Donald Trump and US politics
|
Oh shit, Ely is back. \o/
|
|
" I'm not saying Obama is the reason why everything is as shitty as it is, it's something that goes on beyond even Bush. Bill Clinton has his hands in that, and Bush (the father) did too. It's an ongoing succession of bad decisions. I'm just saying People tend to blame everything on Trump or Bush... And act like Obama was some sort of innocent angel. Yes Bush was a terrible president, but Obama wasn't better. I'd like to think Trump will do better and people should calm down as he just have been there for 100 days. I think we should wait and see at the end of his term before being so hasteful in our judgement. |
|
" No time for that. Tomorrow is his 100 day report card in the la la land of the collectively worthless news media. And today, all the networks are treating day 99 as a means to preview day 100 before the actual day 100, after which it will be rest day 101 before they return to complaining about everything on day 102. Get it? |
|
" yeah I get it xD But my personal opinion on this matter is the following, Obama had his chance he had 8 years. And he didn't deliver which is why people are mad at the democrats. Now it's Trump's turn, like him or not he won fair he deserve his try. And there is two way of reacting to that. Being a sore loser and hope Trump fail horribly just so your own side get back in charge. Because having your side in charge is more important than the success and safety of the nation. OR....... you can be a good game about it and just hope he does well for the sake of everyone. Whoever is in charge is not important, what's matter is the people, their jobs, their safety, their family and dreams. Like in my country... I hate Trudeau and I didn't voted for him. But I rooted for his organisation hoping he would do great because it's our taxes and safety that is at stake. |
|
 Multi-Demi Winner
Very Good Kisser Alt-Art Alpha’s Howl Winner Former Dominus Multiboxer |
|
|
@ Elynole
Please don´t tell me that you are actually a soldier...i read and ignored the first couple of nonsensical post but now unfortiunatly have to reply. A) A War is when Nation/Group X attack´s another, however if one side proceed to fight regardless of there unfortunatly positon or surrender, it turn´s into a Gurillia-warfare a war none the less. The fact that one side may not be able to fight back, doesn´t make it less of a war. If you were to go by that logic, nothing is a action of war without a official war declaration, but rather some sort of ""a lidl vacation bombing"". B) To believe that a Präsident, within a Country which already had multiple succesfull assasination´s on präsident´s has any mayor say about ""big topic´s"", is unbelieveable naiv. Always blaming somebody else is how ""democracy´s"" get there legitimation´s for evrything they do. It´s the same sheme all the time. Politician´s, Journalist´s are just only human´s and that is there weakspot, no amount of Money or People around them will Change that fact. C) The Brit´s moved out of the ME a long time ago, the Chosen one´s didnt want them there after the creation of Israel. Brit´s or European´s for that mather have very lidl to no say at all in the ME. And bringing up old story´s from the past won´t help us in the present, the brit´s weren´t the first conquerer´s on earth. All they probaply wanted was cheap nuts,pepper and a perser. To say that we just have a ongoing global war, since XY is ludicrous. We have to forgive or atleast ignore one another at one point in time. D) Don´t compare Germany,Japan,Korea,Vietnam to a bunch of fundamentalist´s, a lidl bit more respekt. These country´s do not need ""american parantese"" at all. What your Corporal teached you, does not stand true in the rest of the world. As it already turned out multiple times, US soldier´s are mear mercanary´s, which ""protect"" there Country 10ooomiles away, in the midle of nowhere. And no mather how many time´s you spin the wheel, a superpower with 20k+ nukes feel´s threatend by a bunch of 60jear´s old tank´s, is total retardation. |
|
" This is exactly what I was saying, if we follow his thoughts in this matter, dropping a nuclear bomb on a country that can't retaliate is not an act of war. " OMG this is one of us in the thread how did you stalk his facebook! Last edited by diablofdb#3816 on Apr 28, 2017, 2:31:26 PM
|
|
" Most of this I can't understand what you're talking about, but I'll respond to the "war" definition. There hasn't been a war in the past hundred years that Western powers have been apart of that haven't had any number of different countries involved or providing aid. So based on the definition of "war" being anyone you drop a bomb on, or can just be limited to a few military operations - which is the definition that everyone keeps using in here. Then dozens of countries were at war with the countries listed. This rabbit hole can go as far as you want...if Russia gives intelligence on a country that the U.S. ends up bombing based on that intelligence, are both Russia and the U.S. at war or just the U.S. since they dropped the bomb. If Australia does tech/radar support for Canada in a war and that's it, is Australia considered warring with the country as well? The problem I have with the definition provided is that the word "war", in the context of the argument, usually means an extended large scale conflict. Not, a military operation, or a series of military operations in aid of another government. This large scale conflict definition can be seen in the quip "You may have one the battle, but not the war." - meaning that war is defined as many such battles and not one such battle. There is no such thing as a 1 country vs 1 country war anymore. Globalization has seen to that. As far as your other comments - I have no idea what your talking about. Regarding the Germany, Korea, etc. comment if you would reread what I posted I stated "short term" - to at least aid in stability. Last edited by Elynole#2906 on Apr 28, 2017, 2:54:58 PM
|
|
" An act of war, keyword act. Not war, an act of it. A task, one movement. If the U.S. hypothetically never entered WWII after the Pearl Harbor events, would you still define the U.S. as being at war with Japan? No, you wouldn't. Because the whole world didn't even consider the U.S. in WWII until after massive movements and operations after Pearl Harbor, even though Japan had attacked U.S. territories before Pearl Harbor. Last edited by Elynole#2906 on Apr 28, 2017, 3:01:50 PM
|
|
" ok ok I give you that you're right. But, this is a semantic debate and you're playing on words, people still die and the result is pretty much the same. Suffering, death, destruction, waste of ressources. Ok maybe just bombing a bunch of poor people who can't retaliate us is not considered a war, but it is still an horrible thing to do. |
|
