Donald Trump and US politics

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

As I said b4. Christains, druza, jews, sufi, shi'a, sunni, etc did fine for 1400 years in ME - I doubt they will survive whabbism and USA enabling it.

What you mean by that? Ever since the invasion of Mecca in 610 muslims been invading Christian, pagan and jewish lands ever since. From Constantinople to Spain and their failed attempt to conquer south of France.

Granted the Crusades invasion/reconquista of XI century was the most bloody of all, disgusting act of barbary and attributed to christians while Muslims had "generous" laws related to taxes and submissions instead in the country they invaded.

post Ottoman, Islam have been pretty happy to tag with the German and the mufti of Jerusalem was pretty happy calling for the jew extermination.

At the same time, Big powers like England and France used their colonization to try to christianize and steal muslim lands.

All in all the world would have been better if Chritians stayed in europe and Muslims stayed in ME.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

As I said b4. Christains, druza, jews, sufi, shi'a, sunni, etc did fine for 1400 years in ME - I doubt they will survive whabbism and USA enabling it.

The USA and KSA are both actively supporting ISIS. The Syrian fighter they shot down recently was in the area to bomb ISIS, yet the USA shows up to give ISIS air support. I've known for awhile that the goal in Syria was never to combat ISIS, but to take out Assad's regime. Assad isn't a Salafist, and he's actually pretty moderate. Anyone with a sane mind who wants to play the game of pick the lesser of evils would come to the conclusion that Assad is better than the alternatives.

KSA wants Assad gone because he's a competitor, not only politically, but his country also exports oil. And they have been bombing oil refineries and other infrastructure. This effects the global market and drives up the price of oil, which the Saudis like.

The USA wants Assad gone because the Israeli lobby wants him gone. They've been pounding the war drums to take out Assad and Iran both for over a decade. Syria under Assad is viewed as a potential strategic threat to Israel. They're also friendly with the Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Russians. Which are other groups the Israelis don't get along with. More importantly, it's a potential threat that's right next door to them.

Starting a war in Syria to take out Assad would be a complete non starter for the masses. Few people would support that war. Even less support than for the 1st Iraq war. But if they make it about ISIS, they can justify their actions to the masses, while using it as cover for their true goals which are unpopular.

And Assad is a shitty dictator who deliberately gave territory to ISIS and concentrated on fighting the more secular opposition, so the west would concentrate on Isis. Strategically a good move.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

And Assad is a shitty dictator who deliberately gave territory to ISIS and concentrated on fighting the more secular opposition, so the west would concentrate on Isis. Strategically a good move.

There was never a secular opposition, you've been duped. Assad regime is secular, his enemies are sunni islamists, some of his allies are shia islamists. The "moderate opposition" is a propaganda invention, made up in Washington and Riyadh.

Assad was more concentrated fighting the so called "FSA", simply because they were the ones getting the most money & weapons from foreign sources. Take out FSA clowns and what remains are designated terrorists like al-Qaeda and ISIS, who are the enemy of everyone. Smart strategic move.

Assad is just as "shitty" as Mubarak, al-Sisi, Arafat, Ghadaffi, ... all the typical Arab secular strongmen, that the West was working with or supporting at some point. It's a massive hypocrisy to single out Assad, because he's a "bad dictator" while working with the military dictatorship in Egypt or the mad turk Erdogan.

"

morbo wrote:

It's a massive hypocrisy to single out Assad, because he's a "bad dictator" while working with the military dictatorship in Egypt or the mad turk Erdogan.

Please(with sugar and cream) read again what I have written, if you want to.

Yeah, even watching from afar, the democrats losing thess special elections felt rather bad. I wonder why that happened. Of course, some districts were deeply red, and a democrat winning would have been nothing short of miraculous.

Let's take a short look back:

Kansas' 4th, formerly Mike Pompeo's district. The Democratic Party's canditate lost by a margin of roughly 7%. Mike Pompeo won the election before that ba a margin of 30%. So yes, the democrats lost, BUT they got rather close. In Kansas, no less. That was everything BUT a glaring victory.

Montana's At-Large Congressional District Montana, May 25, 2017. Greg Gianforte won by a margin of 6%. You know, thats the guy who beat up a reporter with tapes running and in front of other reporters and lied about it afterwards. A huge chunk of votes had already been made before that as part of the early voting, so this drama did not influence the vote as it could have been, but never mind, the democrats lost. Once again, the elections before that, the republicans von by a margin of roughly 15%, so this win, too, was no beacon of glory either.

California's 34th, June 6, 2017. Democratic candidate Jimmy Gomez won. No republican candidate even reared his or her head. Why would he, it's California.

South Carolina's 5th, June 20, 2017. The republican candidate won by 4% - the election before that, the republican candidate won by more than 20%.

Georgia's 6th, June 20, 2017. Again, a 4% win, where the republicans, in comparison to the vote before that, lost roughly 20%.

These elections were important, all of them, even those that seemed almost unwinnable. Because while they might not matter right now in terms of majority in the congress, they pretty much might matter after the coming midterms elections. So yes, no seat changed ist colours, so to speak. But the fact that the republicans came close to losing every single time in places they should not and have not had for years, should prevent anyone from trying to sell this as a convincing victory for the republicans. They won, but that's it (knowing that it is also everything that counts).

So what the f*** does Trump have to do in order for a sufficient number of the republican voters to change their minds?

I believe that is the wrong question. Trump has done more than enough to lay bare his ineptitude for this most important job. Whoever wants him out, whoever wants to prevent worse things from happening, needs to step up now, and talk: A german newspaper, the "Zeit", recently asked their readers five questions: for instance, whether or not they thought that Germany had taken in too much refugees, whether the decision to end fission-powered electricity in Germany was good, or whether russia is being treated fairly or not. The newspaper then tried urge them to meet and discuss.

This is important: to meet people with different opinions and talk about them. Because from afar, from Germany, I get the impression that each sides prefers to talk about the other instead of with them.

I am interested in american politics and regularly listen to a bunch of Podcasts, for instance: Pod Save America / NPR Politics Podcast / FiveThirtyEight Politics / The Daily / Challenging Opinions etc., so mainly from the democrat side of the media. Pod Save America is very one-sided, but that was to be expected -it's creators are former members of Obama's White House, after all. While it's funny to listen to, what I am missing are serious discussions about republican politics.

Well, maybe there aren't any at this time, what do I know. Maybe all there is to the Republican Party at this time really is the child king's follies and his cronies trying to defend the undefendable. I seriously doubt it, though. I would like to know better. Talk to me. :-)

Nate Plastic on suicide watch.

Lol in the democrats room after the result xD






and here's the first lady to represent Georgia!





there whole article is there if anyone's interested

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4623942/Republican-Karen-Handel-track-win-Georgia-runoff.html

"

Donnerdrummel wrote:

So what the f*** does Trump have to do in order for a sufficient number of the republican voters to change their minds?

He won, and GOP voters returned to their complacency. It's not rocket science; these patterns repeat in a continuous cycle of voter engagement. Most who voted for Trump are still happy about that, which means they don't feel threatened by the Dems. The Dems are all fired up, which means they fight harder in these elections.

Don't make this about Trump. You see how well that worked in GA. =^[.]^=

This is gold:


This woman deserve to have her picture taken of and turned into a hateful meme :3

"white supremacist Jacob just can't leave me the fuck alone. This is terrorism"