|
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 November 09 2016 21:48 Deleuze wrote:This article pretty much sums up my perspective on the situation: Show nested quote +What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?
Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders. The Guardian
Bernie had his chance and lost the vote. Blaming the establishment is bullshit. And ofc he looks clean when no one has bothered to look at him, because he couldn't get out of the Primary.
Talking about Biden is just an alarm bell that the writer is pointlessly dreaming.
The guy lost son less then a year ago. He wants nothing to do with the Presidency.
|
On November 09 2016 21:50 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:47 Miragee wrote:On November 09 2016 21:43 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well. Well maybe we'll leave to you guys as well. EU is by no means past their colonialism as we saw with France vis a vis Libya. This is about the only bright spot with Trump as he is far less hawkish and is more $$$ when it comes to FP. I'm not particularly fond of him, but his best point by far in his speech for me was the bit about eschewing aggressive FP and opening up relations to any country who wants to do likewise with us. We'll see if that is actually true or not and it would mean fighting the Neo-Con wing of the party which I absolutely loathe with a passion, but man that'd be great. Then again, my trust meter on that issue is more like 40/60 given the Ghouliani and Christie love affair he had last night :> He also said he would bomb muslim countries and kill civilians. Seems quite hawkish to me? He is probably just flip-flopping like always, though, because he doesn't know what he is doing and what he has said in the past. Well Trump was against Libya, Iraq War, etc. He's way less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Yes, he's not perfect and I'd much rather have Rand Paul, but he's not Barry Goldwater reincarnate lol.
I don't know about Libya but he wasn't against the Iraq war. The first time he spoke out against the Iraq war was quite some time after it started and was already known to be a total desaster. That, once again, shows that he likes to flip flop on his statements. He is as much of an notorious liar as Hillary. I don't really know why people call him honest and somebody who sticks to his words when he openly does the exact opposite.
|
On November 09 2016 21:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:48 Deleuze wrote:This article pretty much sums up my perspective on the situation: What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?
Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders. The Guardian Bernie had his chance and lost the vote. Blaming the establishment is bullshit. And ofc he looks clean when no one has bothered to look at him, because he couldn't get out of the Primary. Talking about Biden is just an alarm bell that the writer is pointlessly dreaming. The guy lost son less then a year ago. He wants nothing to do with the Presidency.
Maybe read some emails. Maybe think about how hard it is to fight a battle against someone who is leading 700 delegates from the start.
|
On November 09 2016 21:54 NeverUnlucky wrote:So many Americans were interested in migrating to Canada after Trump's election that its immigration website crashed.
A better option would be for the red and blue states to part ways and yes...finally let the South go so then they don't have to move, but they also get what they want - no more political bonds. Win-win for all. Come on lefties, rally around the secessionist banner. You know you want to.
|
Everyone on the CTA today looks sad. Literally 0 neutral faces, lots of people with puffy eyes (especially minorities) and (!!!!!!) absolute silence on a bus for the first time in my life; all of the Cubs gear is gone too. Chicago isn't happy anymore.
|
If Trump really goes through with less or no NATO presence, then we would indeed need to man up and finally increase our military spending. But it still won't be crippling levels of military spending like US does since it's mostly defensive and not global force projection. I also wonder how that will effect EU-US relations. Seems to me that US would lose a lot of influence that they currently enjoy.
With Putin being so positive over Donald it might even become US and Russia being friendlier and Europe being the ideological enemy/competitor which would be really weird.
On November 09 2016 21:09 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 19:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On November 09 2016 19:51 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:49 bardtown wrote:On November 09 2016 19:47 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 19:46 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:41 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 19:39 Scrubwave wrote:On November 09 2016 19:37 Disengaged wrote:
I wake up to a god damn nightmare.
This country is doomed. Better move out then. May I suggest some poor African country? How about a rich European country? You are welcome in the Netherlands Disengaged So you're pretty anti-Trump but you would advocate The Netherlands as a good place to run towards for people who don't like him. That's funny. Explain Isn't your populist anti-Islamisation movement stronger than that in the US? I mean, it's actually a relevant issue in NL and not just a scapegoat. Edit: Not fair to call it a scapegoat in the US. But it affects more people on a daily basis in NL. This. Not to mention it dates back all the way to 2002, and who knows what would've happened if Fortuyn wasn't assassinated in the week before the elections. For people who find Trump repulsive there are many superior choices to The Netherlands. This makes you sound happy he was murdered... yeah real morale highground you got there Don't put words in my mouth. I only implied that Fortuyn's party may have been a lot more popular if he wasn't murdered the week before the election. Nothing in my post suggests that I support the assassination. FWIW I think it's absolute bullshit that Van der graaf was only in prison for 12 years and is now happily studying to become a lawyer. What a precedent.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Agree on vd Graaf
|
On November 09 2016 21:50 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:47 Miragee wrote:On November 09 2016 21:43 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well. Well maybe we'll leave to you guys as well. EU is by no means past their colonialism as we saw with France vis a vis Libya. This is about the only bright spot with Trump as he is far less hawkish and is more $$$ when it comes to FP. I'm not particularly fond of him, but his best point by far in his speech for me was the bit about eschewing aggressive FP and opening up relations to any country who wants to do likewise with us. We'll see if that is actually true or not and it would mean fighting the Neo-Con wing of the party which I absolutely loathe with a passion, but man that'd be great. Then again, my trust meter on that issue is more like 40/60 given the Ghouliani and Christie love affair he had last night :> He also said he would bomb muslim countries and kill civilians. Seems quite hawkish to me? He is probably just flip-flopping like always, though, because he doesn't know what he is doing and what he has said in the past. Well Trump was against Libya, Iraq War, etc. He's way less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Yes, he's not perfect and I'd much rather have Rand Paul, but he's not Barry Goldwater reincarnate lol.
He was against Libya and Iraq only after the facts, like Hillary, only Sanders was against the wars.
|
Well, rip. I love Montesquieu right now though.
|
On November 09 2016 21:57 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
Everyone on the CTA today looks sad. Literally 0 neutral faces, lots of people with puffy eyes (especially minorities) and (!!!!!!) absolute silence on a bus for the first time in my life; all of the Cubs gear is gone too. Chicago isn't happy anymore.
DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User was warned for this post
|
On November 09 2016 21:56 Clonester wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 09 2016 21:48 Deleuze wrote:This article pretty much sums up my perspective on the situation: What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?
Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders. The Guardian Bernie had his chance and lost the vote. Blaming the establishment is bullshit. And ofc he looks clean when no one has bothered to look at him, because he couldn't get out of the Primary. Talking about Biden is just an alarm bell that the writer is pointlessly dreaming. The guy lost son less then a year ago. He wants nothing to do with the Presidency. Maybe read some emails. Maybe think about how hard it is to fight a battle against someone who is leading 700 delegates from the start.
This and the media coverage. I'm sure you can dig up some shit about Sanders. You can dig up shit about everyone, we are humans afterall and everyone makes mistakes. If we didn't, we wouldn't learn. However, I'm pretty sure you can't dig up nearly as much shit about Sanders as about Hillary...
On November 09 2016 21:56 Wegandi wrote:A better option would be for the red and blue states to part ways and yes...finally let the South go so then they don't have to move, but they also get what they want - no more political bonds. Win-win for all. Come on lefties, rally around the secessionist banner. You know you want to.
Now THAT would be interesting to watch as an outsider...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well.
eu readiness is dogshit. it is a distinct danger that putin will try something inbaltics and us military miscalculate political support and escalate. u.s. in strategic retreat, sorry eurobros.
weakening deterrence credibility makes situations more volatile
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sanders can be painted as systemic danger to u.s. fairly easily. suburban whites very fearful over phantom budget talk
|
On November 09 2016 21:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:If Trump really goes through with less or no NATO presence, then we would indeed need to man up and finally increase our military spending. But it still won't be crippling levels of military spending like US does since it's mostly defensive and not global force projection. I also wonder how that will effect EU-US relations. Seems to me that US would lose a lot of influence that they currently enjoy. With Putin being so positive over Donald it might even become US and Russia being friendlier and Europe being the ideological enemy/competitor which would be really weird.Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:09 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On November 09 2016 19:51 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:49 bardtown wrote:On November 09 2016 19:47 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 19:46 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:41 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 19:39 Scrubwave wrote:On November 09 2016 19:37 Disengaged wrote:
I wake up to a god damn nightmare.
This country is doomed. Better move out then. May I suggest some poor African country? How about a rich European country? You are welcome in the Netherlands Disengaged So you're pretty anti-Trump but you would advocate The Netherlands as a good place to run towards for people who don't like him. That's funny. Explain Isn't your populist anti-Islamisation movement stronger than that in the US? I mean, it's actually a relevant issue in NL and not just a scapegoat. Edit: Not fair to call it a scapegoat in the US. But it affects more people on a daily basis in NL. This. Not to mention it dates back all the way to 2002, and who knows what would've happened if Fortuyn wasn't assassinated in the week before the elections. For people who find Trump repulsive there are many superior choices to The Netherlands. This makes you sound happy he was murdered... yeah real morale highground you got there Don't put words in my mouth. I only implied that Fortuyn's party may have been a lot more popular if he wasn't murdered the week before the election. Nothing in my post suggests that I support the assassination. FWIW I think it's absolute bullshit that Van der graaf was only in prison for 12 years and is now happily studying to become a lawyer. What a precedent. Ok, thanks for the clarification. Agree on vd Graaf
I don't think Russia is ever going to feel quite the same as America will about certain things. Rather, I would see the election of Trump and what you said in the first paragraph as the potential beginnings of an actual multipolar world.
|
On November 09 2016 21:59 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:50 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:47 Miragee wrote:On November 09 2016 21:43 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well. Well maybe we'll leave to you guys as well. EU is by no means past their colonialism as we saw with France vis a vis Libya. This is about the only bright spot with Trump as he is far less hawkish and is more $$$ when it comes to FP. I'm not particularly fond of him, but his best point by far in his speech for me was the bit about eschewing aggressive FP and opening up relations to any country who wants to do likewise with us. We'll see if that is actually true or not and it would mean fighting the Neo-Con wing of the party which I absolutely loathe with a passion, but man that'd be great. Then again, my trust meter on that issue is more like 40/60 given the Ghouliani and Christie love affair he had last night :> He also said he would bomb muslim countries and kill civilians. Seems quite hawkish to me? He is probably just flip-flopping like always, though, because he doesn't know what he is doing and what he has said in the past. Well Trump was against Libya, Iraq War, etc. He's way less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Yes, he's not perfect and I'd much rather have Rand Paul, but he's not Barry Goldwater reincarnate lol. He was against Libya and Iraq only after the facts, like Hillary, only Sanders was against the wars.
Hillary is almost solely to blame for the death and destruction in Libya along with McCain, she was pushing for war the entire time and gloated when Gadaffi was murdered and the country plunged into chaos.
edit: OK, Obama can be blamed also.
|
On November 09 2016 21:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:If Trump really goes through with less or no NATO presence, then we would indeed need to man up and finally increase our military spending. But it still won't be crippling levels of military spending like US does since it's mostly defensive and not global force projection. I also wonder how that will effect EU-US relations. Seems to me that US would lose a lot of influence that they currently enjoy. With Putin being so positive over Donald it might even become US and Russia being friendlier and Europe being the ideological enemy/competitor which would be really weird. Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:09 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On November 09 2016 19:51 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:49 bardtown wrote:On November 09 2016 19:47 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 19:46 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:41 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 19:39 Scrubwave wrote:On November 09 2016 19:37 Disengaged wrote:
I wake up to a god damn nightmare.
This country is doomed. Better move out then. May I suggest some poor African country? How about a rich European country? You are welcome in the Netherlands Disengaged So you're pretty anti-Trump but you would advocate The Netherlands as a good place to run towards for people who don't like him. That's funny. Explain Isn't your populist anti-Islamisation movement stronger than that in the US? I mean, it's actually a relevant issue in NL and not just a scapegoat. Edit: Not fair to call it a scapegoat in the US. But it affects more people on a daily basis in NL. This. Not to mention it dates back all the way to 2002, and who knows what would've happened if Fortuyn wasn't assassinated in the week before the elections. For people who find Trump repulsive there are many superior choices to The Netherlands. This makes you sound happy he was murdered... yeah real morale highground you got there Don't put words in my mouth. I only implied that Fortuyn's party may have been a lot more popular if he wasn't murdered the week before the election. Nothing in my post suggests that I support the assassination. FWIW I think it's absolute bullshit that Van der graaf was only in prison for 12 years and is now happily studying to become a lawyer. What a precedent. Ok, thanks for the clarification. Agree on vd Graaf
Influence is not a mere byproduct of force projection. The Chinese are gobbling up tons of resources around the world and are becoming one of the biggest economies in the world without roaming about all over the world even with their poor humanitarian record, etc. (yes, I know they're a bit of a bully regionally, but that's not the point). The point is - the US FP and military budget is by far a net waste and makes us poorer and less safe. Axe Nato. Axe foreign involvement and entanglements. Trade with everyone. Trump hits some of those notes, but he is schizoid here with wanting to trade with people, but also erect barriers. Honestly, I'm 50/50 to see how this ends up, but if he pulls off more of a Calvin Coolidge old school non-interventionism, friends with all approach well I'll be happy. Granted again, I'm real iffy here, but maybe the Paul/libertarian wing of the party can move him toward that and away from the Cottons/McCains/Grahams of the party.
|
On November 09 2016 22:01 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:56 Clonester wrote:On November 09 2016 21:55 Gorsameth wrote:On November 09 2016 21:48 Deleuze wrote:This article pretty much sums up my perspective on the situation: What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?
Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders. The Guardian Bernie had his chance and lost the vote. Blaming the establishment is bullshit. And ofc he looks clean when no one has bothered to look at him, because he couldn't get out of the Primary. Talking about Biden is just an alarm bell that the writer is pointlessly dreaming. The guy lost son less then a year ago. He wants nothing to do with the Presidency. Maybe read some emails. Maybe think about how hard it is to fight a battle against someone who is leading 700 delegates from the start. This and the media coverage. I'm sure you can dig up some shit about Sanders. You can dig up shit about everyone, we are humans afterall and everyone makes mistakes. If we didn't, we wouldn't learn. However, I'm pretty sure you can't dig up nearly as much shit about Sanders as about Hillary... Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:56 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:54 NeverUnlucky wrote:So many Americans were interested in migrating to Canada after Trump's election that its immigration website crashed. A better option would be for the red and blue states to part ways and yes...finally let the South go so then they don't have to move, but they also get what they want - no more political bonds. Win-win for all. Come on lefties, rally around the secessionist banner. You know you want to. Now THAT would be interesting to watch as an outsider...
But meanwhile you can dig up, or just scoop piles upon piles of shit about Trump but people just ignored (or actually liked) the most stupid, racist and just plain untrue statements from this candidate and still went with it.
Mind boggling
|
On November 09 2016 22:04 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:If Trump really goes through with less or no NATO presence, then we would indeed need to man up and finally increase our military spending. But it still won't be crippling levels of military spending like US does since it's mostly defensive and not global force projection. I also wonder how that will effect EU-US relations. Seems to me that US would lose a lot of influence that they currently enjoy. With Putin being so positive over Donald it might even become US and Russia being friendlier and Europe being the ideological enemy/competitor which would be really weird.On November 09 2016 21:09 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:57 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On November 09 2016 19:51 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:49 bardtown wrote:On November 09 2016 19:47 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 19:46 Laurens wrote:On November 09 2016 19:41 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 19:39 Scrubwave wrote:
[quote]
Better move out then. May I suggest some poor African country? How about a rich European country? You are welcome in the Netherlands Disengaged So you're pretty anti-Trump but you would advocate The Netherlands as a good place to run towards for people who don't like him. That's funny. Explain Isn't your populist anti-Islamisation movement stronger than that in the US? I mean, it's actually a relevant issue in NL and not just a scapegoat. Edit: Not fair to call it a scapegoat in the US. But it affects more people on a daily basis in NL. This. Not to mention it dates back all the way to 2002, and who knows what would've happened if Fortuyn wasn't assassinated in the week before the elections. For people who find Trump repulsive there are many superior choices to The Netherlands. This makes you sound happy he was murdered... yeah real morale highground you got there Don't put words in my mouth. I only implied that Fortuyn's party may have been a lot more popular if he wasn't murdered the week before the election. Nothing in my post suggests that I support the assassination. FWIW I think it's absolute bullshit that Van der graaf was only in prison for 12 years and is now happily studying to become a lawyer. What a precedent. Ok, thanks for the clarification. Agree on vd Graaf I don't think Russia is ever going to feel quite the same as America will about certain things. Rather, I would see the election of Trump and what you said in the first paragraph as the potential beginnings of an actual multipolar world.
I like Pepe Escobars view that Trump is a living 'geopolitical 9/11'. Things are going to change radically one way or the other.
|
I think Trump will basically be half competent and go well beyond the expectations of the skeptics.
|
On November 09 2016 22:08 Incognoto wrote:
I think Trump will basically be half competent and go well beyond the expectations of the skeptics.
Well, it is basically impossible for him to do worse than expected.
|
On November 09 2016 22:04 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:59 Diavlo wrote:On November 09 2016 21:50 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:47 Miragee wrote:On November 09 2016 21:43 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well. Well maybe we'll leave to you guys as well. EU is by no means past their colonialism as we saw with France vis a vis Libya. This is about the only bright spot with Trump as he is far less hawkish and is more $$$ when it comes to FP. I'm not particularly fond of him, but his best point by far in his speech for me was the bit about eschewing aggressive FP and opening up relations to any country who wants to do likewise with us. We'll see if that is actually true or not and it would mean fighting the Neo-Con wing of the party which I absolutely loathe with a passion, but man that'd be great. Then again, my trust meter on that issue is more like 40/60 given the Ghouliani and Christie love affair he had last night :> He also said he would bomb muslim countries and kill civilians. Seems quite hawkish to me? He is probably just flip-flopping like always, though, because he doesn't know what he is doing and what he has said in the past. Well Trump was against Libya, Iraq War, etc. He's way less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Yes, he's not perfect and I'd much rather have Rand Paul, but he's not Barry Goldwater reincarnate lol. He was against Libya and Iraq only after the facts, like Hillary, only Sanders was against the wars. Hillary is almost solely to blame for the death and destruction in Libya along with McCain, she was pushing for war the entire time and gloated when Gadaffi was murdered and the country plunged into chaos. edit: OK, Obama can be blamed also.
She was for it in a big way but you can't say Trump is way less hawkish than her when he held the exact same position as her at the time.
This is what he said, talking about Gadaffi:
"Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts. We don’t want to get involved and you’re gonna end up with something like you’ve never seen before."
"But we have go in to save these lives; these people are being slaughtered like animals," Trump said. "It’s horrible what’s going on; it has to be stopped. We should do on a humanitarian basis, immediately go into Libya, knock this guy out very quickly, very surgically, very effectively, and save the lives."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
