneva conventions on warfare. these also re: xdaunt; as these aren't hypothetical blunders. he's already made blunders which have hurt american standing abroad. without even being in. Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:04 xDaunt wrote: Trump's blundering at foreign policy is hypothetical at this point. He has no record of managing anything. All that we can do is assess his overall philosophy to infer what he is likely to do as president. This isn't the case for Hillary. She has a well-established record, most of which is quite bad. If the avoidance of military conflict and American adventurism is something that you value, it's quite clear that Trump is likely to be better in that regard than Hillary. It's not hypothetical because he has explicitly said he would do numerous things that would be complete and total disasters, such as: Instantly reneging on the Iran Agreement and Paris Climate Accords Promoting the acquisition of nuclear weapons by countries like South Korea and Japan Advocating for trade wars with both China and Mexico Inviting foreign meddling into our elections Praised Russia and their moves into the Ukraine Threatening to not protect our NATO allies Demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on subjects like the Syrian War and the situation in Ukraine Using nuclear weapons Committing war crimes to fight terrorists Proposing to attack the naval vessel of another country without provocation Widespread condemnation of Islam So no, it's not "hypothetical". When a candidate says he would do all of these things, it puts him into an entirely new category of terrible. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:18 Nevuk wrote: I'm fairly convinced that Trump thinks 9/11 happened under Obama. He also seemed to think Humayun Khan died under Obama. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
However, take my opinion with a grain of salt given that: a) I'm a very risk-averse person by nature, and b) I know very little about foreign policy. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:19 Toadesstern wrote: in that vein: you clearly see the shift, and that is with most of the timeframe still being pre-release. Perhaps the Reuters one can be trusted a bit more Yeah, the debate was the moment his groping stuff crystallized. When you are on video describing the way you sexually assault women, it doesn't matter if you apologize and then say you never actually did anything. It's done. No one is going to believe you. And even if they did, the entire idea of making up habitual groping is bad enough. I think people are to used to Trump saying stupid shit that they aren't paying proper respect to how much worse the groping habit is. I think Trump is going to lose both Ohio and Florida after this. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:21 TheYango wrote: Foreign policy is one of those areas where I would prefer "guaranteed kind-of bad" to "high variance could go either way". Just because the amount that's possible for a US president to fuck up with regard to FP is much higher than in other areas. If Trump's possibilities are "better than Clinton" and "totally fuck America's relationship with the rest of the world", I'll still take Clinton even though I'm not exactly pleased with her track record either. However, take my opinion with a grain of salt given that: a) I'm a very risk-averse person by nature, and b) I know very little about foreign policy. Risk-averse is probably best for FP because on expectation, "50% chance of terrible, 50% chance of good" has a much greater downside than "100% chance of mediocre." I've seen enough from Clinton to say that, while I don't think she'll be good, she probably won't destroy the world either. She at least sees the fundamental need for cooperation on matters of nuclear and terrorist threats. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:21 TheYango wrote: Foreign policy is one of those areas where I would prefer "guaranteed kind-of bad" to "high variance could go either way". Just because the amount that's possible for a US president to fuck up with regard to FP is much higher than in other areas. If Trump's possibilities are "better than Clinton" and "totally fuck America's relationship with the rest of the world", I'll still take Clinton even though I'm not exactly pleased with her track record either. However, take my opinion with a grain of salt given that: a) I'm a very risk-averse person by nature, and b) I know very little about foreign policy. I agree. I think there's a chance Clinton will make some kind of "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions, but one of the big things that make me okay is that she's promised no boots on the ground (though the flip side we've got a lot of adviser-type folks). I also think she'll keep Putin's nuts in the vise grip we've had, and she can probably make progress on our pivot to Asia. On the other hand, Trump could do something to make the Iraq war look like a little oopsie while doing plenty of other things that would be considered egregiously stupid. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44286 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:20 LegalLord wrote: Yeah, that much I will agree with, in that those are pretty terrible blunders on his part. Probably in a more direct way than some of the others I've seen (stay in Iraq for 100 years) though I'm not convinced that they are more dangerous. I'll add "blanket denouncement of Muslims" to your list as well. Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9245 Posts
| ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
haha decided to watch the debate. Getting destroyed on his comments from 11 years ago. Wonder if the rest of the debate will be as good as the first one. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:26 KwarK wrote: Starting a nuclear rivalry between Japan and China, two nations which still have a lot of animosity towards each other which is repressed by American military suppression of Japan and business with China? Again, we don't occupy Japan because we think Japan is too weak to defend itself. We occupy Japan because A) Japan is a great power that awoke too late to play the great power game and was denied its destiny and is mad about it B) We know damn well Japan could fuck shit up in East Asia if it chose C) Everyone in East Asia would freak the fuck out if we didn't occupy Japan I feel that that falls quite well under the "NATO treaty" objection to Trump. I'm one of the last people who would advocate for any form of nuclear proliferation because the dangers of that are quite terribad. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:23 Nevuk wrote: How big of a deal will it be if the libertarian party cracks the 5% mark and gets public funding? No one really knows, though I'd guess not that big of a deal given the libertarian tendency to say very little of substance once given the podium. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:30 farvacola wrote: No one really knows, though I'd guess not that big of a deal given the libertarian tendency to say very little of substance once given the podium. The GOP is fracturing pretty badly, I could see a fair amount flee if there's a downballot disaster and take over the libertarian party. Would be easier than starting a totally new one, I think. Just a hypothetical though. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:26 ticklishmusic wrote: I agree. I think there's a chance Clinton will make some kind of "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions, but one of the big things that make me okay is that she's promised no boots on the ground (though the flip side we've got a lot of adviser-type folks). I also think she'll keep Putin's nuts in the vise grip we've had, and she can probably make progress on our pivot to Asia. On the other hand, Trump could do something to make the Iraq war look like a little oopsie while doing plenty of other things that would be considered egregiously stupid. For Clinton, my big worry is that a continuation of all those "gee that was pretty dumb" decisions that she has a pretty notable tendency to make is going to slowly but surely lead to a "we should rethink to what extent our nation aligns itself with US FP interests" the world over. Won't end the world, but it's far from what I want. I'd wish for a better option but that's what we've got this time around. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 11 2016 01:30 farvacola wrote: No one really knows, though I'd guess not that big of a deal given the libertarian tendency to say very little of substance once given the podium. It'd certainly be fun watching people argue a driver's license requirement isn't constitutional. They say the darnedest things! | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Percival
Cure vs Classic
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
Serral vs Rogue
BlizzCon
IdrA vs MC
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs JyJ
Soulkey vs hero
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
