Donald Trump

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Antnee wrote:

NATO, like our money, is only as good as the faith and trust behind it. "Moderation" in this context is extreme. When we make a defensive treaty, there can be no coyness behind it at all.

He's shaking that trust, and that's a BFD.

I'd agree completely that we can't just back out of the treaty. It is time for other nations to start footing a larger share of NATO and the UN, though.

Either that, or the US can start putting US sales taxes on Euro products to start paying down the bill :P

Seems like you both live in USA. In Europe I know nobody who trust NATO and NATO is considered as crime organization. So if you think that Trump shakes with trust just check what NATO made to Iraq, Libya and other 50 countries.. NATO destroyed its reputation by itself.

Besides USA like gardener "grabs" money not only from Europe and wants more power and money. Another example to my previous post just check TTIP.

USA economy is worst in the world so/and war is main income to USA pocket. Trump is nationalist and he take care about USA economy, no doubt here.

"..pay the bill" - yes, thats how USA politics and economy works - create war, bring "peace and freedom and democracy" with weapons, manipulation, fabricated threats and unsecurity and pay bills for it.

"

Antnee wrote:

Are... are you serious?

Remind me, what has kept Russia from claiming those... little, unimportant, "historic soviet territories"? Perhaps some sort of treaty? A defensive one?

"Oh, Europe... don't mind a little harmless expansionism by an aggressive state."

NATO is garbage. it can't do anything without the US. as such, it's a rather useless institution. a lot of people around the world hate it.

again, US is the same as Russia. except US hides under the pretense of democracy to conduct its imperialist business. Russia does not.

apparently you think US is some kind of a good policeman who strives for justice in the world. I suggest you stop living in fairy tales and open your eyes. I live in California, but I've also lived in France, Germany (briefly), Nigeria, Russia (yes, Russia) and Ukraine. I have relatives in all those countries.

A lot of people around Europe and the world hate US just as much as they hate Russia. A lot of people wish both these countries stop fucking around using them as spare change. A lot of them hate US for injecting fake democracy, which is only a thinly veiled attempt to sustain self-interest or going against Russia

Cold war does nobody any good. If Russia and US can enjoy at least semi-decent relationship, it will save the world from dozens of dumb wars, where Russia and US would support their candidate.

Also, US can stop pretending we're for democracy, because it's been long clear we're not. Not even on our soil.

Two things: I wouldn't trust an isolationist that has talked in favor of war crimes and openly disdains ex soldiers and familiars of soldiers (his answer to Khan was extremely telling). Pacifist my balls, he just flip flops from gratuituous agresivity to phony isolationism and people ignore it for no good reason. His advisors should show what kind of government he would have.

Also, Trump is as establishment as it gets. You should be changing political establishment for corporate establishment. It's pretty much a well documented fact he stiffs other people for money, a lot of his bussinesses were crudely mismanaged and generally is a completely douchebag and conspiracy theorist. If people were as strict with him as with Clinton, it shouldn't be an option at all, but alas, everyone seems glitched this year. Trump winning would be essentially a copy of that Bob Heller part of Transmetropolitan.

I wish the other option wasn't Clinton, but whatever. Maybe the world needs to see what happens when everyone gets crazy and pick the most stupid option. I'm on a neutral country, too far from all the shit that will happen so I will watch the resulting clusterfuck from safety anyway. Vote against the establishment if you feel is the best, but remember that whatever happens is your responsability at the end. Tearing what exists with no sane replacement will get you nothing...see Arab Spring. This seems like a basic example of game theory (better to reduce losses), but oh well, big picture is hard to get, everyone just wants to stick it to the system shooting their feet in the process.

I may get to see the fall of social democracies all around the world and their replacement by illiberal democracies/proto fascism. That will be a nice story to tell to future generations.

PS: I'll let this for Troompa Loompas to spin. Trump is hearing the needs of the workers ignored by the establishment!

"

NeroNoah wrote:

I wouldn't trust an isolationist ...

I don't think isolationism is such a bad idea for the US. The rest of the world has been relying on the US to fix things for a very long time now, and that despite evidence that the US is not very good at it. I don't know if you can be good at it, but there seems to be little doubt that, for example, if not for the 2003 Iraq war there'd be no ISIL today. There was a balance in the ME prior to that, an ugly balance but a balance. The US destroyed it. They disbanded the Iraqi military, and these trained professionals but newly disinfranchised and frustrated proceeded to form the backbone of ISIL. What an exceptionally dumb move.

So why not just keep your fingers out of foreign countries? There is this German proverb: Better a terrible end than terror without end. Why not let the ME sort things out among themselves for a change? It'd be terrible, many innocent people would die, but in the end maybe something good, something with stability, comes out of it.
Instead of over 15 years now of intervention after intervention, and conflict after conflict, and all this mess prolonged, and in a way twisted, by half-assed measures from the Western world.
Half-assed measures don't seem to work, full-assed measures neither, so why not try doing nothing for once? Callous, but maybe the only right thing to do.

Trump on the other hand ... I seriously cannot imagine how anyone can trust him. You have to live in an exclusive Breitbart/Fox News bubble not to see him for the fraud that he is. A long, long list of lies and broken promises, of ignorance, and of terrible, utterly terrible, judgement. And that's just his campaign.
If you vote Trump because you think Hillary and the Democrats are crooked down to the bone, fine. But see him as a savior? How? The fuck?

You know you're bad when even the Koch brothers won't back you.

"

GeorgAnatoly wrote:

You know you're bad when even the Koch brothers won't back you.

I think that's a strong sign, that Trump isn't one of "theirs", meaning that they don't have any way to control him. IMO - this is a perfect case of hubris over critical thinking. The Koch bros are so confident in their ability to sway elections that they think they can increase the house and senate GOP standings without really putting up a strong anti-Hillary defense.

What they are failing to recognize, or failing to acknowledge is that a weak turn out for Trump is going to mean an overwhelming turn out for Hillary, and the GOP will lose a large chunk of seats in both houses.

With the democrats in charge of the presidency, the house and the senate, Koch industries will find themselves subject to a lot more environmental scrutiny and with another justice, the lid will finally clamp down on their political spending.

The economic chaos that will ensue when a single party system becomes imminent will be a wild ride.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

IMO - this is a perfect case of hubris over critical thinking. The Koch bros are so confident in their ability to sway elections that they think they can increase the house and senate GOP standings without really putting up a strong anti-Hillary defense.

What they are failing to recognize, or failing to acknowledge is that a weak turn out for Trump is going to mean an overwhelming turn out for Hillary, and the GOP will lose a large chunk of seats in both houses.

The only thing I disagree with here is the IMO - it's essentially fact that people show up to the polls to vote for president, not congresspeople, such that backing Trump and backing the Republican nominees for Congress are inexorably linked. The Koch logic here is astoundingly naïve.

I'm not sure that would stop Trump, but it does mean the Kochs are going to get very low value for their money.

^Lets face it, only one man can stop him

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1xZnb6pelkP

@Jojas: read well. We can discuss about isolationism, but it's not that, it's the fact that everything else in his rhetoric (and even the people he gets around) shows that is nonsense. I don't believe in isolationism from someone that advocates war crimes, treats the military like shit, and it's around people related to Iraq. Trump is isolationist in the sense that he would let small countries get fucked (see NATO comments), but it's obvious he would be ruthless for everything else (see China comments). He is too idiotic/hostile for diplomacy, no matter how much he bullshits about good deals and meetings. That's not a good thing.

It baffles me that someone would take Trump at his word at really anything after all this time, he backtracks too often when things get inconvenient (the other day he showed five different positions on the minimum wage in 45 seconds).

...

About Trump and the Kochs, maybe even evil has its standards. Kochs are anarchocapitalists while Trump is a neomercantilist; their policies (no government intervention on trade vs. heavyhanded government intervention on trade, privacy vs. mass surveillance, social issues, immigration, etc.) are at odds while there are some things in common like lowering taxes and destroying the EPA. Trump is an authoritarian while they are libertarian. It's as simple as that. Kochs want to make the Republican party tend towards anarchocapitalist (not really a secret), so a Trump victory would be a pyrrhic victory.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Two things: I wouldn't trust an isolationist that has talked in favor of war crimes and openly disdains ex soldiers and familiars of soldiers (his answer to Khan was extremely telling). Pacifist my balls, he just flip flops from gratuituous agresivity to phony isolationism and people ignore it for no good reason. His advisors should show what kind of government he would have.

Also, Trump is as establishment as it gets. You should be changing political establishment for corporate establishment. It's pretty much a well documented fact he stiffs other people for money, a lot of his bussinesses were crudely mismanaged and generally is a completely douchebag and conspiracy theorist. If people were as strict with him as with Clinton, it shouldn't be an option at all, but alas, everyone seems glitched this year. Trump winning would be essentially a copy of that Bob Heller part of Transmetropolitan.

I wish the other option wasn't Clinton, but whatever. Maybe the world needs to see what happens when everyone gets crazy and pick the most stupid option. I'm on a neutral country, too far from all the shit that will happen so I will watch the resulting clusterfuck from safety anyway. Vote against the establishment if you feel is the best, but remember that whatever happens is your responsability at the end. Tearing what exists with no sane replacement will get you nothing...see Arab Spring. This seems like a basic example of game theory (better to reduce losses), but oh well, big picture is hard to get, everyone just wants to stick it to the system shooting their feet in the process.

I know this was probably not directed at me in particular, but I dont support Trump. nor would I vote for him even if my vote did matter. I'm just saying foreign policy as he's stating it makes sense to me and I support it. It's one thing I can see someone voting for Trump on, funny how it might be the only thing. I'm tired of cold war and policing the world. Whether or not he will deliver (probably not, majority of politicians promises are usually populist garbage) is a different question.

and I agree Trump isnt anti-establishment as he is painted to be. media wants to paint trump as far right, but hes way more moderate than people realize. same with Hillary.

hence my plea for meaningful third (or fourth) parties emerging in the next decade. hence me seriously contemplating voting Stein or Johnson even though theyre both trying to vulture off people being disgusted by Trump and Hillary. I think it's worth a shot.