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 17 2016 05:06 RealityIsKing wrote: Well Hillary wants to implement awful ideas and she actually have the background of implementing those awful ideas such as driving away businesses.
So not supporting that.
I would vastly prefer an intelligent/competent president who supports ideas I disagree with than an incompetent/inexperienced/irrational president who advances ideas I agree with but does so poorly because of it.
At this point even if I was 100% onboard with Trump's ideas, his repeated blunders and displays of irrationality would be disqualifying anyway.
On October 17 2016 02:50 ImFromPortugal wrote: [quote]
To be clear i don't think Trump will win and i think the guy is not very smart or he would have approached this election differently.
I just wanted hillary to lose, but it's your country you vote for what you believe i'm mostly against her foreign policies that would have a bigger impact on the world, you guys are free to vote for her home policies and that's fair.
Withdraw from wars? He claims he will defeat ISIS. Cant not fight wars and 'defeat ISIS' (which btw will just free up their resources to take revenge on the west through terrorist actions).
Attacking ISIS does not "free" them to attack the west.
It's foolhardy to be a dogmatic pacifist. Wars happen whether you cross your fingers or not. Both candidates will probably end up doing something in Syria, which is good, and it was a mistake for the current administration to ignore it. What Trump is against is spurious wars, and directionless proxy wars. If you're looking for a candidate who eschews war entirely, you have to go to another planet, because on this one you can't outlaw war just by who you elect. Hillary on the other hand is a neocon who didn't learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan - we know this from the events in Libya during her tenure.
On October 17 2016 03:08 Gorsameth wrote: Europe? Ask how Eastern Europe feels about the prospect of the US withdrawing from NATO.
We're not going to leave NATO. But Russia's not thrilled about the eastward creep of the EU.
Trumps statement that the US will no longer unequivocally defend NATO countries ends it. The entire premise of the NATO defense treaty is based on the assurance that all will defend if 1 is attacked.
Your cant have a defensive alliance where you say 'Maybe I will help you, maybe I won't. I'll let you know when the enemy tanks start rolling across your border"
Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
Trump's provocative campaign to get voters to like him by saying he's going to get foreign countries pay more, because we don't win anymore, we don't make great deals, etc., will not affect anything - because what's not getting through to you is that it's Congress who declares war. Now, if he follows through, it may have an effect on the world, if the US were to have other members pay more or mobilized NATO to deal with Syria (or some other crisis) or even left NATO. But it's not going to result in Russian invasions or whatever you're scaremongering about: allot yourself 5 seconds to ask whether it makes sense that anyone would start a war with an alliance containing two nuclear weapon states but not three.
You have to at some point grow up and realize people who disagree with you aren't trolls, unless you are suggesting that I jump off the bridge, in which case I won't continue to bother.
Trump said he would actually be open to working WITH Russia to fight Isis. Even Jill Stein has said that Trump's stance regarding Russia/Syria is better than Hillary's, since she seems to be going the route of Obama in her campaign rhetoric, and continuing down that path will undoubtedly lead to WW III.
See, this rhetoric is so hard for me to understand. You people say that an experienced politician (even if corrupted, and come on lets be fair, which politician isn't corrupted? ) would lead the world to a WW3 but a crazy unstable narcissist who asks why America doesnt have nuclear weapons as an option on the table would not is unbelievable. Honestly, i have no idea why anyone would ever vote for trump. Guess i overestimated Americans.
I think this was actually done by trump supporters who wanted to make this look like it was done by anti republicans to hope to make the left look bad. Am I putting the right amount of spin and conspiracy theory?
On October 17 2016 03:08 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Withdraw from wars? He claims he will defeat ISIS. Cant not fight wars and 'defeat ISIS' (which btw will just free up their resources to take revenge on the west through terrorist actions).
Attacking ISIS does not "free" them to attack the west.
It's foolhardy to be a dogmatic pacifist. Wars happen whether you cross your fingers or not. Both candidates will probably end up doing something in Syria, which is good, and it was a mistake for the current administration to ignore it. What Trump is against is spurious wars, and directionless proxy wars. If you're looking for a candidate who eschews war entirely, you have to go to another planet, because on this one you can't outlaw war just by who you elect. Hillary on the other hand is a neocon who didn't learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan - we know this from the events in Libya during her tenure.
On October 17 2016 03:08 Gorsameth wrote: Europe? Ask how Eastern Europe feels about the prospect of the US withdrawing from NATO.
We're not going to leave NATO. But Russia's not thrilled about the eastward creep of the EU.
Trumps statement that the US will no longer unequivocally defend NATO countries ends it. The entire premise of the NATO defense treaty is based on the assurance that all will defend if 1 is attacked.
Your cant have a defensive alliance where you say 'Maybe I will help you, maybe I won't. I'll let you know when the enemy tanks start rolling across your border"
Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
Trump's provocative campaign to get voters to like him by saying he's going to get foreign countries pay more, because we don't win anymore, we don't make great deals, etc., will not affect anything - because what's not getting through to you is that it's Congress who declares war. Now, if he follows through, it may have an effect on the world, if the US were to have other members pay more or mobilized NATO to deal with Syria (or some other crisis) or even left NATO. But it's not going to result in Russian invasions or whatever you're scaremongering about: allot yourself 5 seconds to ask whether it makes sense that anyone would start a war with an alliance containing two nuclear weapon states but not three.
You have to at some point grow up and realize people who disagree with you aren't trolls, unless you are suggesting that I jump off the bridge, in which case I won't continue to bother.
Trump said he would actually be open to working WITH Russia to fight Isis. Even Jill Stein has said that Trump's stance regarding Russia/Syria is better than Hillary's, since she seems to be going the route of Obama in her campaign rhetoric, and continuing down that path will undoubtedly lead to WW III.
See, this rhetoric is so hard for me to understand. You people say that an experienced politician (even if corrupted, and come on lets be fair, which politician isn't corrupted? ) would lead the world to a WW3 but a crazy unstable narcissist who asks why America doesnt have nuclear weapons as an option on the table would not is unbelievable. Honestly, i have no idea why anyone would ever vote for trump. Guess i overestimated Americans.
She said that she would be tough on Russia in the 2nd debate while Trump said that it is better if we got along with Russia.
I have no idea that so many American is willing to go to war. Guess I overestimated.
On October 17 2016 03:33 oBlade wrote: [quote] Attacking ISIS does not "free" them to attack the west.
It's foolhardy to be a dogmatic pacifist. Wars happen whether you cross your fingers or not. Both candidates will probably end up doing something in Syria, which is good, and it was a mistake for the current administration to ignore it. What Trump is against is spurious wars, and directionless proxy wars. If you're looking for a candidate who eschews war entirely, you have to go to another planet, because on this one you can't outlaw war just by who you elect. Hillary on the other hand is a neocon who didn't learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan - we know this from the events in Libya during her tenure. [quote] We're not going to leave NATO. But Russia's not thrilled about the eastward creep of the EU.
Trumps statement that the US will no longer unequivocally defend NATO countries ends it. The entire premise of the NATO defense treaty is based on the assurance that all will defend if 1 is attacked.
Your cant have a defensive alliance where you say 'Maybe I will help you, maybe I won't. I'll let you know when the enemy tanks start rolling across your border"
Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
Trump's provocative campaign to get voters to like him by saying he's going to get foreign countries pay more, because we don't win anymore, we don't make great deals, etc., will not affect anything - because what's not getting through to you is that it's Congress who declares war. Now, if he follows through, it may have an effect on the world, if the US were to have other members pay more or mobilized NATO to deal with Syria (or some other crisis) or even left NATO. But it's not going to result in Russian invasions or whatever you're scaremongering about: allot yourself 5 seconds to ask whether it makes sense that anyone would start a war with an alliance containing two nuclear weapon states but not three.
You have to at some point grow up and realize people who disagree with you aren't trolls, unless you are suggesting that I jump off the bridge, in which case I won't continue to bother.
Trump said he would actually be open to working WITH Russia to fight Isis. Even Jill Stein has said that Trump's stance regarding Russia/Syria is better than Hillary's, since she seems to be going the route of Obama in her campaign rhetoric, and continuing down that path will undoubtedly lead to WW III.
See, this rhetoric is so hard for me to understand. You people say that an experienced politician (even if corrupted, and come on lets be fair, which politician isn't corrupted? ) would lead the world to a WW3 but a crazy unstable narcissist who asks why America doesnt have nuclear weapons as an option on the table would not is unbelievable. Honestly, i have no idea why anyone would ever vote for trump. Guess i overestimated Americans.
She said that she would be tough on Russia in the 2nd debate while Trump said that it is better if we got along with Russia.
I have no idea that so many American is willing to go to war. Guess I overestimated.
Trump says whatever spit brings in his mouth. If anyone from russia said something bad about him, hed probably retaliate and ask why America isn't nuking Russia.
I think this was actually done by trump supporters who wanted to make this look like it was done by anti republicans to hope to make the left look bad. Am I putting the right amount of spin and conspiracy theory?
I think this was actually done by trump supporters who wanted to make this look like it was done by anti republicans to hope to make the left look bad. Am I putting the right amount of spin and conspiracy theory?
You're stealing zeo's job
Yeah, we can just wait for these brain trusts to be caught.
I think this was actually done by trump supporters who wanted to make this look like it was done by anti republicans to hope to make the left look bad. Am I putting the right amount of spin and conspiracy theory?
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
On October 17 2016 00:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 00:53 xDaunt wrote: Actually, I have to take it back. It looks like the version of SOFA discussed in that email was actually signed and ratified before Bush left office. So that email is useless.
I think if it had been really significant / damning in any way, we would have heard about it.
That's why "leaking" millions of documents without making any editorial or research work is really a bad idea. The only thing you'll get are people trying to find stuff by improvising themselves armchair specialist of extremely technical topics.
I don't blame you, also because you have the elegance of saying you were wrong, but I don't think discussing our own analysis of raw documents is a super good idea.
I'm going to make a wild, bold, daring assertion here: if it were trumps emails, you would do a complete 180.
No, no. I don't do primary sources. Really.
If there were a big leaks of Trump mails, I would read about it, and I wouldn't bother to go and look for them. It's some people's job to do research on those things, not mine.
And I am confident that if no real specialist, investigation journalist or research team comes with a comprehensive explanation of why something could be wrong / damning, they would find it before me. Considering the phenomenal scrutiny those people are under, I think it's quite bold to assume you will be the first to find something really bad in hacked / stolen material such as those emails.
And I haven't given you reasons to doubt my intellectual integrity, I believe.
On October 16 2016 23:58 zlefin wrote: re: portugal I'm sure they had lots of people like trump (also a total invitation to that Trevor Noah african leader skit); trump is simply far less useful than you think he is, and far more common. Also not sure what kind of difference you think it would've made.
I mean, someone that wants the well being of his own nationals first and wants to make america great again instead of being a corrupt leader like hillary that makes backdoor deals with other corrupt world leaders, that's what we have in Angola, i would like a nationalist there for a change.
what i'm hearing is you have absolutely nothing but stuff that's not remotely true and no sense of reality. Trump is not an example of a low corruption person. All leaders favor their own nationals and want to make their countries better. at least in decent places, I dunno about shitty places in africa. also the notion that america isn't already great; or that trump's proposal would help anything (especially considering how vague they are)
I'm talking about the shitty place in Africa i came from (Angola) if you don't know the country you can check the wikipedia link if you feel like learning about shitty places https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola . We could do well with more people like Trump in Africa at least the nationalist ideas and the well being of the country.
I'm unsure if you're trolling or not with this statement. Because the daily show just talked about how African they think Trump is:
If your going to just regurgitate what the daily says and pretend to be an intellectual then it might be best for you to slow roll your posting.
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
On October 17 2016 03:38 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Trumps statement that the US will no longer unequivocally defend NATO countries ends it. The entire premise of the NATO defense treaty is based on the assurance that all will defend if 1 is attacked.
Your cant have a defensive alliance where you say 'Maybe I will help you, maybe I won't. I'll let you know when the enemy tanks start rolling across your border"
Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
Trump's provocative campaign to get voters to like him by saying he's going to get foreign countries pay more, because we don't win anymore, we don't make great deals, etc., will not affect anything - because what's not getting through to you is that it's Congress who declares war. Now, if he follows through, it may have an effect on the world, if the US were to have other members pay more or mobilized NATO to deal with Syria (or some other crisis) or even left NATO. But it's not going to result in Russian invasions or whatever you're scaremongering about: allot yourself 5 seconds to ask whether it makes sense that anyone would start a war with an alliance containing two nuclear weapon states but not three.
You have to at some point grow up and realize people who disagree with you aren't trolls, unless you are suggesting that I jump off the bridge, in which case I won't continue to bother.
Trump said he would actually be open to working WITH Russia to fight Isis. Even Jill Stein has said that Trump's stance regarding Russia/Syria is better than Hillary's, since she seems to be going the route of Obama in her campaign rhetoric, and continuing down that path will undoubtedly lead to WW III.
See, this rhetoric is so hard for me to understand. You people say that an experienced politician (even if corrupted, and come on lets be fair, which politician isn't corrupted? ) would lead the world to a WW3 but a crazy unstable narcissist who asks why America doesnt have nuclear weapons as an option on the table would not is unbelievable. Honestly, i have no idea why anyone would ever vote for trump. Guess i overestimated Americans.
She said that she would be tough on Russia in the 2nd debate while Trump said that it is better if we got along with Russia.
I have no idea that so many American is willing to go to war. Guess I overestimated.
Trump says whatever spit brings in his mouth. If anyone from russia said something bad about him, hed probably retaliate and ask why America isn't nuking Russia.
No he wouldn't.
On Russia, this is an issue that he is kind of consistent with throughout his campaign is that he is pretty calm toward Putin and Russia.
On October 17 2016 05:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 17 2016 02:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I was talking with some people voting Trump over the weekend and the impression I got is that they consider it a dice roll. They don't expect him to fix much of anything either, at this point their presumption is that Trump would probably bring more status quo, but that his incompetence at trying to execute it would expose it rather than embolden it as a Hillary win would.
So the contention is that Trump wouldn't intentionally destroy the status quo of legal corruption, but that by trying to take advantage of it so sloppily, actually do more to stop it than one who's adept at it would.
Since, as I pointed out, Hillary has essentially adopted the Republican position of "money=speech" and Trump's gotten plenty of attention for poorly executed political donations, I don't think it's that absurd a position, at least pertaining to particular policies.
I think you should vote for him. Really.
I would find it beautiful.
I really find little difference between die hard bernie supporters like GH and Trump's policies. It would not surprise me if GH actually would like a Trump presidency.
Well their rhetoric for sure sounds awfully similar.
And the fact GH, a leftist can give the benefit of the doubt to fucking Donald Trump is just unbelievable. How blinded by resentment one can get is really sad. Like, he thinks that Trump will in fact slow down corruption. It's not absurd, GH, it's bat shit crazy.
On October 17 2016 03:54 oBlade wrote: [quote] Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
Trump's provocative campaign to get voters to like him by saying he's going to get foreign countries pay more, because we don't win anymore, we don't make great deals, etc., will not affect anything - because what's not getting through to you is that it's Congress who declares war. Now, if he follows through, it may have an effect on the world, if the US were to have other members pay more or mobilized NATO to deal with Syria (or some other crisis) or even left NATO. But it's not going to result in Russian invasions or whatever you're scaremongering about: allot yourself 5 seconds to ask whether it makes sense that anyone would start a war with an alliance containing two nuclear weapon states but not three.
You have to at some point grow up and realize people who disagree with you aren't trolls, unless you are suggesting that I jump off the bridge, in which case I won't continue to bother.
Trump said he would actually be open to working WITH Russia to fight Isis. Even Jill Stein has said that Trump's stance regarding Russia/Syria is better than Hillary's, since she seems to be going the route of Obama in her campaign rhetoric, and continuing down that path will undoubtedly lead to WW III.
See, this rhetoric is so hard for me to understand. You people say that an experienced politician (even if corrupted, and come on lets be fair, which politician isn't corrupted? ) would lead the world to a WW3 but a crazy unstable narcissist who asks why America doesnt have nuclear weapons as an option on the table would not is unbelievable. Honestly, i have no idea why anyone would ever vote for trump. Guess i overestimated Americans.
She said that she would be tough on Russia in the 2nd debate while Trump said that it is better if we got along with Russia.
I have no idea that so many American is willing to go to war. Guess I overestimated.
Trump says whatever spit brings in his mouth. If anyone from russia said something bad about him, hed probably retaliate and ask why America isn't nuking Russia.
No he wouldn't.
On Russia, this is an issue that he is kind of consistent with throughout his campaign is that he is pretty calm toward Putin and Russia.
He knows who to pick a fight with.
Has putin said anything bad about him
And really? He knows who to pick a fight with? Oh well, delusion can take you a long way i guess.
On October 17 2016 03:54 oBlade wrote: [quote] Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
Trump's provocative campaign to get voters to like him by saying he's going to get foreign countries pay more, because we don't win anymore, we don't make great deals, etc., will not affect anything - because what's not getting through to you is that it's Congress who declares war. Now, if he follows through, it may have an effect on the world, if the US were to have other members pay more or mobilized NATO to deal with Syria (or some other crisis) or even left NATO. But it's not going to result in Russian invasions or whatever you're scaremongering about: allot yourself 5 seconds to ask whether it makes sense that anyone would start a war with an alliance containing two nuclear weapon states but not three.
You have to at some point grow up and realize people who disagree with you aren't trolls, unless you are suggesting that I jump off the bridge, in which case I won't continue to bother.
Trump said he would actually be open to working WITH Russia to fight Isis. Even Jill Stein has said that Trump's stance regarding Russia/Syria is better than Hillary's, since she seems to be going the route of Obama in her campaign rhetoric, and continuing down that path will undoubtedly lead to WW III.
See, this rhetoric is so hard for me to understand. You people say that an experienced politician (even if corrupted, and come on lets be fair, which politician isn't corrupted? ) would lead the world to a WW3 but a crazy unstable narcissist who asks why America doesnt have nuclear weapons as an option on the table would not is unbelievable. Honestly, i have no idea why anyone would ever vote for trump. Guess i overestimated Americans.
She said that she would be tough on Russia in the 2nd debate while Trump said that it is better if we got along with Russia.
I have no idea that so many American is willing to go to war. Guess I overestimated.
Trump says whatever spit brings in his mouth. If anyone from russia said something bad about him, hed probably retaliate and ask why America isn't nuking Russia.
No he wouldn't.
On Russia, this is an issue that he is kind of consistent with throughout his campaign is that he is pretty calm toward Putin and Russia.
He knows who to pick a fight with.
Yes, he is very calm towards Russia.
Might have something to do with repeated signs of the connections between Russia and people in the employ of Trump.
Edit: And yeah Trump knows who to pick a fight with. His entire campaign has been a demonstration in picking the wrong fights. From the family of death soldiers to all women.
His 'knowing who to pick a fight with' lost him any chance at winning he had.
RealityisKing, neither candidate is gonna go to war with Russia. That is not a real issue. The question is whether FP common ground can really be found between the countries, and there it becomes complicated. Both Russia and the US agree that IS need to be eradicated. But they greatly differ in terms of which middle-eastern actors they want to empower in this fight, and imo, they also greatly differ in terms of how much destruction they are willing to impart on the civilian population. I'm really no expert here, there are so many different factions that seem to be changing around quite frequently, I don't have full overview of the various sectarian conflicts that are always present in the background.
But simplified I think this is pretty accurate; Russia has historically been supporting more the Iran-Syria(assad) line, doesn't ideologically object to autocratic rulers or despots. Meanwhile the US idealizes democracy, but is also willing to support US-friendly dictators. Russia indiscriminately bombs cities full of civilians to crush resistance, the US is at least concerned with the optics, and attempts (I agree this is a hopeless endeavor though) to limit civilian casualties. The US has been trying to stop IS and dispose of Assad (and let's be clear - he's a cruel dictator with much of the responsibility for the ongoing Syrian civil war with 250k+ dead), whereas Russia doesn't mind Assad staying in power.
One might argue that part of why Russia doesn't mind autocratic regimes is that they themselves is an autocratic regime, much like how one might argue that Trump doesn't mind autocratic rulers because he visions himself as an autocratic ruler, or one might argue that the middle east does not have in place the various societal elements that facilitate a healthy democracy and thus attempting to dispose of their autocratic rulers inevitably leads to chaos which is worse than the dictatorship in question. I'm honestly inclined to agree with both these arguments, but like, when people are talking about conflict or cooperation with Russia, they're not talking about whether the US is going to go to war with Russia. It's more like, should both the US and Russia arm the same groups of people, or should they arm factions in war with each other. And this is where you're left with a shitty, impossible to answer situation, because arming Russia's enemies ensures a terrible quagmire, and supporting Russia's friends ensures that terrible dictators get to horribly oppress their people with less opposition.
If anything however, I would argue that the person responsible for making this choice should be someone with the highest possible competence and awareness of the situation and how the different factions interact. And I honestly think it's entirely plausible that Trump doesn't know whether Iran is predominantly Sunni or Shia.
If you thought Congress was done probing Hillary Clinton's email scandal, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, of Utah, has some news for you.
The Republican chair of the House Oversight committee told Fox News that new evidence turned over by the FBI pointed to a "quid pro quo" arrangement between the FBI and the State Department and that was grounds for at least "four new hearings" after Congress comes back from recess.
"This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Chaffetz said.
The allegations emerge after the FBI gave lawmakers a third tranche of documents related to their investigation into Clinton's use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state. Those documents have not been made public, but some lawmakers have been given access and Chaffetz said he was briefed on the matter.
According to Fox News, State Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy may have asked an FBI official to change the classification of an email in exchange for space at foreign postings for extra FBI agents.
In a statement, the FBI tells a different story. They say all of this happened before the FBI started investigating Clinton. The agency says a State Department official asked the FBI to give an email a second look. The official wanted the FBI to make sure it was supposed to be classified and if it wasn't, the State Department official wanted to know whether the email could still be protected from public disclosure.
The FBI said that one of its agents, who was not involved in the Clinton investigation, had been trying to get in touch with the State Department official on another matter, so he took the opportunity to talk to him.
"The FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad," the FBI said in a statement.
After the conversation, the FBI decided that the email should remain classified at the Secret level.
"The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today," the FBI said. "Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review."
The third batch of emails could be made public soon. According to Fox, they include interviews with State Department officials about the possibility of a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
Apparently Jason Chaffetz hasn't had enough of making a huge fool out of himself. Seriously is going after Clinton the only thing he does?
He was the idiot who tried talking about the nonsensical abortion "graph" at the Planned Parenthood hearing, right? My statistics students had a field day with that.
EPT
