|
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. |
On October 14 2016 02:12 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 14 2016 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I really hope Michelle Obama runs for Senate and after a few terms runs for the White House. Seriously, between how popular she is and how surprisingly popular Obama is at this point, she'd have a damn good chance if she ran as president. No more dynasties  Though I hope she runs for senate. Also we do really know how well versed she would be in policy positions outside of some of the initiatives she's tackled as first lady? I would default to assume she's pretty well versed given her position, but it's not exactly something people focus on when talking about the first lady.
I think between her time in the White House, her intelligence, and if she took the in-between years to do other public service, she would be fairly well-versed in policy positions.
That said, she'd actually have to want to run for POTUS, which she has said she doesn't want to do.
|
On October 14 2016 02:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 02:12 Logo wrote:On October 14 2016 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 14 2016 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I really hope Michelle Obama runs for Senate and after a few terms runs for the White House. Seriously, between how popular she is and how surprisingly popular Obama is at this point, she'd have a damn good chance if she ran as president. No more dynasties Though I hope she runs for senate. Also we do really know how well versed she would be in policy positions outside of some of the initiatives she's tackled as first lady? I would default to assume she's pretty well versed given her position, but it's not exactly something people focus on when talking about the first lady. I think between her time in the White House, her intelligence, and if she took the in-between years to do other public service, she would be fairly well-versed in policy positions. That said, she'd actually have to want to run for POTUS, which she has said she doesn't want to do.
Yeah that's my assumption too (she would be well versed), but it's always nice to see that sort of thing proved.
|
Trump going after Corporate media now. Sound strategy tbh.
|
Wow. Michelle just drove the last nail into Trump's coffin, and she did it with flair. What a speech.
|
He should just spend the remainder of his run attacking the press. He isn't going to win and might as well get some good shots in before November.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 14 2016 02:23 Acrofales wrote:
Wow. Michelle just drove the last nail into Trump's coffin, and she did it with flair. What a speech.
Any transcripts yet?
|
On October 14 2016 02:25 biology]major wrote:
He should just spend the remainder of his run attacking the press. He isn't going to win and might as well get some good shots in before November.
I would argue that his position right now perhaps undermines his message. He's blaming congress, Paul Ryan, the media, the DNC and the election system itself for being rigged. Why should anyone give a shit what he says about the media?
|
Trump again showing that regardless of the veracity of the accusations against them, he's completely incapable of handling them in a calm and rational manner. This is why I don't buy into the "Hillary's just as much of a crook, she's just better at covering it up" argument. Even if we assume that her scandals are true and she's just as bad as Trump, you don't see her come flying off the handle whenever someone brings it up. Being able to maintain control of the dialogue is actually a pretty useful skill for the president.
If my only two options for the presidency are two crooks, I would vastly prefer the one who's more in control of her emotions and doesn't become an irrational mess when scrutinized by her opponents. Irrespective of whether his scandals are true or not, whether you think they matter at all, or whether the media has been unfair to him, Trump's absolutely awful handling of successive scandals this campaign season is enough to convince me that he is completely and utterly unequipped to handle the stresses of being the president.
|
On October 13 2016 18:53 RenSC2 wrote:
One theme I've noticed from a few posters here on foreign policy is that intervention = bad. They see any intervention by the United States as a terrible thing and will sometimes even call it a war crime. In a few cases, they then link Hillary Clinton to those interventions and use that as a reason why she's dangerous/evil/corrupt/theDevil.
I'll admit to not being as knowledgeable on FP as some of the members here. I don't know the entire history of every conflict or all the shady dealings going on behind the scenes. However, I do recognize that there is a lot of moral grey area in intervention that seems to be forgotten by some posters. It essentially boils down to, "If you have great power, do you also have great responsibility?" The US clearly has great military power, so does it have a responsibility to use it for good? If the Libyan military is about to slaughter rebels, do we have a responsibility to protect the rebels if we feel they are the side of "good"? In that case, we did intervene and the country did become a mess, but does that truly mean it was wrong to intervene? Should we have just let the "good" guys die? In other conflicts, should we accept genocide as "not our problem"? We've done that before and while we generally don't get blamed for the deaths, a lot of people look to the United States and say, "how could you not help stop this?"
When we're attacked by a foreign nation (such as in WWII), the situation becomes pretty black and white. However, most conflicts aren't that simple for us. When you look at US foreign policy as right/wrong, it won't make sense at all. It's a mess and you'll end up coming to some conclusions that aren't right and attribute it to evil/greed/etc. However, if you look at our foreign policy through the lens of a lot of moral grey area, it makes a lot more sense. There are a lot of people who genuinely feel that we should be using our military to help the "good" guys around the world. They see it as a moral responsibility. Of course, they too may be suffering from seeing the world as good vs bad rather than lots of shades of grey, so perhaps you aren't as different from them as you'd like to believe.
Some people are okay when genocide happens to brown people. Others are not. Hilary does not like genocide on any people. Its really that simple.
|
Michelle's numbers would go down if she ran for office (her advocating for healthy eating -> stop telling parents what to do) but she's goddamn good in her own right.
|
United States42009 Posts
Out of curiousity, GGTemplar, xDaunt, oBlade, Danglars, Zeo, Nettles and whoever else I'm forgetting, do you agree with Bio Major that Trump isn't going to win at this point?
|
This is a Mussolini type vibe going on with this speech.
|
|
|
On October 14 2016 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 01:37 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not a trump voter, but really surprised at how many people are taking these girls suddenly coming out of the woodwork at face value while eye rolling at the Bill Clinton accusations.
Be real, Hilary is just getting down to trumps level in the pig shit wars Because we have Trump on tape bragging about it? Seems rather obvious to me.
You mean the tape where he talks how a shit ton of guys talk to each other? No. If you had recordings guys talking to guys of everyone in this chat, 99% of you could be linked to an unrelated sex assault accusation.
Trump is a fucking tool but this wasn't the"scandal" that should have killed him.
|
This speech is entering dangerous territory... Especially if he says if he loses then the election is rigged.
|
On October 14 2016 02:40 Little-Chimp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 14 2016 01:37 Little-Chimp wrote:
Not a trump voter, but really surprised at how many people are taking these girls suddenly coming out of the woodwork at face value while eye rolling at the Bill Clinton accusations.
Be real, Hilary is just getting down to trumps level in the pig shit wars Because we have Trump on tape bragging about it? Seems rather obvious to me. You mean the tape where he talks how a shit ton of guys talk to each other? No. If you had recordings guys talking to guys of everyone in this chat, 99% of you could be linked to an unrelated sex assault accusation. Trump is a fucking tool but this wasn't the"scandal" that should have killed him.
No. Most men don't talk about groping women without their consent. They talk about hot women are, how much they want to have sex with them, and all that sort of stuff, but usually not about engaging in unwanted sexual contact.
|
He's already said he can only lose if he's cheated
|
|
|
On October 14 2016 02:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This speech is entering dangerous territory... Especially if he says if he loses then the election is rigged.
How exactly is what he saying wrong? The entire establishment -- political, media, etc -- is engaged in a coordinated effort to take him down. The sheer force of pressure that they are bringing to bear against Trump is breathtaking to behold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
