|
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 22:04 oneofthem wrote:
sanders can be painted as systemic danger to u.s. fairly easily. suburban whites very fearful over phantom budget talk
I'm far closer to Sanders than to Clinton, but I agree, people saying that Sanders would have easily won are daydreaming. He'd have just as much if not more shit flung at him. The word 'socialism' alone sends all the republicans and libertarians into a frenzy.
|
Stop with the military expenditure bullshit, Russia is nowhere that big compared to EU and I dont see any other significant treat currently. Just - plain - bullshit.
|
I think he will either blow with the wind and have a forgettable 4 years being a political lightweight, or he goes all out and he gets impeached within a year for stupid shit that hurts the country. Him doing a half decent job would be the most surprising result for me 
|
On November 09 2016 22:12 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 22:04 zeo wrote: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."
Wasn't basically the whole of the UN asking them to intervene too? I read this somewhere, at least. Come to think of it, I read this in one of the leaked Goldman Sachs speeches by Hillary Clinton I think.
|
On November 09 2016 22:12 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yup,imagine the horror the democrats will feel when trump,after being elected president,also will do a reasonable job.
As for now he cant do anything wrong,anything that is not crazy is already great.
Sanders I don't think would have been able to win, the "socialist" tag is to much of a disadvantage in American politics.
|
On November 09 2016 22:12 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's hard to underperform when 20% of your own supporters think you'll start a nuclear war
(he probably won't unless he literally doesn't listen to anyone in a uniform)
|
On November 09 2016 22:15 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 22:12 Simberto wrote: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. Yup,imagine the horror the democrats will feel when trump,after being elected president,also will do a reasonable job. As for now he cant do anything wrong,anything that is not crazy is already great.
Precisely. I think he'll be surrounded by relatively competent people as well.
I think this isn't great, but I don't also think that the world is going to end in a nuclear fallout scenario.
I want to see what Trump does right or wrong before having a strong(er) opinion on him, I mean we're stuck with the guy so what else are you going to do.
Today I was just putting the final touches on my immigration procedure to move to the USA as well. So that happened
|
On November 09 2016 22:13 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 22:04 oneofthem wrote:
sanders can be painted as systemic danger to u.s. fairly easily. suburban whites very fearful over phantom budget talk I'm far closer to Sanders than to Clinton, but I agree, people saying that Sanders would have easily won are daydreaming. He'd have just as much if not more shit flung at him. The word 'socialism' alone sends all the republicans and libertarians into a frenzy.
Yes I think the key factor here isn't that fewer people voted for Hillary(it's that more people voted Trump). A self styled socialist was never going go pull enough from the center to be competitive.
He might have got a few pissed off liberals. But that wouldnt have mattered much. The rust belt decided this. Now it's time for Trump yo bring back those great manufacturing jobs that don't actually exist and make that wall.
It seems based on certain demographics that we haven't quite moved on from the Jim Crow era.. not yet anyway.
|
Sanders wouldn't have easily won, but even a 1-2% gain in PA and WI would have won him the college even if he got the same vote share. He's less appealing in red states than Clinton...but overperforming there didn't end up helping her one iota in the electoral college.
Even though Trump clearly has no idea what NAFTA and TPP are, those issues clearly resonated with enough people to tip those states-Sanders opposed both.
|
On November 09 2016 22:14 Furikawari wrote:
Stop with the military expenditure bullshit, Russia is nowhere that big compared to EU and I dont see any other significant treat currently. Just - plain - bullshit.
The only actual potential military threat the Russians have are the nuclear weapons. If US-Russia relationships are repaired, perhaps they can both get back to slowly dismantling them. Although somehow I don't see Trump pushing for this.
|
Hillary Clinton will deliver remarks to her staff and supporters at 9:30 a.m. in New York Wednesday morning, her campaign announced.
Clinton called Donald Trump early Wednesday morning to concede the presidential race.
Source
|
On November 09 2016 22:15 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 22:12 Diavlo wrote:On November 09 2016 22:04 zeo wrote: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:
[quote]
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." Wasn't basically the whole of the UN asking them to intervene too? I read this somewhere, at least. Come to think of it, I read this in one of the leaked Goldman Sachs speeches by Hillary Clinton I think.
Of course, very little people were against intervention, mostly libertarians and some republicans who most likely wanted to intervene but didn't want to align themselves with Obama (so they mostly just complained that he was doing everything wrong without giving any other option).
|
On November 09 2016 22:17 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 22:15 pmh wrote:On November 09 2016 22:12 Simberto wrote: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. Yup,imagine the horror the democrats will feel when trump,after being elected president,also will do a reasonable job. As for now he cant do anything wrong,anything that is not crazy is already great. Precisely. I think he'll be surrounded by relatively competent people as well. I think this isn't great, but I don't also think that the world is going to end in a nuclear fallout scenario. I want to see what Trump does right or wrong before having a strong(er) opinion on him, I mean we're stuck with the guy so what else are you going to do. Today I was just putting the final touches on my immigration procedure to move to the USA as well. So that happened
I don't see much changing with regards to skilled immigrants (think H1B Visas, etc.). There's really not that many people opposed to this type of immigration in the entire country.
|
On November 09 2016 22:18 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 22:14 Furikawari wrote:
Stop with the military expenditure bullshit, Russia is nowhere that big compared to EU and I dont see any other significant treat currently. Just - plain - bullshit. The only actual potential military threat the Russians have are the nuclear weapons. If US-Russia relationships are repaired, perhaps they can both get back to slowly dismantling them. Although somehow I don't see Trump pushing for this.
Dismantling nuclear weapon will never happen as long as Putin is here, sadly.
|
Can't wait for all the B.S. rhetoric about "the people have spoken" when Trump probably won't even win the popular vote.
|
Sanders would have crushed Trump, and you guys clearly still don't get it. You don't get why Trump repeatedly exceeded expectations (just as Bernie did despite participating in a system specifically stacked against him).
(In fact, I would say the DNC's treatment of Sanders was specifically the nail in the coffin for Hillary).
|
On November 09 2016 22:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Sanders wouldn't have easily won, but even a 1-2% gain in PA and WI would have won him the college even if he got the same vote share. He's less appealing in red states than Clinton...but overperforming there didn't end up helping her one iota in the electoral college.
Even though Trump clearly has no idea what NAFTA and TPP are, those issues clearly resonated with enough people to tip those states-Sanders opposed both.
That's a fair point but I don't think he would have taken either still because while he might have drawn summer "lol jobs" people it would have needed offset by people allergic to the word socialism. Demographics decided this. The angry conservative kind.
|
Obviously the world isn't going to immediately explode but that doesn't change the fact that a man that said "grab them by the pussy when 60! years old was just voted president because rabble rabble. It's not just the state of the country but the state of the people that I'm most worried about. And not just in the States either.
|
On November 09 2016 22:21 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 22:15 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 22:12 Diavlo wrote:On November 09 2016 22:04 zeo wrote: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:
[quote]
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." Wasn't basically the whole of the UN asking them to intervene too? I read this somewhere, at least. Come to think of it, I read this in one of the leaked Goldman Sachs speeches by Hillary Clinton I think. Of course, very little people were against intervention, mostly libertarians and some republicans who most likely wanted to intervene but didn't want to align themselves with Obama (so they mostly just complained that he was doing everything wrong without giving any other option).
The intervention was mainly pushed by France, Italy and Great Britain. They asked U.S. for help. After 2 days of Bombing the EU nations ran out of steam and US took over fully.
It still is the worst military adventure in the last 10 years and the calls of "possible genocide" was just a claim not to be confirmed, made to sound extremly strong (well genocide is terrible after all) to get people on board. In the end, the chance was there to remove Gaddafi and France and Italy hoped for something better then this crazy dude.
|
On November 09 2016 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Can't wait for all the B.S. rhetoric about "the people have spoken" when Trump probably won't even win the popular vote.
Hillary currently in the lead with popular vote. Remember all the fuss after bush vs gore? It's gonna be pretty bad this time too I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
