Donald Trump

It's great when someone that can't recognize his own conjectures talks about other people making conjetuctures. If I have a political agenda, you too. "No. It's not an assumption". Yeah, sure.

You take action not because of the goodness of your heart, but because you don't want more terrorist attacks in the future. If you do nothing, nothing will change.

My position is to do something not because I'm sure that it will work, but because it's the only thing with any chance of doing it. Again, it's not the first time that humanity had problems with awful people.

NeroNoah, a lot of the foreign policy actions the USA has taken in recent times has only bolstered 'terrorism', not stopped it. We're spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting a 'war on terror' that isn't working. The military industrial complex is getting even richer and more powerful in the process. Yet, neocons who spend trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives are going to call a position like mine 'isolationist' acting like their solution is somehow working. I don't know exactly what your position is on this, but this whole 'obligated to do something about it attitude' comes across to me as the same things neocons are saying.

I'd like to address the 'they hate us because of our freedoms' canard frequently parroted by talking heads like Sean Hannity on faux news.

The USA hasn't always been at odds with the Muslim world. These were times when we didn't get involved so much in the affairs of other countries. Their hatred for us, in large part comes not from the 'groups' but US policy doing something to piss off individuals who then become radicalized. Just to use an example, Donald Rumsfeld's 'shock and awe' bombing campaign in Iraq killed some man's family. That man makes it his mission in life to kill as many US soldiers/citizens as possible, and puts forward a pretty convincing argument to others who haven't seen the US's intervention as 'positive' to follow along. Next thing you know you got a massive terrorist group motivated to 'bring death to America' just because we got involved trying to overthrow a dictator in a country that was otherwise stable. The USA is making its own enemies. Then its our responsibility to 'farm' these enemies by blowing them up with airstrikes and creating more enemies and making the military industrial complex rich at the same time.

Who talks about wars? I talk about refugees. You talk about not allowing them. I'd argue that there is a middle ground that is better than the whole situation in Europe.

Just ignoring them because "they are a lost cause" will make things worse.

PS: I wouldn't discard wars totally, but I think there should be a high standard for the whole thing. ISIS is approaching the Hitler level of evil, but it could be counterproductive to attack, of course. I don't really know.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

That Trump/Matthews discussion isn't really so much about using nuclear weapons, so much as Trump being reliant on a particularly irrational voting demographic, and knowing it. He can't allow himself to say his US wouldn't bully other nations on the threat, veiled or otherwise, of excessive force.

Which is scary enough, if you really think about it.

How many times has Russia or China or the US needed to use their nukes on an enemy since WW2?

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Reserving first strike options is a deterrent. There's a lot of people who think they understand how this works, and they haven't the faintest clue. Even a lot of the scientists who should know better that comment on it, don't have a freaking clue, because their bias is so hard wired that they can't allow themselves to think rationally.

There are a lot of people who aren't concerned about terrorists getting nuclear materials, which is where the real danger lies. <50 pounds of weapons grade, a 20 ft tube and you've got a weapon. No fancy detonator required. Currently it would be tough to shield and smuggle this in to a major target, but that can be worked around with time, funding and a few dozen disposable lives.

If someone is actually listening to Matthews for objective information ...

Nothing need more be said on that.

The "Bully" is serving his last term in office, and Ms Bully is hoping to succeed and continue the policy of using US military might to reshape the world "the way it ought to be" according to progressive think tanks. If the interviews over the next two weeks are productive, we should know by this Summer, whether Ms Bully will skate free or the FBI and Loretta will bring charges against her.

If they do (and she will be convicted if they do) expect to find out a whole lot about how the "peace loving" side of politics engineered the disaster that turned into ISIS and the fall of the near east.

Trumpmongering is just another form of fear mongering.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

While you are right media is spinning it (no, it's extremely unlikely Trump will order a nuclear launch), no sane person would use them as a bargaining chip. There has been a lot of efforts (START treaty, for example) to reduce the number of nuclear weapons for a good reason. Those weapons should never be used. Trump is cynically pandering to the "tough" people out there. He just talks like a bully. Fear is no way to govern. Who the hell uses that kind of threat this days? North Korea?

The START treaty was an economic bargain. Why pay 30 trillion for an arsenal when 5 trillion will do the job? The "A" (assured) in MAD needed to stay assured, which is why the agreement needed to be bilateral and enforceable.

There were never enough weapons to do the world the kind of harm that doomsayers pretended they could do. (if you can find the articles, Foreign Affairs had some very good analyses by actual experts of likely scenarios) There were always enough weapons (and will be) so that one side can never use a sneak attack and not be devastated afterwards.

People that count warheads and yields usually don't understand about the purpose of MIRVs and overlapping fields for strategically hardened targets.

Nukes are never a bargain, nor used to bargain. You can't use them or threaten to use them for any military or diplomatic purposes. The knowledge that under certain circumstances, they WILL be used without remorse is what makes them a deterrent. The knowledge that civilization will be wrecked (including that of the country deploying nukes) is what keeps them from being used.

If people knew what kind of wars have already been prevented by MAD, some would be shocked, some would be grateful, and many would lose control of some bodily functions.

SIOP works, because we show our hand to the other side, they show us theirs and everyone knows that no one is bluffing in this game.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Who talks about wars? I talk about refugees. You talk about not allowing them. I'd argue that there is a middle ground that is better than the whole situation in Europe.

If your neighbor's house burns down, the end goal shouldn't be for you to enlarge your own house so they can live with you forever. The goal, should be to help them out with housing temporarily, and then help them rebuild their own house. The problems isn't "here", the problem is what is going on over "there" and that we let it go on, or even helped cause it through active destabilization from our current US administration (and its former Sec of State).

Just pray that she doesn't get 8 years in office to continue practicing the same sort of military "restraint".

"

DalaiLama wrote:

If your neighbor's house burns down, the end goal shouldn't be for you to enlarge your own house so they can live with you forever. The goal, should be to help them out with housing temporarily, and then help them rebuild their own house.

And it also shouldn't be "let them rot in the ashes of their scorched yard"...

"

The problems isn't "here", the problem is what is going on over "there" and that we let it go on, or even helped cause it through active destabilization from our current US administration (and its former Sec of State).

...especially if it was one of your own family members who helped cause your neighbour's home to burn in the first place.

"

Just pray that she doesn't get 8 years in office to continue practicing the same sort of military "restraint".

It is my understanding that a president needs the backing of the congress to go anywhere. Wich would mean that if she does get 8 years in office to continue practicing the same sort of military "restraint", they'd be the ones letting her. Perhaps we should also pray that they don't.

@Dalailama: About START: it depends on who you ask. Your interpretation is as likely as mine, nuclear disarmament is a goal many have. I think I more of a half full glass person.

About refugees: it doesn't matter if it's here or there. If there are people with a wrong ideology, something must be made about it. That's the reason I generally oppose those that would completely shut off immigration. If someone did that, odds are that the local muslim population would be the problem later (and what would everyone do when they didn't invest in integration? Concentration camps?), and that the muslims would have more reasons to consider themselves apart from the rest of humanity.

"

Gaza wrote:

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Ironically you need to have a safe space to feel that. I mean, your guild is a bubble. And global shouting their opposition hardly sounds like a place for reasonable discussion.

I'm not hearing that much legitimate criticism of Trump. Its mostly "Trump is racist", "Trump is sexist", "Trump is homophobic", "Trump voters are stupid", etc, etc.

And I don't need a safe space. I got a Trump hat I wear every time I go out in public. If someone has something to say to my face about it, they can, but ironically, I've only gotten positive receptions from people. I even had a hot chick walk up and give me a hug when she saw my Trump hat. Unfortunately, she was married. I might have gotten some ill looks from a few people, mostly Black people, but I'm a pretty big White boy and they'd have to step out of their safe space to confront me. Most of the ones whining on the internet about Trump wouldn't walk up to somebody like me wearing a Trump hat. Not that I'd get violent or anything, unless they decided to, and if their criticism was based on the above, I'd probably laugh in their faces.

I'm not going to comment on the "Trump Voters are Stupid" comment, but calling Trump out for his misogynistic and racist comments is COMPLETELY legitimate.

Trump is inciting paranoia, distrust and hate by segregating those he blames.

Wanting to keep a country as safe as possible isn't racist tbh
There hasn't been a single legitimate proof about Trump being misogynistic or racist

"

Jaille wrote:

There hasn't been a single legitimate proof about Trump being misogynistic or racist

The mental gymnastics you have to perform to get to that conclusion... we're talking Olympic-level stuff here.

Or, you just haven't been paying attention to what he's saying... at all. You don't have to take anything out of context. Just listen to the man talk.

"

Jaille wrote:

There hasn't been a single legitimate proof about Trump being misogynistic or racist

I agree. It's just the media spinning things as always.