Donald Trump

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Maybe one good thing about Trump´s candidacy is that the possibility of getting him as the next American president brought even more people to the streets against TTIP+CETA. Only about 10% of the Europeans think Trump is trustworthy.

"Free trade" and giving companies more power than countries. No thanks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37396796

Spoiler

Protests in Germany against transatlantic TTIP and CETA trade deals

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/285956-poll-europeans-have-little-confidence-in-trump

Ehhh...free trade is tricky. I mean, I understand the criticisms about, let's say, TPP, but those are overrated mostly. I would agree thigns should be better thought, and safety nets to allow labor to adapt to changes are really weak in many places, but! the whole thing has labor laws previsions like allowing strikes and unions, so really mixed package. The whole giving companies more power than countries is actually...complicated. I mean, it's not like countries don't win frequently in those lawsuits (see the whole Philip Morris thing with Uruguay).

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Maybe one good thing about Trump´s candidacy is that the possibility of getting him as the next American president brought even more people to the streets against TTIP+CETA. Only about 10% of the Europeans think Trump is trustworthy.

"Free trade" and giving companies more power than countries. No thanks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37396796

Spoiler

Protests in Germany against transatlantic TTIP and CETA trade deals

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/285956-poll-europeans-have-little-confidence-in-trump

Ehhh...free trade is tricky. I mean, I understand the criticisms about, let's say, TPP, but those are overrated mostly (although I would agree thigns should be better thought, and safety nets to allow labor to adapt to changes are really weak in many places).

Here´s a more detailed overview of what´s being critizised:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30493297

Actually the whole EU is more about free trade than e.g. about common social + human rights/freedom of press/security standards. I hope that´s going to change + more power to the EU parliament. Right now only the EU commission can suggest new laws, not the parliament itself. I think it´s necessary to change that.

Well, that's not really news. I mean, economists like Stiglitz have been talking about this since the 90. There is a lot to criticize. Still, I'd say the benefits outweight the costs, and more work should be done to protect labor rather than just abandon the whole thing completely. To my understanding places like Denmark can manage, why other countries can't?

I'd say freedom has costs and benefits, but no one wants to pay the costs.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Well, that's not really news. I mean, economists like Stiglitz have been talking about this since the 90. There is a lot to criticize. Still, I'd say the benefits outweight the costs, and more work should be done to protect labor rather than just abandon the whole thing completely.

I'd say freedom has costs and benefits, but no one wants to pay the costs.

If the standards and regulations would be higher/more responsible(at least EU level) I´d agree to the whole thing.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Well, that's not really news. I mean, economists like Stiglitz have been talking about this since the 90. There is a lot to criticize. Still, I'd say the benefits outweight the costs, and more work should be done to protect labor rather than just abandon the whole thing completely.

I'd say freedom has costs and benefits, but no one wants to pay the costs.

If the standards and regulations would be higher/more responsible(at least EU level) I´d agree to the whole thing.

It's tricky, I admit it, but it's not like TPP lacks standards and regulations. Generally, some protections are achievable when a country is wealthy enough. Let's just say the whole thing is a mixed package that makes me feel more lukewarm than enthusiastic. It requires some nuance to think about this.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2016/09/reality-check-donald-trump-hawk-dove-160916095240125.html

The lack of logic and/or analysis in that was just sad. The lack of comprehension in that piece was pathetic. The lack of any pretense of being unbiased was amusing. Hillary could make campaign hats with that hawk Trump logo.

That piece does correctly bring up the fact that Donald Trump changes positions on issues.

Hillary changes her positions as well as shown here - although she vehemently denies doing so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

The hyperbole the AlJazeera choose for their summation says it all:

The piece has a complete lack of intellectual, strategic, or military comprehension, but exhibits an base appeal to fear mongering (the end of civilization as we know it)

The people creating/announcing this piece don't understand nuclear strategy or policy any better than your average third grader does.

The level of ineptitude at proving Hillary's dovishness made me rewatch the video to double check if the guy has a lobotomy scar.

Hillary's propensity to use military power has been demonstrated during her time in office. She has a track record that she would prefer if people forgot.

She also has a history of making false statements and instead of owning up to her decisions and actions trying to pawn them off on others or pretend that they don't make any difference.

"Colin Powell once had to correct Hillary Clinton after she credited his speech to the United Nations for helping convince her to vote to support the invasion of Iraq, the retired general told an associate in an email last year.

The problem, Powell pointed out in the March 8, 2015 email, which was released as part of a massive hack on Tuesday, was that the then-secretary of state gave his now-infamous UN speech in Feb. 5, 2003. Clinton cast her vote in support of invading Iraq months before, on Oct. 11, 2002.

“She once said she voted for the 2003 war because of my UN speech. I had to remind her that she voted for it three months before my speech. :),” Powell wrote to Marc Benioff, the billionaire founder of Salesforce, a cloud computing company."

"A 70-year person with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational" were Colin Powell's words on Hillary. If she were elected, I would expect her to continue with more of the same - military intervention instead of sustained diplomacy.

Context and timing are everything - and the choice of sound bites from Trump is indicative of that. Hillary's context is a pile of body bags and mountain of rubble extensive enough to put Hanjin back in business.

Did AlJazeera include this in their portrayal of dovish Hillary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y


TL/DR: TEOTWAWKI hit piece posing as journalism.

Trump speaks for himself and I don´t think he has changed any of his positions. He´s a salesman.

Look, I would prefer to see Sanders instead of Clinton, but also I would like to see a different republican nominee except for Trump or Cruz, both of them dangerous.

I guess a lot of people on this planet are afraid of what´s going to happen with a President Trump.

btw since you´re quoting Powell, he called Trump a "[...]national disgrace and an international pariah."

Powell called Trump a disgrace too.

I mean, you don't have to like Hillary to understand that Trump would be the shittiest option. When you learn about his multi level marketing schemes, the people he stiffed, his lawsuits, the people he made bussiness with around the globe, his advisers (including hedge fund managers where economists should be, people that benefited from Iraq, people related to extreme parts of the internet and that guy Manafort), he advocates war crimes, he wants to remove food and enviromental standards, or how he is economically illiterate and wants to return to mercantilist policies, you have to ignore reality to keep wanting him.

And that doesn't even scrap his tendency to believe conspiracy theories.

In other news, Obama just helped ISIS by killing 80+ Syrian soldiers in Deir ez-Zor (a city that is basically surrounded by ISIS). Of course they claim mistake as usual.

https://twitter.com/AlArabiya_Eng/status/777215264945430528

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Powell called Trump a disgrace too.

I mean, you don't have to like Hillary to understand that Trump would be the shittiest option. When you learn about his multi level marketing schemes, the people he stiffed, his lawsuits, the people he made bussiness with around the globe, his advisers (including hedge fund managers where economists should be, people that benefited from Iraq, people related to extreme parts of the internet and that guy Manafort), he advocates war crimes, he wants to remove food and enviromental standards, or how he is economically illiterate and wants to return to mercantilist policies, you have to ignore reality to keep wanting him.

And that doesn't even scrap his tendency to believe conspiracy theories.

It's clear that Trump is a corrupt idiot savant of some kind, and Hillary is a corrupt person of respectable intelligence.

It's not so clear which of these is better in power. You can catch an idiot.