US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5549

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.

On October 14 2016 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:

Because we have Trump on tape bragging about it?
Seems rather obvious to me.

On October 14 2016 02:15 OuchyDathurts wrote:
God I absolutely fucking love Michelle Obama.

On October 14 2016 02:40 Little-Chimp wrote:


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.

On October 14 2016 02:46 xDaunt wrote:

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.

On October 14 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:

They are reporting the news. Its not their problem he is one of the most unfit people to ever run as a candidate.

On October 14 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:

They are reporting the news. Its not their problem he is one of the most unfit people to ever run as a candidate.

On October 14 2016 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:

Because we have Drumpf on tape bragging about it?
Seems rather obvious to me.

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.

On October 14 2016 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:

Because we have Trump on tape bragging about it?
Seems rather obvious to me.