|
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 15 2016 20:26 DontNerfInfestors wrote:
I'm hearing a lot of stuff saying that Obama and Clinton are pushing the USA towards a nuclear war which sounds like some sort of exaggeration that is meant to criticize them. Even so, are these statements true or is it just rhetoric?
They are true in the same way that Obama is literally a demon aswell as a Kenyan Muslim terrorist.
No there is 0 indication that Obama or Clinton are pushing for a war against Russia.
The deterioration of the USA-Russian relations is the result of conflicting interests in Syria (which is just a puppet war for both sides) and Putin's increasing desire to recreate the USSR now that he is growing older and has less time for a legacy.
|
On October 15 2016 20:29 farvacola wrote:
Most of that talks comes from the following threat.
Meh I don't think so, the claim was there for a while. It mostly comes from taking the hawkishness of Clinton and turning it into an extreme. Will a hawkish leader be more likely to get us into war than a non-hawkish leader? Yeah? THERE YOU GO, nuclear war!
It sticks because it stems from a truth, and because of the nature of extrapolation it's always going to stick. When you're in a mindset where you can make that extrapolation, you perceive that the opposite of your argument is that Clinton is never going to launch a nuclear war, which is of course unprovable (and probably wrong btw, I'm sure there's a very small percentage of the time where she does), and so you perceive that you can't be wrong.
|
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme.
|
Why did you go to a Trump rally?
|
On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more?
Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that.
|
On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme.
More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser.
|
On October 15 2016 20:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:29 farvacola wrote:
Most of that talks comes from the following threat.
Meh I don't think so, the claim was there for a while. It mostly comes from taking the hawkishness of Clinton and turning it into an extreme. Will a hawkish leader be more likely to get us into war than a non-hawkish leader? Yeah? THERE YOU GO, nuclear war! It sticks because it stems from a truth, and because of the nature of extrapolation it's always going to stick. When you're in a mindset where you can make that extrapolation, you perceive that the opposite of your argument is that Clinton is never going to launch a nuclear war, which is of course unprovable (and probably wrong btw, I'm sure there's a very small percentage of the time where she does), and so you perceive that you can't be wrong.
It is an exaggerated extension of one of the possibilities, yes, for the sake argument. But do keep in mind that both the US and Russia are renewing their nuclear arsenal (the US made that plant in Kansas in like 2008 or something? under the orders of Bush iirc). That nuclear disarmament deal with Russia went sour. The continuous various sort of proxy-wars culminating into that stand-off in Syria. It is feeling just a little cold warish to me.
|
On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser.
Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin.
|
On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that.
Okay. I assume then, that based on the above post and this one:
On October 15 2016 16:03 ImFromPortugal wrote:
...
Hopefully we will have some surprises before the election is over, i'm black and i would vote for Trump if i was american, the disgust i have for hillary is enough for me to side with the alt-right on this one.
...
that you feel that the many inappropriate comments which Trump has made about important situations are significantly less damning than those that Hillary has made.
Question: Does that accurately represent your opinion?
+ Show Spoiler +Bear in mind that this set of comments includes things such as "grab them by the pussy" et cetera, "why don't we use nukes" (that one's a paraphrase), "we're gonna go in and defeat ISIS in 90 days" (and damn the consequences)... and the list goes on, I'm sure other posters can provide us with more statements from Trump.
|
On October 15 2016 20:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 18:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:You quoting Jill Stein now. Rofl I'd vote for her ahead of Clinton thats for sure.
I'm sure you would vote Satan, Sauron, Voldemort or Palpatine over her too.
The marvels of propaganda...
Anyway so now that you guys are completely desperate, you push the fearmongering crap into believing she wants a nuclear war with Russia and analyzed every footage of her in the last 30 years, to see if you can extract and out of context laughter that could finally prove she is a creature from hell.
I liked it better when you stuck to the emails. But keep the entertainment rolling.
|
On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that.
That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes.
|
On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes.
I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese.
|
lol, Truman famously said:
We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Trump, when asked about whether he would be open to nuking Europe, said:
Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table. We have nuclear capability. Now, our capability is going down rapidly because of what we’re doing. It’s in bad shape. The equipment is not properly maintained. There are all lot of talk about that. And that’s a bad thing not a good thing. The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table. We have to negotiate. There will be times maybe when we’re going to be in a very deep, very difficult, very horrible negotiation. The last person — I’m not going to take it off the table. And I said it yesterday. And I stay with it.
I suppose you can take comfort in the fact that Portugal is right on the edge of the continent?
|
On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin.
Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards.
These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, but every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive.
But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians.
Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread.
|
On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you are as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians.
I don't have the luxury of forgetting that Trump is on the ballot, so this holier than thou, look at the bigger picture talk from you totally misses the mark. The people who are voting for Trump are the very same people who have voted in senators and representatives that have still, to this day, refused to admit that we made a multitude of mistakes in the Middle East. You seem to think that you have some kind of handle on how the American perspective works, but to be frank, your belief that Trump has any sort of intention to actually derail the American military complex counsels strongly otherwise. Trump, if elected, will have a war hawkish VP and a House and Senate full of Republicans who literally want to start bombing Iran tomorrow. The choice in front of US voters when it comes to how we want our country to move forward militarily is not what you are making it out to be.
|
On October 15 2016 21:16 farvacola wrote:lol, Truman famously said: Show nested quote +We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark. Trump, when asked about whether he would be open to nuking Europe, said: Show nested quote +Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table. We have nuclear capability. Now, our capability is going down rapidly because of what we’re doing. It’s in bad shape. The equipment is not properly maintained. There are all lot of talk about that. And that’s a bad thing not a good thing. The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table. We have to negotiate. There will be times maybe when we’re going to be in a very deep, very difficult, very horrible negotiation. The last person — I’m not going to take it off the table. And I said it yesterday. And I stay with it. I suppose you can take comfort in the fact that Portugal is right on the edge of the continent?
You are losing your time.
Voting for trump because clinton is a warmonger is like drinking tequila because beer is too strong.
The reasoning is "oh ye, Trump described himself as the most militaristic person ever, approves the russian indiscriminated strikes on Syria, talk of "not taking nukes off the table" while talking about Europe, but we ourselves don't believe a word he says and don't have a clue about gis ideas and platform because we implicity recognize he has no idea and makes things up so he is the better option".
That's one hell of an idiotic way to vote but if people are ok with that...
|
On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese.
Um......we didn't have nukes prior to WW2. Like what?
|
On October 15 2016 21:18 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 20:48 farvacola wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On October 15 2016 20:36 farvacola wrote:
Well, for those that attempt to mobilize the above logic in pursuit of supporting Trump, y'all should actually look into what is said at his rallies and what not. At the one I attended, "America will not apologize" and ending ISIS in 90 days were the theme. More importantly, he has one of the biggest neocon figures as a senior adviser. Indeed, there are a host of reasons to regard Trump as the candidate more likely to do something dumb and militaristic during the next 4 years, which is not to say that Clinton won't, rather that her likelihood to do so is comparatively smaller by a fair margin. Ok, forget the idea that Trump is the better candidate for peace, then (and I'd never suggest actually picking him on the ballot). Please, realize that you as a country are continuing to improve your ability to blow up the world with nuclear weapons and that such a thing is a stupid thing to work towards. Realize that the majority of the world does not want the US to continue to play as the world's policeman and can't be trusted to act responsibly on its own. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. Try to work with other sovereign states, stop trying to invade them or trying to overthrow their governments. Even if they are tyrannical bastards. These are not things that are difficult to understand, I hope, and every administration you elect seems to go further into the Middle East. Is it ever going to end? It's true that general opinions went up after Obama was elected, but I think there's a lot to be said for that if you look at what has been accomplished versus the praise for what essentially comes down to Obama's demeanour and not his policy. The criticism of Clinton is that she will fall exactly in line with this negative progression which I fear is going to be very destructive. But now we're getting to the point where I would say vote for a third party, or go to the streets to protest. And you don't want to because of various reasons, some of which may be (just open that pretty little mouth of yours and I'll put some words in) that you don't think the foreign policy is all that bad, or you want to work within the democratic party to solve the problem because you feel loyal to it. And then, if we keep up this conversation, I will sling some poo at you and you will throw it back. It's like we learned how to communicate by watching politicians. Edit: And yeah, I don't know much about Jill Stein, because I haven't thoroughly investigated her and most of the media that is easily presented to me doesn't really cover her, but from what little I've seen she seems like a pretty reasonable candidate. Why do some people dislike her so much? I've seen some serious hate towards her in this thread.
Maintaining the balance of power on every continent is essential for geopolitical stability. If Russia, a country that has crippled its economy for the sake of playing at being a superpower, is given free reign then they have everything they need to tyrannise eastern Europe and central Asia. After all, what does an expansionist power that has huge military might and no money do? It expands.
Appeasement never, ever works.
|
On October 15 2016 21:08 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2016 21:02 JinDesu wrote:On October 15 2016 20:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:On October 15 2016 20:08 Aquanim wrote:On October 15 2016 19:59 ImFromPortugal wrote:... This is the third time that video (or equivalent) has been posted in this thread as far as I know, and it's also the third time I have pointed out that Clinton was laughing at the coincidence, not getting her jollies out of killing foreign heads of state.
I am willing to make allowances because this thread is long and it's not practical to read all of it... nevertheless it is quite frusturating. Even without having seen that, it's not as though you could not have worked it out for yourself, instead of jumping to conclusions. if you are ok with a head of state laughing at the death of another that's your thing, i wouldn't want a president like that. Clinton was not laughing at Gaddafi being dead, she was laughing at the juxtaposition of Gaddafi being dead with her recent visit. I feel really weird saying this, this is not normally my side of this kind of conversation but... It was a joke. Are we not allowed to tell jokes any more? Taking into consideration she played a big role in the Libya debacle i don't find it funny at all and would never vote for someone that makes that kind of comments about important situations like that. That's good to hear, because I'm never voting for a guy who asks nuclear advisors why we can't just use nukes. I'm sure many other presidents made that same question, even before using them on the Japanese.
Jesus Christ.
Please print that post, put in a frame and hang it on the wall behind your computer.
|
On October 15 2016 21:16 farvacola wrote:lol, Truman famously said: Show nested quote +We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark. Trump, when asked about whether he would be open to nuking Europe, said: Show nested quote +Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table. We have nuclear capability. Now, our capability is going down rapidly because of what we’re doing. It’s in bad shape. The equipment is not properly maintained. There are all lot of talk about that. And that’s a bad thing not a good thing. The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table. We have to negotiate. There will be times maybe when we’re going to be in a very deep, very difficult, very horrible negotiation. The last person — I’m not going to take it off the table. And I said it yesterday. And I stay with it. I suppose you can take comfort in the fact that Portugal is right on the edge of the continent?
We have american bases here so we are pretty "safe" but that you for your concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
