Donald Trump
" The focus on Pepe makes sense if you consider the purpose is to distract people. The less they think about Hillary, the more chance their hate and mistrust will subside and she might regain a vote. The potential danger here is that because of the prevalence of Pepe in /pol (which is definitely NOT on Hillary's side) that people looking for more information on Pepe will run into a mountain of anti-Hillary content. The /pol hoard of anti-Hillary content is a morass that Hillary can not extricate herself from - Even with her dedicated team of shills. It is just too information dense and the organic development means it is self-reinforcing - like Google's algorithm - and the information sources too diverse and consistent to be wiped. For the common TV news watcher - Hillary's concern with a frog makes her look silly. Especially claiming that a frog is a hate symbol. The older generations are more likely to associate this with Pepe than racism:   Net result - anyone who looks for more Pepe info will have their trust in Hillary and the media eroded. For the casual surfer who doesn't already know of Pepe - they will discover he is just another meme and find many amusing ones. Trump and his "deplorables" become more likeable. Casual viewers begin to think Hillary and the media have REALLY lost their mind. The public had little tolerance for the pursuit of Bill and Monica's sexcapades, and that at least had some substance and impropriety to it. "Trumps bad - proof - a frog!" is so dumb that Sarah Palin might as well be Hillary's running mate. It is just further proof that Hillary's entire staff has no long term vision. She just "deserves" to be president. It's "her turn". "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Sep 30, 2016, 1:51:14 AM
|
|
|
Still probably gonna vote for Trump, was looking at Johnson for awhile, but even though he ran New Mexico fine his knowledge of foreign policy is troubling and I feel like Trump has better resources to help out with foreign policy.
Sure Hillary has plenty of FP experience, but she'll deregulate banks like there is no tomorrow so thats an instant NO for me no matter what else she stands for. R.I.P. my beloved P.o.E.
|
|
|
Trump attempts to eat black baby, minorities outraged!
 GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
|
" Almost everything he says is wrong. What am I supossed to take seriously from him? Why can't just assume he is a moron? Doesn't bother you to be telling people constantly that you don't have to take him seriously? @Dalailama: that article doesn't really defend Trump, it rather says Clinton position deserves criticism (but honestly, it reads like grasping at straws). Actually the article is brutal with him. Your argument doesn't convince me. Doing something about being taunted it's not the same than random violence. While I don't like Clinton foreign policy, pretending that Trump knows anything about it is just plain stupid. You are not defending Trump at all, just blaming Clinton. Add a Forsaken Masters questline https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 Last edited by NeroNoah#1010 on Sep 30, 2016, 7:22:12 PM
|
|
" LOL! I'm guessing you skimmed it. Here's the take away from the article: "The substance of Trump's remarks is nonetheless very close to what Joseph Votel, the commander of U.S. Central Command implied earlier this month." IOW - Trump's stance was essentially correct and had the basics right. Hillary's stance - weak on deterrence - is substantially wrong. " Pretending that what he says is wrong because someone doesn't like the tone of it is ridiculous. " I'm not defending Trump, the article did. The headline should have given it away: "Trump Scored One Point in the Debate as Clinton Stumbled on Iran." The point Trump scored was his position on deterrence with Iran. I'm not **blaming** Clinton - The article reveals that her actions are counter productive to the stance she proclaims or the goals she aspires to regarding Iran. The primary criticism of Trump in that exchange is whether his temperament is presidential. In contrast to debate quips - we have actual evidence of what Hillary Clinton's temperament could lead to. We can look at the response her San Diego speech provoked: "A senior military commander says Iran is ready for a “decisive and difficult confrontation” with the US after Hillary Clinton threatens Tehran with military action. Defining her hawkish foreign policy in a speech Thursday in San Diego, Clinton said the US could disarm Iran by military action if she became the president. “Although talk of all options being on the table against Iran is a propaganda show in the United States, the Islamic Iran is prepared for a decisive and difficult confrontation with any American option,” Brig. Gen. Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran armed forces, said on Friday. "Our nation and armed forces have never sought a war, but they have not neglected their defensive preparation for a moment," the commander said. "In case the American military threats are implemented, they (Iranians) are ready to rid humanity of the evil of America's warmongering and hegemonic policies in a real and direct battle," he added." The threat with Hillary is real, not hypothetical. It is time for people to move beyond examining words that they imagine are "triggering" and look at the actual actions and responses that have happened. We have real history - We can look at Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Russia - take your pick. The Obama administration and Hillary are not building diplomatic bridges, but burning them down. Hillary's diplomatic skills are more akin to Kim Jong Un than a real diplomat. She thinks the only foreign policy she needs is threatening and bombing her way to victory. "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 |
|
" This is the article that shows what the guy says, it talks about warning shots and all that. Yes, Iranians are harassing a lot, but that doesn't mean attacking will make things better. You only attack if you are attacked, and Trump comment didn't imply that, he said that he would attack first given the harassment. Giving Iran excuses for war without a plan (and he doesn't have a plan for anything, like the whole ISIS thing) is beyond idiotic. Votel implied that a borderline situation could trigger a confrontation (a miscalculation or something), and that's reasonable (even if dangerous; at least it would possible to de-escalate the whole thing). I think I'll disagree with the Bloomberg article, it really feels like grasping at straws. Trump couldn't even defend his position to not seem crazy, he probably didn't give any thought to that (people that tweet stupid stuff at 3AM don't give me a lot of faith, neither those that seem barely literate or are unable to get good advisors). PS: yeah, I skimmed it and misread it, my bad. The author is pro Clinton (or at least sees her as the winner of the debate) while being critical about this particular point. Add a Forsaken Masters questline https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 Last edited by NeroNoah#1010 on Sep 30, 2016, 8:29:39 PM
|
|
" Unless someone has studied some military strategy or history, I wouldn't expect them to have a working knowledge of deterrence. It's not a matter of attacking first, it's a matter of being able and willing to attack when needed or provoked. Hillary's plan was/is to attack first. It's like the big angry pitbull in the yard across the street. Are you likely to provoke it? What if the pit bull is chained up, or instead of a pit bull the dog is a yapping chihuahua? Obama and Hillary's policies have chained the US military. Obama and his predecessors (going all the way back to Rumsfeld - have reduced the pit bull to a chihuahua with built in wi-fi through force reductions and "modernizations". Like most little dogs, as a chihuahua, Hillary needs to bark far more often and be more aggressive in order to have any influence. The big dog strategy Trump aligns with requires an occasional woof and almost no biting at all. "Peace Through Strength" -one of the mottos of Strategic Air Command - is probably the simplest and best way to put Deterrence. Go back in history and look at how and when the United States moved air craft carriers around in the ocean in response to international tensions. "Showing the flag" is the terminology for it, and considering the cost, the time and the number of carriers available, it isn't an idle gesture at all. It is primarily done for two reasons: 1) To provide credibility for a rapid response from the United States military 2) To show the opposing side that the United States means business and isn't bluffing. A carrier in the area means we are willing to fire cruise missiles, we are willing to launch fighter bombers and we are poised to go to war if necessary. A carrier move means this isn't chicken poo talk - this is actual potential war the enemy is looking at. The result is the enemy backs down, or a couple of brief skirmishes and then they back down. We no longer have a president with that kind of backbone - instead of a commander in chief, we have a coward in chief. With Hillary, we would have an attacker in chief. Deterrence is policy and strategy precisely because it works and has led to peaceful results more often than the counter policies of complacency has. Look up some military websites/billboards and read some of the posts and discussions and then use the references as starting points to research more information. There are no silver medals in war, and it is certainly no place for amateurs. "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 |
|
|
That implies Trump has any strategy at all. It's fallacious to think Trump has any big plan at all and fill the gaps.
The reality is that the guy is easily provoked, and it loves to give disproportionate retributions. It's easy to see when you see how he reacts to humilliation (this week he was baited hard with the whole Alicia Machado thing). I wouldn't try to seek any deepness to that. I'm not convinced of that strategy anyway. Agression is agression. Neither I'm convinced Clinto is an attacker per se (her policy seems fairly mixed, and many times failed). PS: it's amusing coward and agressor can be in the same sentence, but whatever. Add a Forsaken Masters questline https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 Last edited by NeroNoah#1010 on Sep 30, 2016, 8:57:54 PM
|
|
" It doesn't. A quick example - do you have a personal nuclear strategy devised for the US? Now contrast that with -Can you personally look at someone's proposed nuclear strategy for the US and decide whether you like it or not? Strategy is complex - not just an attitude. Someone can voice approval for, or a supporting stance for a strategy without having one of their own. FWIW - I don't think Trump has a strategy. His mindset - at least for that statement, WAS in line with the strategy of deterrence. " You didn't bother to look at any categories of sites that I suggested, or you would know that Trump's response was not out of line. You are also confusing personal behavior with official action. For Trump, we have to speculate on how he would officially ACT versus what he might say. (If you think everybody does what they say, I have some Nigerian offers you might want to consider). With Hillary, we have official actions to match up with what she said. " CNN's take on Ms Universe Alicia Machado in 1997:   " Great coincidences in campaign reporting: The Guardian & Cosmo sent reporters just before debate to profile Machado, then pubbed today. — Lee Fang (@lhfang) September 27, 2016 The Guardian Sat down with Alicia Machado in LA last week to talk Clinton love, Trump hate, and more inclusive visions of beauty https://t.co/e9mBePVXIh — Lucia Graves (@lucia_graves) September 27, 2016 Cosmopolitan I ate lunch with Alicia Machado last week and we talked about Trump (and life beyond Trump) https://t.co/DVa5sflNI4 — Prachi Gupta (@prachigu) September 27, 2016" This is from 1998. Feb 1998, according to the AP archives: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1998/Ex-Ms-Universe-Accused-of-Threat/id-d65cc3f9dbf8d64445e420ccedcd3a5a So, unless the vast right wing conspiracy machine has a time machine, it wasn't written to help Trump, or in response to being triggered or taunted. This might be a good time in life to take off those biased glasses and start seeing reality. .............. "Caracas-Venezuelans are turning in droves to a torrid real-life drama starring a former Miss Universe that promises to outdo the steamy soap operas that dominate local network schedules. The latest twist in a story of shootings, threats, suicide and kidnapping came when a judge accused 1996 MissUniverse Alicia Machado of threatening to kill him after he ordered her boyfriend's arrest." "According to the judge, a woman identifying herself as Machado called him after the ruling and "said she would make sure, using her friendship with the president (Rafael Caldera), that my career as judge is ruined and then she would kill me." Fuenmayor, who reported the alleged threats to police, said he traced the caller through an incoming call identity function on his mobile telephone. " ........... "The Economist reported that she admitted making the call but that that she said it was to thank him for what it described as 'his unbiased pursuit of justice." ........ "Former Miss Universe Alicia Machado on Tuesday night brushed off accusations that she drove a getaway car from a murder scene and threatened to kill a judge. When given a chance to deny them, she shockingly chose not to, and instead, said, “that happened 20 years ago.”" "Machado, who is now a Hillary Clinton campaign surrogate, said, “He can say whatever he wants to say. I don’t care. “You know, I have my past. Of course, everybody has. Everybody has a past. I’m not saint girl." ............. The Machado Ambush was exactly that. I would expect that few people actually following Hillary for more than a few weeks would be naive enough to think she just happened to run across a wonderful person who Trump wronged and used up precious television time while 84 million people were watching to mention her. The fact that the Hillary Campaign Machine didn't bother vetting Machado to uncover her previous threat to the judge, nor the accusation that she was an accomplice to murder, should be another great example that Hillary isn't fit to lead America. Other than imagining herself as President, she can't look more than 2 days down the road. Her policies will thus be disastrous. " People who are fearful do attack others. Fear is a motivating factor in many assaults, murders and aggressions. You only have to look at Kim Jong Un's actions to see a prime example. Hillary is cut of the same cloth - she is weak, ineffectual and thinks violence and force is the solution. "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 |
|
|
Well, that doesn't justify why Trump obsessed with her all this week. Utterly pathetic. Complain about Clinton bringing pointless shit, but the truth is that Trump shows who he is by himself taking the bait.
The past of that woman is questionable, but that doesn't erase what he does in the present. Things are not mutually exclusive, you know. Add a Forsaken Masters questline https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942 Last edited by NeroNoah#1010 on Sep 30, 2016, 10:55:41 PM
|
|
