EPTAnd he asked why we can't use our nukes if we have them.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5916
| 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. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
And he asked why we can't use our nukes if we have them. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote: I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse. Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... well, we can always strive to be better - how bad a problem is really all relative. though the entire sky is falling and moaning about the end of civilization is a little overwrought. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Poll: Which statement best describes your candidate preference? I'm primarily voting (or would vote) for the candidate I do like. (17) I'm primarily voting (or would vote) against the candidate I don't like. (12) 29 total votes Your vote: Which statement best describes your candidate preference? (Vote): I'm primarily voting (or would vote) against the candidate I don't like. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On November 05 2016 01:52 biology]major wrote: While you guys are drinking the 'trump is going to bring the apocalypse' kool aid, realize that clinton and Putin have a personal deep seated animosity towards each other. This combined with her poor judgement and having a chip on her shoulder for being a woman president and to be "strong", can easily result in war. This is before considering the alleged interference in the election by Russia, so you can bet she has a personal agenda on top of all of the above. Carry on Clintoo and Putin both are not idiots. They know the dangers. Trump doesn't. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On November 05 2016 01:52 biology]major wrote: While you guys are drinking the 'trump is going to bring the apocalypse' kool aid, realize that clinton and Putin have a personal deep seated animosity towards each other. This combined with her poor judgement and having a chip on her shoulder for being a woman president and to be "strong", can easily result in war. This is before considering the alleged interference in the election by Russia, so you can bet she has a personal agenda on top of all of the above. Carry on The world survived decades of the Cold War under far more tense circumstances. I don't think some suspicion and animosity between Clinton and Putin will spark war. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 05 2016 01:52 biology]major wrote: While you guys are drinking the 'trump is going to bring the apocalypse' kool aid, realize that clinton and Putin have a personal deep seated animosity towards each other. This combined with her poor judgement and having a chip on her shoulder for being a woman president and to be "strong", can easily result in war. This is before considering the alleged interference in the election by Russia, so you can bet she has a personal agenda on top of all of the above. Carry on Much preferable to Trumpotov-Ribbentrop or whatever the Donald has planned. Trying to be buddies with dictators doesn't automatically mean that you're one of the good guys or after peace | ||
|
juliansniff
United States50 Posts
On November 05 2016 01:06 Plansix wrote: I have noticed this trend of Trump super fans and a complete failure of civics education. I’m not surprised, but it is depressing. I've always found this correlation depressing. It makes me wonder whether there should be some sort minimal voter education requirements, but that seems blatantly unconstitutional. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 05 2016 02:03 Oswald wrote: I've always found this correlation depressing. It makes me wonder whether there should be some sort minimal voter education requirements, but that seems blatantly unconstitutional. this is when i mutter "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest" to myself. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 05 2016 02:03 Oswald wrote: I've always found this correlation depressing. It makes me wonder whether there should be some sort minimal voter education requirements, but that seems blatantly unconstitutional. Those used to exist. They were used as a pretty explicit form of racial discrimination. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 05 2016 01:24 ZeaL. wrote: I fucking hate Trump but I could imagine myself as a conservative who would vote for Trump with the belief that he will simply be a figurehead. Pence and the legislature will run the country and while he posts conservative SC justices and runs around bloviating to the base. The curious thing about conservatives that hold this position is that they have to recognize that their position is also irreconcilable with a large component of Trump's base--those who view Trump as an anti-establishment candidate and detest the GOP old guard. Getting what they want for the next 4 years isn't going to make those people go away, and they need to answer to those people in a better way than "suck up to Trump + business as usual". On November 05 2016 01:52 biology]major wrote: While you guys are drinking the 'trump is going to bring the apocalypse' kool aid, realize that clinton and Putin have a personal deep seated animosity towards each other. This combined with her poor judgement and having a chip on her shoulder for being a woman president and to be "strong", can easily result in war. This is before considering the alleged interference in the election by Russia, so you can bet she has a personal agenda on top of all of the above. Carry on Clinton is not stupid. She is hawkish, is inimical toward Russia, has something to prove, and has displayed poor judgment in complex FP scenarios in the past. But she also acts rationally and has sufficient knowledge of the risks. I expect her to make mistakes again in complex FP scenarios. I do not expect her to do obviously stupid things because that's simply not within her range. Outright war with Russia falls in that category of "obviously stupid things". | ||
|
CobaltBlu
United States919 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On November 05 2016 02:08 CobaltBlu wrote: I like how biology]major managed to slip 'being a woman' in there as a negative for Clinton. Being a woman is not a negative, but you are a moron if you think women in power don't face certain pressures that men don't. She can easily overcompensate in the face of such pressure and amplify her hawkishness. User was warned for this post | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 05 2016 02:05 LegalLord wrote: Hamilton wrote several papers inwhy only land owners should vote. But most Americans couldn't read back then. Those used to exist. They were used as a pretty explicit form of racial discrimination. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 05 2016 02:08 CobaltBlu wrote: I like how biology]major managed to slip 'being a woman' in there as a negative for Clinton. He is pretty good at that. Just far enough where it can always be walked back. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 05 2016 02:08 CobaltBlu wrote: I like how biology]major managed to slip 'being a woman' in there as a negative for Clinton. She's made it a common theme that reappears in speeches from time to time. In a debate, she answered how she'd govern differently than Obama by stating that she'd be a woman. I can see where biology would conclude she has a chip on her shoulder. I more think its from having to put up with Bill Clinton's philandering and better political charm for so many years until it was her "turn." | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
| ||
