|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 12 2016 05:54 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:49 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals I'm not sure if this proves your point, Clinton has her own category on wikipedia with 54 separate articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies
Did you read the article about grant? The guy openly did everything courupt imaginable and had all of the prime departments of the government involved in one coruption scandel or another that led to actual charges and actual investigations.
You responded with a search query about clinton the majority of which are just simple controversy one of which involves a haircut that bill clinton got on air force one that he paid $200 bucks for.
|
On October 12 2016 05:55 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:54 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:49 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals I'm not sure if this proves your point, Clinton has her own category on wikipedia with 54 separate articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies Thats ermmm.. Bill Clinton ?
Yes, he is more corrupt than Ulysses Grant... Hillary has 14 pages but she has been implicated in most of Bills (the bigger ones), I guess wiki keeps them apart because he was president?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Clinton_controversies
All together I think she has more
|
On October 12 2016 05:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president. You know nothing of US history if you believe that. Nothing.
It's only after fending off wave after wave of dumb arguments, bad faith, disregard from the facts and morally bankrupt positions, that you came to the realization that zeo is clueless?
You are a gentleman.
Edit: zeo ninja'd me with a new way to see if someone is corrupt: counting pages on wikipedia. I'm not even laughing anymore, i'm just a bit sad.
I'll stop commenting because i'm gonna turn mean, but seriously, zeo, you never disappoint.
|
On October 12 2016 06:00 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this.
We could let the nukes fly or start having full embargoes on other nations we don't like and that would probably be worse.
|
al gore speaking today makes me wonder of the alternate reality where he was prez and responded to 9/11 in a more measured way that didn't waste american blood and treasure.
|
On October 12 2016 06:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:50 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president. You know nothing of US history if you believe that. Nothing. It's only after fending off wave after wave of dumb arguments, bad faith, disregard from the facts and morally bankrupt positions, that you came to the realization that zeo is clueless? You are a gentleman. Edit: zeo ninja'd me with a new way to see if someone is corrupt: counting pages on wikipedia. I'm not even laughing anymore, i'm just a bit sad. I'll stop commenting because i'm gonna turn mean, but seriously, zeo, you never disappoint.
I mean honestly at this point I just entertain that stuff when I want to procrastinate. Im sure other people have similarish motivations.
And yes, we are now in a reality where linking wikipedia articles on controversy is a measure of corruption. Unlike, you know actual corruption.
|
On October 12 2016 06:00 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this.
A: This is the theory people had for Bush. Look how that turned out.
B: You assume we want to get along with Russia or that country wants to get along with the US. They have made no signs of wanting to do so and every sign they intent to actively oppose the US.
C:If you don’t see how it could get any worse, you just need to read some history books. The overwhelming majority of people alive today have no concept of how bad it can get.
|
|
|
On October 12 2016 06:01 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:55 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:54 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:49 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out?
Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated?
A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals I'm not sure if this proves your point, Clinton has her own category on wikipedia with 54 separate articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies Thats ermmm.. Bill Clinton ? Yes, he is more corrupt than Ulysses Grant... Hillary has 14 pages but she has been implicated in most of Bills (the bigger ones), I guess wiki keeps them apart because he was president? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hillary_Clinton_controversiesAll together I think she has more +
Johnson's acquittal propelled a body of the citizenry to submit a memorial or petition to Congress, calling for the abolition of the presidency. In the memorial, the petitioners argued that only two forms of government exist: absolute monarchy and absolute democracy. They claimed President Johnson had abused the powers of the presidency and impeachment was the only solution. Johnson's acquittal proved to the petitioners that the role of the presidency had grown too powerful and the only solution was the abolition of the office. The petitioners proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolished the presidency and transferred the powers of the executive office to a body composed of members of Congress or of "competent citizens", chosen by Congress and supervised by a standing committee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson
|
On October 12 2016 06:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
al gore speaking today makes me wonder of the alternate reality where he was prez and responded to 9/11 in a more measured way that didn't waste american blood and treasure.
Too bad Clinton "took up a lot of the political oxygen and party money" in 2000 for her senate run.
|
He's surrounded by advisors right now and he's a total fucking buffoon. Trump surrounds himself with yes men only. He won't listen to reason. He can't check his emotions, he can't let anything go, it's his way or he'll burn this whole fucking thing to the ground. Why would you think for a nanosecond that suddenly he's going to surround himself with smart people instead of idiots? That he's going to actually listen to any good ideas? That he's going to get the mental prescriptions he requires? That he'll be able to be rational instead of emotional? That doesn't line up with reality at all.
|
On October 12 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:00 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this. B: You assume we want to get along with Russia or that country wants to get along with the US. They have made no signs of wanting to do so and every sign they intent to actively oppose the US.
You really ought not to comment on matters that you know nothing about.
|
On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor.
He also said waterboarding is completely okay, speaking of war crimes...
|
On October 12 2016 06:12 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 06:00 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this. B: You assume we want to get along with Russia or that country wants to get along with the US. They have made no signs of wanting to do so and every sign they intent to actively oppose the US. You really ought not to comment on matters that you know nothing about.
Man, the number of times I have felt the same way about you is mind boggling, yet I kept it to myself. You pass yourself off as some foreign policy expert, but most of yours posts boil down to “this was bad, we shouldn’t have gotten involved”. As if being isolationist policies were some new and novel thing we should be considering.
Please explain why I should have any warm feelings for a country that is actively attempting to hack and influence our elections? Or attempted to take down a French TV station? That invaded a sovereign nation and annexed part of their country? And why I shouldn’t’ expect them to do the same going forward?
|
On October 12 2016 06:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. He also said waterboarding is completely okay, speaking of war crimes...
Waterboarding and worse forms of torture even. Stealing the resources of a country, and killing the families of terrorists as well. All 3 are war crimes. Anyone who says Donny boy isn't going to make the world a much worse place is delusional.
|
On October 12 2016 06:10 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
al gore speaking today makes me wonder of the alternate reality where he was prez and responded to 9/11 in a more measured way that didn't waste american blood and treasure. Too bad Clinton "took up a lot of the political oxygen and party money" in 2000 for her senate run.
That is not the reason why Gore lost at all. There have been books written on the subject and Hillary’s senate run is not a factor. Poor debate performance, lack of appeal + a strong 3rd party bid and some really bad counting in Florida lost him that election.
|
On October 12 2016 06:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 06:00 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor. Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this. A: This is the theory people had for Bush. Look how that turned out. B: You assume we want to get along with Russia or that country wants to get along with the US. They have made no signs of wanting to do so and every sign they intent to actively oppose the US. C:If you don’t see how it could get any worse, you just need to read some history books. The overwhelming majority of people alive today have no concept of how bad it can get.
I don't assume that US and Russia could be friends at this point, but at least come down to some kind of terms on global issues and tone down the threats a little. I've read and continue reading a lot of history or else I wouldn't even be posting in this thread, and I didn't say that I don't see it getting worse, but that I don't want to see it. It could always get worse.
Trump is just a gamble that people bet on, no one knows for sure what he would actually do, as he sure as hell himself doesn't know what he will do, but he is puting up a charade for his campaign.
|
|
|
Ponder this: many wars are fought for economic reasons, regardless of the reasons politicians cook up to win public support. Russia is not really sitting on the most rocking economy right now. Previously it didn’t make sense for anyone to engage in violent conflict because of our economic ties to each other. But that is losing public support due to rising nationalist views of self determination.
Right now, a lot of people think Russia is seeing what it can get away with. How far they can push it before someone bites back. And personally, I don’t expect it to stop until someone does.
|
On October 12 2016 06:26 Plansix wrote:
Ponder this: many wars are fought for economic reasons, regardless of the reasons politicians cook up to win public support. Russia is not really sitting on the most rocking economy right now. Previously it didn’t make sense for anyone to engage in violent conflict because of our economic ties to each other. But that is losing public support due to rising nationalist views of self determination.
Right now, a lot of people think Russia is seeing what it can get away with. How far they can push it before someone bites back. And personally, I don’t expect it to stop until someone does.
Yeah the second part is pretty accurate, to be fair Russia has been disrespected pretty hard so the moment they sensed weakness they were going to pounce. Strategically speaking, I dont really blame them either tbh, after watching super powers + Show Spoiler +(and they still consider themselves one regardless of the veracity of that)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
