Topic: First Hillary Clinton died, and now Donald Trump!!
Anonymous A started this discussion 10 years ago #55,601
What are the chances? Who will run for president now?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #719,095
Vote Vermin Supreme!
dw joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #719,100
ill do it i guess
buto joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #719,102
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #719,113
Kaine-Sanders 2016Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #719,114
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #719,127
Still got two candidates, Jill Stein and Gary Robinson or Robertson fuck just write it in
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 51 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #719,140
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,474
@719,114 (F)
I do. He's very funny and this has been the most entertaining election in American history.
I realized a few years ago that the President of the United States really has little power to change things. If you read the Constitution it seems to be that way by design. I don't expect Trump to change anything of substance. Nor do I expect Hillary to turn America communist or whatever.
I remember the Clinton administration, and became politically cognizant in the last couple years of it. I remember the Bush years and now of course the Obama administration is drawing to a close. What I realized was: nothing changed. Eight years of a Texas conservative followed by eight years of a Chicago liberal. They should be, like, polar opposites, right?
But nothing I can see has changed. I don't expect anything to in the next eight years, regardless of what happens on November 8th. And so, I just enjoy the bread and circuses.
I do. He's very funny and this has been the most entertaining election in American history.
I realized a few years ago that the President of the United States really has little power to change things. If you read the Constitution it seems to be that way by design. I don't expect Trump to change anything of substance. Nor do I expect Hillary to turn America communist or whatever.
I remember the Clinton administration, and became politically cognizant in the last couple years of it. I remember the Bush years and now of course the Obama administration is drawing to a close. What I realized was: nothing changed. Eight years of a Texas conservative followed by eight years of a Chicago liberal. They should be, like, polar opposites, right?
But nothing I can see has changed. I don't expect anything to in the next eight years, regardless of what happens on November 8th. And so, I just enjoy the bread and circuses.
Anonymous F replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,475
@previous (Metæ)
So you're not a thinly-veiled Trump supporter, but an apathetic guy laughing at his antics?
I respect that.
So you're not a thinly-veiled Trump supporter, but an apathetic guy laughing at his antics?
I respect that.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,476
@previous (F)
Yes exactly. If someone from 2006 woke up from a decade-long coma in the current year, he would find American life and society unchanged (we have nicer phones now, though), even though again we went from Texas conservative to Chicago liberal in the white house.
I do like Trump a lot more than Hillary. I think Trump has better foreign policy ideas (ie less foreign wars). Again though, I don't expect these to change in any meaningful way under a Trump administration (or Hillary Clinton administration). The government is like a locomotive and it's silly to argue whether Trump or Hillary is going to drive it over a cliff because it's on rails and the course is predetermined. It just has too much inertia to stop or change course.
I think the Trump campaign is masterful performance art and I enjoy the spectacle, especially the media reactions.
If Jeb! or Marco Rubio or one of those guys had won the Republican nomination I would have mentally checked out a long time ago. If Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination (and a non-Trump had won the Republican) I'd probably be rooting for him.
Yes exactly. If someone from 2006 woke up from a decade-long coma in the current year, he would find American life and society unchanged (we have nicer phones now, though), even though again we went from Texas conservative to Chicago liberal in the white house.
I do like Trump a lot more than Hillary. I think Trump has better foreign policy ideas (ie less foreign wars). Again though, I don't expect these to change in any meaningful way under a Trump administration (or Hillary Clinton administration). The government is like a locomotive and it's silly to argue whether Trump or Hillary is going to drive it over a cliff because it's on rails and the course is predetermined. It just has too much inertia to stop or change course.
I think the Trump campaign is masterful performance art and I enjoy the spectacle, especially the media reactions.
If Jeb! or Marco Rubio or one of those guys had won the Republican nomination I would have mentally checked out a long time ago. If Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination (and a non-Trump had won the Republican) I'd probably be rooting for him.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,484
@previous (Metæ)
> I think Trump has better foreign policy ideas (ie less foreign wars).
What.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/07/trump-unveils-plan-to-boost-military-with-more-troops-weapons.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295273-trump-i-would-shoot-at-confrontational-iranian-ships
Massive increase in military spending + promising to commit an act of war against Iran in retaliation for feeling insulted = less war? Meta where do you get these wacky ideas from?
> I think Trump has better foreign policy ideas (ie less foreign wars).
What.
Service Proposals
Trump called for increasing the size of the Army to about 540,000 active-duty soldiers, the Marine Corps to 36 battalions, the Navy to 350 surface ships and submarines, and the Air Force to at least 1,200 fighter aircraft.
By comparison, the Pentagon's $583 billion budget proposal for fiscal 2017, which begins Oct. 1, requests funding for 460,000 active soldiers, 24 Marine infantry battalions, 287 naval ships and roughly 1,170 fighter aircraft (excluding A-10 ground attack aircraft) -- all for the active component.
[...]
In a departure from previous remarks, Trump said he would ask Congress to "fully eliminate" defense spending caps known as sequestration.
Trump called for increasing the size of the Army to about 540,000 active-duty soldiers, the Marine Corps to 36 battalions, the Navy to 350 surface ships and submarines, and the Air Force to at least 1,200 fighter aircraft.
By comparison, the Pentagon's $583 billion budget proposal for fiscal 2017, which begins Oct. 1, requests funding for 460,000 active soldiers, 24 Marine infantry battalions, 287 naval ships and roughly 1,170 fighter aircraft (excluding A-10 ground attack aircraft) -- all for the active component.
[...]
In a departure from previous remarks, Trump said he would ask Congress to "fully eliminate" defense spending caps known as sequestration.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/07/trump-unveils-plan-to-boost-military-with-more-troops-weapons.html
"With Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water," Trump said to loud cheers.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295273-trump-i-would-shoot-at-confrontational-iranian-ships
Massive increase in military spending + promising to commit an act of war against Iran in retaliation for feeling insulted = less war? Meta where do you get these wacky ideas from?
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,488
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Military spending isn't the same thing as starting a foreign war of choice to bring liberal democracy to a country that doesn't want it anyway. When was the last time any presidential candidate promised to cut (or even just not increase) military spending?
> "With Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water," Trump said to loud cheers.
I agree, we shouldn't have destroyers anywhere near Iran in the first place. But is this really any worse than "We came, we saw, he died" or "Assad must go"? What did Muammar Gaddafi's Libya even do to America? Or Assad's Syria?
Military spending isn't the same thing as starting a foreign war of choice to bring liberal democracy to a country that doesn't want it anyway. When was the last time any presidential candidate promised to cut (or even just not increase) military spending?
> "With Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water," Trump said to loud cheers.
I agree, we shouldn't have destroyers anywhere near Iran in the first place. But is this really any worse than "We came, we saw, he died" or "Assad must go"? What did Muammar Gaddafi's Libya even do to America? Or Assad's Syria?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,492
@previous (Metæ)
I never thought I'd live to see the day when a libertarian was defending the Republican candidate for president who ran as being an outsider, on the grounds that "other politicians do the same thing all the time". You said he would be less likely to start wars and are now saying "well bush and Obama!!". It's totally ducking the question. Yes Bush led us into war and yes Obama ordered the bombing of Libya but how does any of that mean Trump wouldn't do the same? As for what Gaddafi did...well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
I never thought I'd live to see the day when a libertarian was defending the Republican candidate for president who ran as being an outsider, on the grounds that "other politicians do the same thing all the time". You said he would be less likely to start wars and are now saying "well bush and Obama!!". It's totally ducking the question. Yes Bush led us into war and yes Obama ordered the bombing of Libya but how does any of that mean Trump wouldn't do the same? As for what Gaddafi did...well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,495
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I never thought I'd live to see the day when a libertarian was defending the Republican candidate for president who ran as being an outsider, on the grounds that "other politicians do the same thing all the time"
I never defended it. I've stated like three times now (and god knows how many times over the past six years) that I oppose foreign interventionism. I just said it's something (like wearing a flag pin or kissing babies) that every Presidential candidate is required to do.
> You said he would be less likely to start wars
I do think he will be. I think Donald Trump would be less likely than Hillary Clinton to start a foreign war. I don't know how to state it any more clearly. Maybe he's lying. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and, well, you know how that turned out. And you have to keep in mind we're talking about a relative comparison. Trump and Clinton are both jingoistic, but I think Trump is less so than Hillary.
> I never thought I'd live to see the day when a libertarian was defending the Republican candidate for president who ran as being an outsider, on the grounds that "other politicians do the same thing all the time"
I never defended it. I've stated like three times now (and god knows how many times over the past six years) that I oppose foreign interventionism. I just said it's something (like wearing a flag pin or kissing babies) that every Presidential candidate is required to do.
> You said he would be less likely to start wars
I do think he will be. I think Donald Trump would be less likely than Hillary Clinton to start a foreign war. I don't know how to state it any more clearly. Maybe he's lying. George W. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" and, well, you know how that turned out. And you have to keep in mind we're talking about a relative comparison. Trump and Clinton are both jingoistic, but I think Trump is less so than Hillary.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 38 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,502
@previous (Metæ)
Why do you think Trump is less likely to start a war? You just kind of glossed over my two points. Basically what i took away was "Trump is less likely to start a war because hes increasing the military budget over Obama (who started too many wars). His comments about Iran are more militaristic than Obama but that doesn't matter because hes less likely to go to war.". Which seems like some mix of incoherent and self-contradictory. I feel like you think he's less likely to go to war because you'd like to think he's less likely to go to war, and not because his policies or rhetoric actually suggest he's less likely to go to war.
Why do you think Trump is less likely to start a war? You just kind of glossed over my two points. Basically what i took away was "Trump is less likely to start a war because hes increasing the military budget over Obama (who started too many wars). His comments about Iran are more militaristic than Obama but that doesn't matter because hes less likely to go to war.". Which seems like some mix of incoherent and self-contradictory. I feel like you think he's less likely to go to war because you'd like to think he's less likely to go to war, and not because his policies or rhetoric actually suggest he's less likely to go to war.
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,508
The Class Clown who played out a full decade of not understanding where Obama was born and what his religion is - He might end up Clown n Chief of USAGive him a larger Army and more weapons and history does show leaders of countries GO FULL OUT EGO in hand and lead a country to war.
The sad thing is IT can and will happen again sometime someday and Metæ knows full well that is true. Trump? Who knows - Yet if one is going to place bets on this?
No one forecast Bush Jr Making a world class mess of the middle east so he could take out Saddam. Trillions of dollars and a lot of USA blood and Rag Head blood - The Math on Trump compared to Bush Jr
In my book Not so much so good.
buto replied with this 10 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #719,527
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 47 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,602
@719,502 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes, but we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests.
However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. Although not in government service, I was totally against the war in Iraq, very proudly, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East. Sadly, I was correct, and the biggest beneficiary has been has been Iran, who is systematically taking over Iraq and gaining access to their very rich oil reserves, something it has wanted to do for decades.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html
We desire to live peacefully and in friendship with Russia and China. We have serious differences with these two nations, and must regard them with open eyes, but we are not bound to be adversaries. We should seek common ground based on shared interests.
However, unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct. You cannot have a foreign policy without diplomacy. A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength. Although not in government service, I was totally against the war in Iraq, very proudly, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East. Sadly, I was correct, and the biggest beneficiary has been has been Iran, who is systematically taking over Iraq and gaining access to their very rich oil reserves, something it has wanted to do for decades.
“If I become president, the era of nation building will be brought to a very swift and decisive end,” Trump vowed, adding it’s time to “chart a new course.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/15/trumps-foreign-policy-ends-era-nation-building-time-chart-new-course/Metæ double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,615
@719,502 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> As for what Gaddafi did...well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
That is interesting. Let's take a look.
> Flight 103 bombed
> FBI and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary investigate
> Arrest warrants for two Libyan men, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, issued
> Gaddafi hands the two men the FBI want over
> Tried in Scottish court, one imprisoned for life
> Gaddafi accepts responsibility for their actions, pays $2.7 billion in compensation
> Libya removed from state sponsors of terrorism list, diplomatic relations reestablished
I really don't see what Ghaddafi did wrong here. He handed over the men the FBI wanted, accepted responsibility for their actions, and paid compensation.
> As for what Gaddafi did...well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
That is interesting. Let's take a look.
> Flight 103 bombed
> FBI and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary investigate
> Arrest warrants for two Libyan men, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, issued
> Gaddafi hands the two men the FBI want over
> Tried in Scottish court, one imprisoned for life
> Gaddafi accepts responsibility for their actions, pays $2.7 billion in compensation
> Libya removed from state sponsors of terrorism list, diplomatic relations reestablished
I really don't see what Ghaddafi did wrong here. He handed over the men the FBI wanted, accepted responsibility for their actions, and paid compensation.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,649
@previous (Metæ)As if that is/was Gaddafi's only transgression
However again its one more case of taking out a true asshole with no idea that is realistic of who is going to replace the asshole and in 95% of the cases even a worse asshole ends up in power OR a good guy but a fallen country with no resources so even the good guy fails and then the bad guys move in for the kill
On that note see ya all 2morrow as its FRIDAY NIGHT Fun Nite
ZoooOOOoooOOOOOOOOooooM-------------------------------------------------------------------->
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,650
@previous (Syntax)
Oh, I'm sure Gaddafi was terrible. But I really don't see what he did wrong re: Lockerbie bombing. He handed over the men responsible and paid $2.7 billion compensation. What more could you want?
But neither you nor Fake Anon has answered the question: what threat did Gaddafi pose to America, that justified America killing him and overthrowing his government?
Oh, I'm sure Gaddafi was terrible. But I really don't see what he did wrong re: Lockerbie bombing. He handed over the men responsible and paid $2.7 billion compensation. What more could you want?
But neither you nor Fake Anon has answered the question: what threat did Gaddafi pose to America, that justified America killing him and overthrowing his government?
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 10 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,699
@previous (Metæ)
Sorry I got drunk and now I am drunk. Libya was bombed under the r2p doctrine which is roughly if the citizens of a country are about to be massacre d by their government and they ask for assistance from the international community, it is our responsibility to protect (r2p) them. To do otherwise would be impermissible. Now obviously the US fucked up the aftermath but the intentions were not bad. Obviously you could say "well don't commit military to any cause that doesn't threaten your existence" but then youre letting a lot of people die needlessly because of fear and selfishness and you're also pretty out of touch with contemporary Poli sci research.
Sorry I got drunk and now I am drunk. Libya was bombed under the r2p doctrine which is roughly if the citizens of a country are about to be massacre d by their government and they ask for assistance from the international community, it is our responsibility to protect (r2p) them. To do otherwise would be impermissible. Now obviously the US fucked up the aftermath but the intentions were not bad. Obviously you could say "well don't commit military to any cause that doesn't threaten your existence" but then youre letting a lot of people die needlessly because of fear and selfishness and you're also pretty out of touch with contemporary Poli sci research.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 10 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,749
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That's like "we had to destroy the village to save it"-tier. The citizens being "massacred" were rebels. If you think that's bad you should have seen what America did to it's rebels. Did Britain (as the superpower of that era) have r2p the Confederates because "Abraham Lincoln is bombing his own people"?
That's like "we had to destroy the village to save it"-tier. The citizens being "massacred" were rebels. If you think that's bad you should have seen what America did to it's rebels. Did Britain (as the superpower of that era) have r2p the Confederates because "Abraham Lincoln is bombing his own people"?
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,750
@719,650 (Metæ)
Gaddafi was responsible, and when that guy was let out of prison because he was dying, he gave him a ticker tape parade in Libya.
Gaddafi was responsible, and when that guy was let out of prison because he was dying, he gave him a ticker tape parade in Libya.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,751
@719,749 (Metæ)
> The citizens being "massacred" were rebels.
Yeah, but ISIS are rebels too and are currently losing ground, and you don't see the USA or UK helping them. There are different kinds of rebels.
> If you think that's bad you should have seen what America did to it's rebels. Did Britain (as the superpower of that era) have r2p the Confederates because "Abraham Lincoln is bombing his own people"?
I think you need to cook up a stronger point than this, lad. Just because our countries acted a certain way in the olden days, doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't contradict that behaviour later.
Even then, the Confederates aren't exactly a good analogy for pro-democratic rebels in a dictatorship.
> The citizens being "massacred" were rebels.
Yeah, but ISIS are rebels too and are currently losing ground, and you don't see the USA or UK helping them. There are different kinds of rebels.
> If you think that's bad you should have seen what America did to it's rebels. Did Britain (as the superpower of that era) have r2p the Confederates because "Abraham Lincoln is bombing his own people"?
I think you need to cook up a stronger point than this, lad. Just because our countries acted a certain way in the olden days, doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't contradict that behaviour later.
Even then, the Confederates aren't exactly a good analogy for pro-democratic rebels in a dictatorship.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,776
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #719,859
Vote for me, your first transgender female president! You get a twofer.
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 23 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,034
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,045
@previous (beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY)
Are comics/jokes about Hillary's health in bad taste? I am reliably informed that she is in great health and it's just a vast right-wing conspiracy with no factual basis, so it's just a bit of fun like the tawdry Trump=Hitler comics (which also lack any factual basis).
Are comics/jokes about Hillary's health in bad taste? I am reliably informed that she is in great health and it's just a vast right-wing conspiracy with no factual basis, so it's just a bit of fun like the tawdry Trump=Hitler comics (which also lack any factual basis).
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,056
@previous (Metæ)
I think it's fair game. I just find the comic itself to be a an unfunny pile of shit
I think it's fair game. I just find the comic itself to be a an unfunny pile of shit
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,092
The weird noses look like from the Pogo comics, but Pogo wasn't a human, he was a opossum
buto replied with this 10 years ago, 16 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,195
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,211
Metæ double-posted this 10 years ago, 42 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,212
@720,056 (beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY)
That particular comic, or the whole comic series? Some of them are really funny.
That particular comic, or the whole comic series? Some of them are really funny.
buto replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,216
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,261
@720,212 (Metæ)
The entire series. With the exception of the Holocaust joke, it's all miserably unfunny. I will keep reading though and let you know what I find.
The entire series. With the exception of the Holocaust joke, it's all miserably unfunny. I will keep reading though and let you know what I find.
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY double-posted this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #720,263
