The simple truth about the upcoming election is this...

Robert said:
Hopefully.
Nonetheless, I'm afraid I have little confidence in anything he says.
Click to expand...

Well actually I think what gets him in trouble is actually speaking his mind, unfiltered. You get the good and the bad with that. If you or I were being interviewed on such subjects and had to think on our feet, we'd probably say something that would rub people wrong.

That's where Trump is not your typical politician. The typical politician won't hardly say a word unless it was first written by a team of writers who reviewed polling data, wrote the script, sent it to focus groups for tweaking and memorized by the candidate. You could tell in the last debate Hillary was struggling to recite her script accurately when there was outside stimuli. It was painful to watch.

I could be wrong, but I'd more expect a Trump president who tries to do what he lays out than I would Hillary. Look at Obama. Hardly a single thing he said while campaigning turned out to be true.
 
Robert said:
He also calls for murdering civilians.
That alone would prevent me voting for him.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for Trump (obviously) but I believe what he's trying to say is that those who actively harbor terrorists should no longer be considered civilians. Very "when your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to" (paraphrased) - Sun Tzu. The Art of War.

In short, hunt down the terrorists, and don't let the cowards hide behind women and children. This is a centuries-old method of warfare. One seemingly forgotten by the Socialist Leftist Obama regime and their "think about their feelings" tactics.

We are in a state of wartime being poorly lead by a peace time Consigliere..
 
Wayne said:
I can't speak for Trump (obviously) but I believe what he's trying to say is that those who actively harbor terrorists should no longer be considered civilians. Very "when your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to" (paraphrased) - Sun Tzu. The Art of War.
Click to expand...

Had he actually said what you believe he was trying to say, I would not have found it so reprehensible.
 
Robert said:
He also calls for murdering civilians.
That alone would prevent me voting for him.
Click to expand...
Well, if he use signature drone strikes like Obama does now I don't think people would all of a sudden mind that now someone else is doing it.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Well, if he use signature drone strikes like Obama does now I don't think people would all of a sudden mind that now someone else is doing it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, they may not. However, I think you may have missed my point.
Yes, civilians are often being targeted anyway, usually behind a cloak.
That's disgusting and should be exposed and resisted wherever possible.

But a presidential candidate explicitly calling for the murder of civilians is a whole new level of disgusting.
And anyone voting for him legitimises it, whether they mean to or not.

OTOH, he said this ages ago and no one seemed to care much at the time and no one seems to care much now either.
Most people have been too busy squabbling about whether Trump is a misogynist or if Clinton is unwell.
 
Robert said:
I think you may have missed my point.
Click to expand...
You might have also missed *a* point, in that a civilian who shelters and aids an enemy combatant is no longer a civilian.

It's terrible that *sometimes* civilians are forced to do things beyond their will, but again, this is a war (at least to them). It's the U.S. that doesn't seem to be taking it too seriously.

Wayne
 
Wayne said:
You might have also missed *a* point, in that a civilian who shelters and aids an enemy combatant is no longer a civilian.
Click to expand...

Never missed that point because Trump didn't say that.
 
redrumloa said:
Click to expand...
Yes, her changing her mind has been well documented and she explained in various interviews that she made that statement at a time before the agreement had been finalized and why she opposes it now.

I see nothing wrong with that.

Trump used to refer to himself as being "pro-choice". Now, he claims to have "evolved" from that position. I do not believe he has a strong opinion on the matter, actually, but he knows his audience and that is fine too.
 
redrumloa said:
Do you believe Mikhail Gorbachev is a mentally unstable individual?
Ex-Russian President warns of nuclear war risk as Russia-America tension rises
Click to expand...
Did you read anything but the sensationalist headine? Gorbachev used very measured words and it would be hard to disagree with anything he said. It would be even harder to twist his remarks into anything closely resembling "Shillary will cause the extermination of billions of lives!!!1111"

He was talking in very generic terms. According to him, for as long as nuclear weapons exist, they pose a huge security risk. Neither of the two major party presidential candidates have stated that they plan to fix this.

Haiti is just one such example, but probably the worst. I'm sorry, but stealing billions from the poorest and most vulnerable people in the western world for personal enrichment is the definition of evil. I didn't call her the devil, as the devil is a fictional deity. Hillary is a tangible flesh and bone evil person.
Click to expand...
Even if all the accusations about financial improprieties were completely true, proven without a doubt and widely reported by trustworthy journalists, do you think Clinton is personally running all Clinton-branded charities? We are talking about a network of charities that employ thousands of people. Trump´s defense of his involvement with the allegedly fraudulent Trump University is that he just gave his name but the organization was run by others. Clinton could easily claim the same. Without a smoking gun, all we have are people yelling on streets that Clinton is personally to blame and a few bloggers repeating the message.

The most elaborate accusations I found were made by Charles Ortel. Clearly, he has some credibility and put some effort into his analysis but his claim that the Clinton-affiliated charities defrauded 100 billion USD (!) is, frankly, just far, far, far too unbelievable. Trump has a rather long expose about Clinton and affiliatied charities on his website and the numbers being mentioned are nowhere close to that.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
If she is elected and she doesn't push to pass it then that will be fine, but the real thanks should go to the whistleblowers that leaked the earlier drafts and to Bernie and his supporters.
Click to expand...
I did not expect you to thank her, just to acknowledge that her public position is equivalent to Trump's public position on this matter :)

Bill Clinton signed the law that lifted Glass-Steagall. Hillary gives speeches to banks at fee rates that cannot be justified by hours put in - it's just a bribe by another name.
Click to expand...
I am not saying this never happens, but this sounds like an oversimplification. What is Harrison Ford being bribed for when he is paid 250,000 USD to appear at a corporate event? Is it justified when aging Rod Stewart commands a payment of at least a million USD to appear at a corporate event? (Source )

For better or for worse, the Clintons are "political celebrities". Compared to other celebrities with a similarly strong name recognition, the speaking fees of the Clintons do not stand out much from world-known actors, singers, entertainers and former politicians.

Do I think spending a million dollars to have a particular performer sing at a corporate event for 2 hours is a wise investment? Absolutely not. I also think spending millions on a 15 second SuperBowl advertisement is more often than not a really bad investment. There are many more examples of promotional activities that I happen to find highly dubious. Yet, they happen all the time - and not at all for nefarious reasons.

Donald, as far as I know, has no such relationship with the banks
Click to expand...
I wrote this before. Bank loans are the life blood of all real estate businesses which includes Trump's. The assumption that Trump would somehow be immune from influencing by banks seems very much unfounded.

and his position is simply to bring back Glass-Steagall, a law with known implementation and well studied effects that kept the economy sound for decades.
Click to expand...
Well, there seems to be a general consensus that it would not have prevented the banking crisis. Shadow banking is a much bigger issue that remains largely unreguated to this day and is unaffected by Glass-Steagall. That said, both the Republican and Democratic party platforms state that it should be reinstated. Whether Clinton would adhere to the party platform she agreed to, despite personal objections about the efficacy of Glass-Steagall, is anybody's guess, I suppose.

Hillary calls for war with Russia and Donald calls for co-operation and it's too close to call because Hillary could just be lying? I have trouble buying that.
Click to expand...
No, she has voiced support for establishing no-fly zones in Syria. I must have missed the press conference during which she announced she would etablish them "under any circumstances" and "at all costs".

Obama is being criticized for being a peace-loving hippy whose lack of decisiveness and a strong back-bone allowed Putin to bully the US and steal Crimea. Now that Clinton uses more decisive rhetoric, she is accused of planning to start world three. You cannot please everybody I guess.

That's the reason you find it hard to understand. You think the people who followed Bernie were following him because he was Bernie.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I just agree with Sanders that the majority of his political views are very, very, very different from Trump's.

Bernie made a deal to play the game and if he lost to endorse the party's candidate. His supporters understand that he made this deal and know that he says what hehas to say as he is an honourable man who must keep his side of the deal.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but I do not believe for a second that he has made any of his highly critical remarks about Trump because he was being a "team player". He is surely expected to speak well of his party's candidate but that is all. He has also hinted that he plans to make good use of his newly gathered influence in the Senate after the election in order to sway in which way the country is moving. It is obvious that he does not think this is an option in case Trump wins...

If that were so I would expect the winners of that rigged economy would support him most vigorously. They do not.
Click to expand...
The winners will stay winners (i.e.. rich) no matter who wins this election.
 
Last edited:
JoBBo said:
I am not saying this never happens, but this sounds like an oversimplification. What is Harrison Ford being bribed for when he is paid 250,000 USD to appear at a corporate event? Is it justified when aging Rod Stewart commands a payment of at least a million USD to appear at a corporate event? (Source )
Click to expand...
Ford, probably just influence. Stewart? Who knows. Hiring expensive entertainers is often just wealth signalling. Hiring a working politician who has influence over policy makers and policy implementers is, if not actually corrupt, has the appearance of it - and would fall under conflict of interest at the least. There's no effective difference between calling it a fee for a short speech and handing it over in a paper bag in a parking lot.

Well, there seems to be a general consensus that it would not have prevented the banking crisis.
Click to expand...
Is that the same general consensus that nobody saw it coming?

No, she has voiced support for establishing no-fly zones in Syria. I must have missed the press conference during which she announced she would etablish them "under any circumstances" and "at all costs".
Click to expand...

Unless Russia agrees to let the US establish one but she tries to impose one anyway - that's war with Russia. It's really simple. She gets away with saying "no-fly zone" because it sounds safe and simple but every no-fly zone ever has been an act of war because it is a militarily imposed violation of a states sovereignty established by bombardment of defence infrastructure. Only when conducted with UN approval is it legal war. Done unilaterally it is an illegal act of aggression to which the victim and its allies are entitled to respond in self defence.

Do you imagine that Russia is ready to abandon Syria? Do you imagine that a joint US/Russian patrol would be acceptable to the US? She uses the term no-fly zone so that the people will hear the mantra of US military for good, but the hawks she's signalling to understand completely and are eager to keep rolling back and ultimately collapse Russia (and China too) and do it by military means.

I am sorry but I do not believe for a second that he has made any of his highly critical remarks about Trump because he was being a "team player". He is surely expected to speak well of his party's candidate but that is all.
Click to expand...
Yup. Saying bad things about Donald, and saying good things about your party's candidate are two separate things.

The winners will stay winners (i.e.. rich) no matter who wins this election.
Click to expand...
So ... why do they hate Trump so much?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Unless Russia agrees to let the US establish one but she tries to impose one anyway - that's war with Russia. It's really simple. She gets away with saying "no-fly zone" because it sounds safe and simple but every no-fly zone ever has been an act of war because it is a militarily imposed violation of a states sovereignty established by bombardment of defence infrastructure. Only when conducted with UN approval is it legal war. Done unilaterally it is an illegal act of aggression to which the victim and its allies are entitled to respond in self defence.

Do you imagine that Russia is ready to abandon Syria? Do you imagine that a joint US/Russian patrol would be acceptable to the US? She uses the term no-fly zone so that the people will hear the mantra of US military for good, but the hawks she's signalling to understand completely and are eager to keep rolling back and ultimately collapse Russia (and China too) and do it by military means.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you on this point. If Clinton becomes president and pushes the no fly zone, things could get very ugly. I'm not convinced she will, though. I'm not even convinced she'll win anymore, which really demonstrates what a contemptible scumbag she is. Under normal circumstances, I'd expect a pail of shite to be able to beat an equally contemptible scumbag like Trump.

-EDIT-
I'd also add that I'm equally unconvinced that Trump won't do something stupid like that. The fact that he is currently saying he won't is almost meaningless to me. I don't know which of his utterances he actually believes and I'm not even sure he does. He's spent his entire life bullshitting people so why anyone would trust anything he says now absolutely baffles me.

Saying bad things about Donald, and saying good things about your party's candidate are two separate things.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Whether it applies to Sanders or not, I cannot be sure, but just as it's possible to say bad things about both, as I think some of the posters on here demonstrate regularly (well, me anyway :D), it's also possible to promote one without slagging the other.
 
Last edited:
FluffyMcDeath said:
Unless Russia agrees to let the US establish one but she tries to impose one anyway - that's war with Russia. It's really simple. She gets away with saying "no-fly zone" because it sounds safe and simple but every no-fly zone ever has been an act of war because it is a militarily imposed violation of a states sovereignty established by bombardment of defence infrastructure. Only when conducted with UN approval is it legal war. Done unilaterally it is an illegal act of aggression to which the victim and its allies are entitled to respond in self defence.

Do you imagine that Russia is ready to abandon Syria? Do you imagine that a joint US/Russian patrol would be acceptable to the US? She uses the term no-fly zone so that the people will hear the mantra of US military for good, but the hawks she's signalling to understand completely and are eager to keep rolling back and ultimately collapse Russia (and China too) and do it by military means.
Click to expand...
Reuters reports: Trump says he will order 'safe zones' for Syria
"According to a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday, Trump is expected to order the Pentagon and the State Department in coming days to craft a plan for setting up the “safe zones,” a move that could risk escalation of U.S. military involvement in Syria’s civil war."

Russia Today reports: Kremlin warns ‘Trump didn’t consult Moscow on Syria safe zone plan, should consider all consequences'
 
JoBBo said:
Reuters reports: Trump says he will order 'safe zones' for Syria
"According to a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday, Trump is expected to order the Pentagon and the State Department in coming days to craft a plan for setting up the “safe zones,” a move that could risk escalation of U.S. military involvement in Syria’s civil war."

Russia Today reports: Kremlin warns ‘Trump didn’t consult Moscow on Syria safe zone plan, should consider all consequences'
Click to expand...

Well, well, well.
As I said a few posts higher up the page:
I'm equally unconvinced that Trump won't do something stupid like that. The fact that he is currently saying he won't is almost meaningless to me. I don't know which of his utterances he actually believes and I'm not even sure he does. He's spent his entire life bullshitting people so why anyone would trust anything he says now absolutely baffles me.
Click to expand...

The start of this so-far farcical presidency has almost been a complete vindication of that view.
 
JoBBo said:
"According to a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday, Trump is expected to order the Pentagon and the State Department in coming days to craft a plan for setting up the “safe zones,” a move that could risk escalation of U.S. military involvement in Syria’s civil war."

Russia Today reports: Kremlin warns ‘Trump didn’t consult Moscow on Syria safe zone plan, should consider all consequences'
Click to expand...
The deal maker is quickly revealing who he has made deals with (but then, the pressure was high and the war dirty - perhaps the media, CIA and Neo-cons will back off of Trump a bit now).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top