2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was really nothing capitalistic about the USSR. More like a monarchy where the head of state lived like kings and his politburo were the nobles, and everyone else were serfs.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
There was really nothing capitalistic about the USSR. More like a monarchy where the head of state lived like kings and his politburo were the nobles, and everyone else were serfs.
Click to expand...
State capitalism is a system where the state has control of production and the use of capital. Pretty much all "communist" countries of the 20th century were "communist" in name only.
 
Raoul said:
The hostility to Russia wasn't fabricated out of thin air just for the sake of it. Its grounded in years of well documented actions of the Russian regime from invading its neighbor, stealing its land, agitating for the demise of NATO, invading its other neighbor and helping itself to its land, severely degrading domestic freedoms, imprisoning the opposition on trumped up charges, murdering journalists, using a proxy dictator to crush descent in Chechnya, propping up a dictator in demise in Syria, and the list goes on. That doesn't include a large number of things the general public who don't have security clearances don't have access to. When you couple the aforementioned with the worrying reality that Russia sits atop the world's 2nd biggest nuclear Arsenal on Europe's doorstep, its pretty easy to see why the hostility is legitimate.

In a few weeks, Trump will have access to a security clearance and daily briefings about Putin. Let's see if he changes his tune from wanting to be pals so he can build the next Trump Tower there, to seeing him as a dangerous, megalomaniacal strongman who runs his country like a mafia state.
Click to expand...

So they don't have the same systems, freedoms, etc., as we do. Not unusual. For that would you attack them like the US did in Iraq? Or agitate them via sanctions like Iran? When will the US be invading Uganda to fight for the gays there? Oh, wait, there's no prestige in that fight.

Hillary wants to show the world how big her balls are and she's going to attempt that by taking on a nuclear armed state, the 2ND largest nuclear arsenal in the world as you mention. The number of Dem hawks I saw on stage last night was extremely worrying and they all talked about Russia. Frightening.

NATO is and should have been made obsolete years ago. It's raison d'etre no longer exists. Russia should have been brought closer to the west but Britain and the US obstinately refuse to treat her as an equal.

We continuously stared into the abyss of nuclear holocaust from 1972-1986 at least. One of the greatest achievements of the 20th century was that we virtually terminated that threat through diplomacy. Democratic hawks are resurrecting that threat, slowly but surely and all in the name of hope and progress. Well done.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
So they don't have the same systems, freedoms, etc., as we do. Not unusual. For that would you attack them like the US did in Iraq? Or agitate them via sanctions like Iran? When will the US be invading Uganda to fight for the gays there? Oh, wait, there's no prestige in that fight.

Hillary wants to show the world how big her balls are and she's going to attempt that by taking on a nuclear armed state, the 2ND largest nuclear arsenal in the world as you mention. The number of Dem hawks I saw on stage last night was extremely worrying and they all talked about Russia. Frightening.

NATO is and should have been made obsolete years ago. It's raison d'etre no longer exists. Russia should have been brought closer to the west but Britain and the US obstinately refuse to treat her as an equal.

We continuously stared into the abyss of nuclear holocaust from 1972-1986 at least. One of the greatest achievements of the 20th century was that we virtually terminated that threat through diplomacy. Democratic hawks are resurrecting that threat, slowly but surely and all in the name of hope and progress. Well done.
Click to expand...

That's a complete Tu Quoque fallacy. We know that certain states get different treatment than others do due to their strategic relevance. That is simply the nature of the world we live in - Russia gets more attention than Vanuatu and Saint Vincent and Grenadines. As for Putin, he has validated over and over again that NATO should never have gone out of business at the end of the Cold War, because that would've merely allowed a nuclear armed Russia led by a neo-imperialist dictator, free reign to do what it wanted in Europe. Once Russia gets its act together and Europe and North America feel more comfortable that an orgnaized crime autocrat like Putin no longer has his trigger finger on the world's 2nd largest arsenal of nukes, you can bet the house that NATO's mandate will be severely diluted. But until then, there will continue to be pressure on Putin to join the 21st century.
 
Honest question, will the Cheeto Jesus be deemed a national security threat once he loses, due to these briefings? Pretty sure this is uncharted waters for the US government.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
So they don't have the same systems, freedoms, etc., as we do. Not unusual. For that would you attack them like the US did in Iraq? Or agitate them via sanctions like Iran? When will the US be invading Uganda to fight for the gays there? Oh, wait, there's no prestige in that fight.

Hillary wants to show the world how big her balls are and she's going to attempt that by taking on a nuclear armed state, the 2ND largest nuclear arsenal in the world as you mention. The number of Dem hawks I saw on stage last night was extremely worrying and they all talked about Russia. Frightening.

NATO is and should have been made obsolete years ago. It's raison d'etre no longer exists. Russia should have been brought closer to the west but Britain and the US obstinately refuse to treat her as an equal.

We continuously stared into the abyss of nuclear holocaust from 1972-1986 at least. One of the greatest achievements of the 20th century was that we virtually terminated that threat through diplomacy. Democratic hawks are resurrecting that threat, slowly but surely and all in the name of hope and progress. Well done.
Click to expand...

How can you even think that? I guess you should also define what do you mean by "taking on", to be absolutely clear. But if you mean actual, direct military action, it didn't happen in 45 years of confrontation in which one of the sides actually believed that nuclear war was inevitable, so how exactly it is supposed to happen now?

Russia does not want to be brought closer to the west. As a majority, they don't even want real democracy.

NATO is far from obsolete. Russia's imperialistic tendencies are not reducing but actually increasing. One thing is true though, it is very reliant on the US, basically the other member states have reduced their military budgets to below the absolute minimum. Even large scale deployments cannot be made without American assistance with logistics. That needs to change, and probably is going to.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
It's the hostility toward Russia that has me concerned. The cold war ended almost 30 years ago.
Click to expand...

Not really - there was a tenuous rapprochement coinciding with Russia being too broke to pretend to compete. But a combination of the siloviki regaining power and the oil boom of the 2000s and it was back to business as usual - most drastically in Georgia and Ukraine but also the persistent intimidation of the Baltic states. NATO and Clinton's objective view of the Putin regime are needed more than ever. Hopefully at some point things can move to a more constructive basis but I doubt it will happen for another 15-20 years until the generation brought up under communism die off.
 
Raoul said:
That's a complete Tu Quoque fallacy. We know that certain states get different treatment than others do due to their strategic relevance. That is simply the nature of the world we live in - Russia gets more attention than Vanuatu and Saint Vincent and Grenadines. As for Putin, he has validated over and over again that NATO should never have gone out of business at the end of the Cold War, because that would've merely allowed a nuclear armed Russia led by a neo-imperialist dictator, free reign to do what it wanted in Europe. Once Russia gets its act together and Europe and North America feel more comfortable that an orgnaized crime autocrat like Putin no longer has his trigger finger on the world's 2nd largest arsenal of nukes, you can bet the house that NATO's mandate will be severely diluted. But until then, there will continue to be pressure on Putin to join the 21st century.
Click to expand...

It was meant to make a point. The USs 'concern' for the well-being of people in other countries extends as far as their own geo-political interests. And they consistently make a hash of it when they intervene. Perhaps because they don't actually care but the excuse provides good cover for their own war crimes.

Pressuring Russia to shape up is fine, but my concern is the type of pressure the Democrats want to put on Russia. Trump, for all of his faults, at least pushes a cooperative angle. All I saw last night were thinly veiled calls for hardline action against Russia backed by military might. It's frightening.

As a North American I'm completely comfortable that Russia isn't going to feck the world up. Unsurprisingly, I don't have that same confidence in the dimwits who govern the fine folks I live next to.
 
Carolina Red said:
State capitalism is a system where the state has control of production and the use of capital. Pretty much all "communist" countries of the 20th century were "communist" in name only.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but I remember this was one of the first videos that made me dig up more on the topic:
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
It was meant to make a point. The USs 'concern' for the well-being of people in other countries extends as far as their own geo-political interests. And they consistently make a hash of it when they intervene. Perhaps because they don't actually care but the excuse provides good cover for their own war crimes.

Pressuring Russia to shape up is fine, but my concern is the type of pressure the Democrats want to put on Russia. Trump, for all of his faults, at least pushes a cooperative angle. All I saw last night were thinly veiled calls for hardline action against Russia backed by military might. It's frightening.

As a North American I'm completely comfortable that Russia isn't going to feck the world up. Unsurprisingly, I don't have that same confidence in the dimwits who govern the fine folks I live next to.
Click to expand...

Yes i know. But its not just the US's interests. It also happens to be Canadian policy to challenge Russia (both Harper and Trudeau) as well as the policies of the EU and NATO. This is not just one big state wagging its finger at Putin - it's nearly all of the western world.
 
The Firestarter said:
NATO is far from obsolete. Russia's imperialistic tendencies are not reducing but actually increasing. One thing is true though, it is very reliant on the US, basically the other member states have reduced their military budgets to below the absolute minimum. Even large scale deployments cannot be made without American assistance with logistics. That needs to change, and probably is going to.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct here. People wonder why the US always seems to have to go to hot spots... it's because we are just about the only ones capable to do the job.
 
Will Absolute said:
To abandon the cosy realm of innuendo and enter the more demanding precincts of plain speaking, are you saying that Fox is wrong? That there is no such liberal bias? That the vast majority of journalists employed by the mainstream national media in the US are not in fact liberals and do not vote for the Democratic party.

Because if that is what you're saying, you must be remarkably unobservant.
Click to expand...

You avoided the last question so I'll ask you again. Just how much US network news are you watching over there in Ireland? How exactly do you know the voting choices of thousands of journalists?
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Yes i know. But its not just the US's interests. It also happens to be Canadian policy to challenge Russia (both Harper and Trudeau) as well as the policies of the EU and NATO. This is not just one big state wagging its finger at Putin - it's nearly all of the western world.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Apologies if I make it seem that way but the truth is I'm not worried about Canada, England or Latvia initiating hostilities. None of the rest of us have the clout to do so. New Money Russia has been engaging in self aggrandizement, as any nation would, but they are not the USSR. There has to be a better way to bring them into the fold because we're no longer engaged in an ideological struggle for world dominance. I'm actually quite shocked at the reverse polarity between the Republicans and Democrats.
 
MoskvaRed said:
Not really - there was a tenuous rapprochement coinciding with Russia being too broke to pretend to compete. But a combination of the siloviki regaining power and the oil boom of the 2000s and it was back to business as usual - most drastically in Georgia and Ukraine but also the persistent intimidation of the Baltic states. NATO and Clinton's objective view of the Putin regime are needed more than ever. Hopefully at some point things can move to a more constructive basis but I doubt it will happen for another 15-20 years until the generation brought up under communism die off.
Click to expand...

Russia is acting like a jilted lover with the Baltic states, no doubt but describing Clinton's view as objective is one hell of a gloss over. It's verging on openly hostile.
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
Russia is acting like a jilted lover with the Baltic states, no doubt but describing Clinton's view as objective is one hell of a gloss over. It's verging on openly hostile.
Click to expand...

But how would you engage a regime whose survival (now their economy is down the drain) depends on shrill nationalism and the creation of a narrative of us vs the America/West? What is objectivity when you are dealing with Putin's Russia in 2016?
 
MoskvaRed said:
But how would you engage a regime whose survival (now their economy is down the drain) depends on shrill nationalism and the creation of a narrative of us vs the America/West? What is objectivity when you are dealing with Putin's Russia in 2016?
Click to expand...

Prove that narrative false through engagement and cooperation. Putin is shrewd and the west is dancing to his balalaika at the moment.
 
Carolina Red said:
Didn't someone post a video on here recently of Colbert displaying that? I think he was making fun of Newt Gingrich
Click to expand...
There's also a video within the last 2 weeks of Gingrich saying Feelings matter more than Facts. Was an interview with Alisyn Camerota of CNN.
 
@Mrs Smoker

Did this really happen? :lol:

The numerous questions that were removed by the subreddit’s moderators didn’t really impact Trump, who cherry-picked a handful of softball questions out of the several hundred posed by users. But, even those proved too much for Trump; out of a list of five questions voted on by the_Donald community, Trump only answered two.

Still, when Trump did answer, he went deep. In his responses, he made several groundbreaking statements, including “NASA is wonderful,” “there have been many amazing Presidents in American history,” and “I am never tired of winning.”

The subreddit was basically a forum for Trump to stroke his own ego and reiterate his insane talking points about “Crooked Hillary” and how great he is at winning.

I stand corrected: you can’t get more Trump than that.
Click to expand...
 
Carolina Red said:
How would the west be able to prove anything to the Russian people though with the press situation as it is under Putin?
Click to expand...

Not only that, I think that what Putin fears the most is not a staredown vs. NATO over the Baltic states, Ukraine or anything else. Efforts to unwind his internal narrative, and hence breakdown his popular support, that's what I think he'd be most bothered by.

I prefer the strategy of confronting what I think is still a rational adversary, indicating that we're clued into his strategy (appear outwardly powerful, to maintain internal support), but that there are limits, and certain actions will be responded to.
 
roseguy64 said:
There's also a video within the last 2 weeks of Gingrich saying Feelings matter more than Facts. Was an interview with Alisyn Camerota of CNN.
Click to expand...
What's so funny about that is not too long ago, that was the common attack against liberals by conservatives... That liberals cared more about feelings than facts
 
Dwazza von Moosesteiger said:
Prove that narrative false through engagement and cooperation. Putin is shrewd and the west is dancing to his balalaika at the moment.
Click to expand...

I don't think that option is feasible. First, while it might be possible to work together in Syria, is it possible to cooperate over an issue like Ukraine given the irreconcilable views on the nature of that country's sovereignty? Secondly, unless the oil price shoots back up, Putin has no real flexibility to move towards cooperation as the enemy narrative has been his figleaf for the mismanagement and plunder of the economy. IMO, many of Russia's well-publicised resentments are based on invented or exaggerated slights so I don't see any reason why they couldn't invent some more even if the West acted with kid gloves. And it's not as though the West could communicate goodwill over the heads of the regime directly to the Russian people given that the vast majority get all their information from state TV.
 
MoskvaRed said:
I don't think that option is feasible. First, while it might be possible to work together in Syria, is it possible to cooperate over an issue like Ukraine given the irreconcilable views on the nature of that country's sovereignty? Secondly, unless the oil price shoots back up, Putin has no real flexibility to move towards cooperation as the enemy narrative has been his figleaf for the mismanagement and plunder of the economy. IMO, many of Russia's well-publicised resentments are based on invented or exaggerated slights so I don't see any reason why they couldn't invent some more even if the West acted with kid gloves. And it's not as though the West could communicate goodwill over the heads of the regime directly to the Russian people given that the vast majority get all their information from state TV.
Click to expand...

It's better than playing into his hands and risking a resumption of cold war level hostilities.
 
Grinner said:
You avoided the last question so I'll ask you again. Just how much US network news are you watching over there in Ireland? How exactly do you know the voting choices of thousands of journalists?
Click to expand...

By their works shall ye know them!

I never avoid any question except through laziness.:smirk: I've been meaning to reply to your post, but doing it justice required an explanation of my views on the American media and how I came to hold them, involving a long, fact filled, densely argued thesis. It's easier to make a bad joke in the Paul Pogba thread!

Watch this space!
 
fishfingers15 said:
Yeah, but expecting someone to support a party because he played a role in a movie is hilarious
Click to expand...

A lot of them seem really disappointed and are now planning to boycott his films (suspect the knuckledraggers will forget in a few months). Cooper has been a long time democrat, supporting Hillary back in 08 and set up the Between Two Ferns episode with Obama.

Hollywood clearly has a liberal bias, but if you want to only watch Republican friendly TV and film...well there's only so many Adam Sandler films you can see before you'd want to kill yourself.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
A lot of them seem really disappointed and are now planning to boycott his films (suspect the knuckledraggers will forget in a few months). Cooper has been a long time democrat, supporting Hillary back in 08 and set up the Between Two Ferns episode with Obama.

Hollywood clearly has a liberal bias, but if you want to only watch Republican friendly TV and film...well there's only so many Adam Sandler films you can see before you'd want to kill yourself.
Click to expand...

So American Sniper was a liberal film? Independence Day sequel? All those guns in movies, uber-violence, few major roles for minority actors, sexism, OTT patriotism?
 
FlawlessThaw said:
A lot of them seem really disappointed and are now planning to boycott his films (suspect the knuckledraggers will forget in a few months). Cooper has been a long time democrat, supporting Hillary back in 08 and set up the Between Two Ferns episode with Obama.

Hollywood clearly has a liberal bias, but if you want to only watch Republican friendly TV and film...well there's only so many Adam Sandler films you can see before you'd want to kill yourself.
Click to expand...

Didn't know Sandler was a Republican. I'm going to boycott his films (only because they are shit)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.