Hillary might be corrupt but Trump is a textbook demagogue.
"What is a demagogue? He is a politician skilled in oratory, flattery and invective; evasive in discussing vital issues; promising everything to everybody; appealing to the passions rather than the reason of the public; and arousing racial, religious, and class prejudices—a man whose lust for power without recourse to principle leads him to seek to become a master of the masses. He has for centuries practiced his profession of 'man of the people'. He is a product of a political tradition nearly as old as western civilization itself.", R.H. Luthin
So, you're saying that a demagogue is worse than a corrupt, incompetent politician who has directly jeopardized national security? =0[.]o=
Call 202-872-1020 or email media@debates.org to help get gary johnson into the national presidential debates. Regardless of who is worse between the two Party-approved liars, he's better than the winner of that matchup on the nuclear subject.
Call 202-872-1020 or email media@debates.org to help get gary johnson into the national presidential debates. Regardless of who is worse between the two Party-approved liars, he's better than the winner of that matchup on the nuclear subject.
I loved the reaction to the alt right speech. That's a nice rabbit hole of triggered people. They proved Hillary right in like 30 seconds of antisemitism and general douchebaggery.
@DalaiLama: To my understanding, weakening NATO means that small countries may be invaded by Russia (as with the whole Crimea thing), also, US will become a less reliable ally if it starts to trash existing treaties (pissing off a lot of countries is a bonus; US already called for help with the whole article 5 thing). Trump positions also imply other countries would stockpile nuclear weapons (I'm not sure if he outright say he would allow other countries to have their nuclear weapons, like Japan, that would start an arms race which is always a bad idea). Also, he seems hellbent on going to a really stupid revenge war in the Middle east against ISIS (to the point of discarding human rights in the process, see Genova convention comments, and probably generating a stupid ammount of ill will with muslims, so that means more conflicts in the future) and seizing oil fields to pay for that. Let's not forget he is fucking ignorant about a lot of stuff, he can't even write something intelligent in a tweet.
I cannot see how that's better than Hillary's positions. She is overtly interventionist but I think she'll do less damage overall (she is more like a Henry Kissinger wannabe, I fucking despise the idea but I'm firm on the lesser evil camp).
Add a Forsaken Masters questline
https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2297942
Last edited by NeroNoah on Aug 26, 2016, 10:10:13 PM
And yes, she *is* the one out of all the people running you want with the codes, with maybe the exception of Johnson.
Her refusal to follow procedures, refusal to obey the law, and disdain for anyone who questions her in any way, says otherwise.
Refusal to obey the law, like Powell? Where's the neverending witchhunt for him, hm? Disdain for anyone who questions her? Is that why she hung around for 11 straight hours while being grilled in a blatantly partisan shitshow?
You can't possibly be fucking serious if you think thin-skinned, complete foreign-policy-ignoramus Trump is the safer choice in that matter.
As opposed to the foreign policy experience of the guy with almost zero legislation and community organizer background that has been president for two terms now?
The experience of a man who actually educated himself on every possible issue? The one who surrounded himself with knowledgeable people, and not curators of right-wing shitrags? That guy? We really gonna do an apples-for-apples comparison of Trump and Obama?
You know, the guy who "won't say" whether or not he would use nukes in Europe.
Have you ever looked at US nuclear policy? Trump's knowledge of US Policy on nukes has the basics correct. That policy has undergone only minor shifts in a very long time. It is same policy Obama follows, Bush followed and very slightly changed since Reagan. The only real change over the last several decades has been the Start I and Start II treaties.
Here's the boil down of what Trump said and the actual conversation:
TRUMP: I'm not going to use nuclear, but I'm not taking any cards off the table.
The conversation:
Spoiler
MATTHEWS: OK. Your most controversial suggestion was don't take nuclear weapons -- I mean, you may have been hooked into this by (inaudible).
TRUMP: Don't take what?
MATTHEWS: Nuclear weapons off the table. I have been trying to think of how we could conceivably use a nuclear weapon in the Middle East or in Europe in fighting ISIS. Where can you -- and why put it on the table or leave it on the table if you can't imagine where to use it?
TRUMP: Well, I didn't say, "Don't take it." I said I would be very, very slow and hesitant to pull that trigger.
MATTHEWS: Well, why would you -- why wouldn't you just say, "I don't want to talk about it. I don't want to talk about nuclear weapons. Presidents don't talk about use of nuclear weapons"?
TRUMP: The question was asked -- we were talking about NATO -- which, by the way, I say is obsolete and we pay a dispropor...
MATTHEWS: But you got hooked into something you shouldn't've talked about.
TRUMP: I don't think I -- well, someday, maybe.
MATTHEWS: When? Maybe?
TRUMP: Of course. If somebody...
MATTHEWS: Where would we drop -- where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?
TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain. Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn't fight back with a nuke?
MATTHEWS: No. To drop a nuclear weapon on a community of people that are...
TRUMP: No, no, but you can't say -- first of all, you don't want to say, "Take everything off the table..."
MATTHEWS: No, just nuclear.
TRUMP: ... because you'd be a bad negotiator if you do that.
MATTHEWS: Just nuclear.
TRUMP: Look, nuclear should be off the table. But would there be a time when it could be used, possibly, possibly?
MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in '45, heard it. They're hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.
TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them? We had (inaudible).
MATTHEWS: Because of the old mutual assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.
TRUMP: (inaudible) I was against Iraq. I'd be the last one to use the nuclear weapon.
MATTHEWS: So can you take it off the table now?
TRUMP: Because that's sort of like the end of the ball game.
MATTHEWS: Can you tell the Middle East we're not using a nuclear weapon on anybody?
TRUMP: I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.
MATTHEWS: How about Europe? We won't use it in Europe?
TRUMP: I -- I'm not going to take it off the table.
MATTHEWS: You might use it in Europe?
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: No, I don't think so. But I'm not taking...
MATTHEWS: Well, just say it. "I will never use a nuclear weapon in Europe."
TRUMP: I am not -- I am not taking cards off the table.
MATTHEWS: OK.
TRUMP: I'm not going to use nuclear, but I'm not taking any cards off the table.
MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, the sane people hear you and the insane people are not affected by your threats. That's the trouble. The real fanatics say, "Good. Keep it up.
TRUMP: I think -- I think they're more affected than you might think.
MATTHEWS: OK. Your call.
So, you came away from that conversation comforted in the knowledge that Trump has even a tenuous grasp on foreign policy. Honestly, I have no rebuttal. Just consider that point conceded.
Most people don't have to worry or think about nuclear policy, hence little interest in learning much about it.
The Big Bada Boom Bad! interview makes for great soundbites, but is an inane and uneducated line of questioning. Matthews would get an "F" in Nuclear Foreign Policy 101.
Everyone (including Chris Matthews) think the only purpose for nukes is MAD
Spoiler
MATTHEWS: Because of the old mutual assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.
Trump, as you quoted in the conversation, does not. How the hell can you think otherwise?
"
TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain. Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn't fight back with a nuke?
You could argue that he meant if ISIS hits us with a nuke first, but that would show he has no fucking clue what ISIS is, what they are capable of, or even what the hell a nuke even is.
It's very very clear from that convo, and other quotes floating around from different speeches, that he is not just talking about nukes as MAD. He thinks of them as just another tool in our toolbelt- one that he honestly doesn't understand why it's still in the wrapper.
Putting aside foreign policy for a moment, Trump has already done damage to our country. He's brought blind nationalism, racism, and xenophobia into the limelight. He's whipping up a complete distrust in all media. He's actually insinuated violence against political enemies, and that rhetoric has since come back on him (see the now infamous Glenn Beck clip).
He's already convincing people that the elections are rigged, and the results are invalid. What the fuck do you think is going to come of that? Is our history of peaceful transition of power over? Who's fault is that?
A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785
Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403
So, you're saying that a demagogue is worse than a corrupt, incompetent politician who has directly jeopardized national security? =0[.]o=
Her level of corruption is debatable. After all the investigations what is still missing is some kind of smoking gun "quid pro quo". So how bad can it actually be?
Her level of incompetence is debatable too. It's always easy to criticize after the fact.
And did she really jeopardize national security? It's hard to imagine that the security of the US can be jeopardized by emails marked as "classified".
IMO, she is not more corrupt or incompetent than any other high profile politician. How she operates is how everybody operates in political circles. Not saying that it's fine as it is, but given the choice between her and a demagogue like Trump, I'd take her anytime.
So, you're saying that a demagogue is worse than a corrupt, incompetent politician who has directly jeopardized national security? =0[.]o=
Her level of corruption is debatable. After all the investigations what is still missing is some kind of smoking gun "quid pro quo". So how bad can it actually be?
Her level of incompetence is debatable too. It's always easy to criticize after the fact.
And did she really jeopardize national security? It's hard to imagine that the security of the US can be jeopardized by emails marked as "classified".
IMO, she is not more corrupt or incompetent than any other high profile politician. How she operates is how everybody operates in political circles. Not saying that it's fine as it is, but given the choice between her and a demagogue like Trump, I'd take her anytime.
Wow. Just, wow. "SMH," as the cool kids put it. =-[.]-=
