United States Presidential Election, 2016

[Aleksandr]

Fun Fact: Trump said he wouldn't take nukes off the table when dealing with conflicts in Europe.

That's just rhetoric to give himself an image of strength. He has spoken far more on the need to end neocon wars and work together with Russia; while Hillary Clinton has been essentially calling for WW3.

Is at least something that exists and is tangible against Trump, whose "foreign policy" - when asked in an MSNBC interview who he "consistently consults with" on such issues - consists of such notable gems as:

“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things."

So by that logic, I have a marvelous grasp on foreign policy as well. I believe I've said a lot of things in my life, too.

Now to scrounge up enough money to run for President. Because, you know, saying a lot of things is apparently the only qualification one needs to have all the answers to all the problems.

The man has no foreign policy. He has no "great plan" to "make America great again.". What he is is an arrogant, overblown egotistical narcissist who wants to line his pockets and entertains delusional fantasies (I assume anyway) of people calling him "Mr. President". And on top of that, he damn near idolizes Putin (source quotes).

Now, my history might be a little hazy, but the last time Europe had a leader with a case of idol worship like this, some dude called Hitler looked at what some other dude named Mussolini was doing in Italy at the time, and managed to take that example and start a world war. Oh, he also kinda murdered a couple million people for no greater reason than their religion/sexual orientation/place of birth/mental health issues.

But history can't repeat itself, I guess.

Trump is not in this election for the office. He's not in it for the country. He's in it to feed his own grotesque demigod complex and soak up unwarranted praise from the "poorly educated" masses - whom he absolutely LOVES, by the way - who are literally the only people on the planet (aside from misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic racists) who could reasonably support anything this man has said or done over the course of this Barnum & Bailey style sideshow "election campaign" he's been running.

So in other words, you're saying something with a history of failure is better than something that has not yet been tried? That is in essence the difference between Hillary and Trump in foreign policy -- Clinton has a history of failure and incompetence, and indicates that there will be no change in that regard, while Trump has something new to offer: a foreign policy that is, while not pacifistic, at least denounces and rejects the useless wars supported by Clinton and others. Plus, there is the elephant in the room: the fact that Hillary is intending to start WW3. Trump has stated he wants to avoid it, while Hillary is going all for it.

And so what if he idolizes a strong leader who who cares about his country, restored it from the brink of collapse, and has no qualms going up against enemies to defend it's interests, while carefully balancing the usage of diplomacy and military force to prevent all-out war? And not to mention that even polling organizations critical of him admit that his approval rating is around 80-90% among the people (far higher than any Western politician, or US Congress's dismal 9%). A Putin-type leader is exactly what America needs right now.

And the old "Trump is LITERALLY Hitler" argument again. Patriotism and strong leadership are not synonymous with fascism. Ronald Reagan also espoused traditional values and the need to restore America, yet did he end up starting a world war or committing mass genocide? No.

That claim is just nothing more than a last-ditch attempt by the leftists at lowering Trump's image by irrationally trying to affiliate him with Hitler. Given how anyone who doesn't support the regressive left gets accused of being a fascist or a Neo Nazi, such accusations don't really mean anything anymore.

 

[Outlander]

That's just rhetoric to give himself an image of strength. He has spoken far more on the need to end neocon wars and work together with Russia; while Hillary Clinton has been essentially calling for WW3.

Oh yeah. Because every other president has said "I'd be willing to use nuclear weapons on Europe." It's just kind of a thing to make them look strong.

 

[Aleksandr]

Oh yeah. Because every other president has said "I'd be willing to use nuclear weapons on Europe." It's just kind of a thing to make them look strong.

Better to just say it as rhetoric than not say it and then actually do it (Hillary).

 

[Outlander]

Better to just say it as rhetoric than not say it and then actually do it (Hillary).

Except Hillary, and most sane individuals, have not said they'd nuke Europe. Because saying "I won't nuke Europe" is a very easy thing to do.

 

[Gamov]

So in other words, you're saying something with a history of failure is better than something that has not yet been tried?

If my choice for President is between a woman who - despite her perceived "failure and incompetence" - has actual experience dealing with foreign policy (for better or worse), or a man who's only claim to the office is "I'm smart because I didn't pay my taxes", then my answer will be yes, unequivocally. Absolutely.

Hillary may not be the best choice, but she sure as hell beats a casino owner in my book.

And the old "Trump is LITERALLY Hitler" argument again.

My analogy may have run a little too far insofar as the comparison goes, so I can see how my comment could be misconstrued.

To clarify though, I was not equating Trump to Hitler in the strictest sense, but the fact that he idolizes Putin in a way similar to what Hitler did with Mussolini (c. 1920s-30s) is the beginning of a very dangerous slope that leads to autocracy more often than not.

Trump's message throughout his campaign has not been one of discussing issues or offering tangible solutions, but rather preying on the rampant social tensions in the country and making outrageous promises like "On day one, I'll restore law and order". A statement that in and of itself is vague and ill defined considering he's never proposed HOW he intends to "restore order".

History has shown us time and again that many a despot in the making is prone to making very similar claims during times of crisis. Why? Because in times of great social strife, people will flock towards the strongest voice, regardless of whether or not that voice is necessarily sane. In a sense, all Trump has set himself up to be is a "political molotov" that people can throw at "the system" come November.

And anyone with a brain and a basic education should understand just how dangerous that concept is as a domestic (and even foreign) political policy.

 

[Arian Korzak]

Just a fact: Trump bankrupted a Casino.

Now I really don't like Clinton, and I think she's even worse than Trump. But bankrupting a casino is not a very good reputation for someone trying to be president either.

 

[Jabonicus]

Russia has repeatedly invaded nearby countries (IE, Ukraine) in the recent past, for reasons which do not justify war. Along with Putin's stance on LGBT rights and war in general, I'd vote for Jim the Butcher across the street than for someone who can be seen as "Putin in America."

 

[Green Ranger]

@Aleksandr: where do you get your information? Not a single thing youve said aligns with reality.

 

[Logan]

@Aleksandr: where do you get your information? Not a single thing youve said aligns with reality.

A small glimpse into the world of a Trump supporter.

 

[Aleksandr]

Except Hillary, and most sane individuals, have not said they'd nuke Europe. Because saying "I won't nuke Europe" is a very easy thing to do.

Yeah, she basically said she'll nuke Russia instead.

@Aleksandr: where do you get your information? Not a single thing youve said aligns with reality.

A small glimpse into the world of a Trump supporter.

It's well documented to the point of being writing on the wall. Facts are facts, do with them as you will. Luckily, more and more people have become awakened, as evidenced by the rise of nationalism in Europe and the support for Trump in the US. The leftists may continue to deny it as much as they want, but we are not obligated to share in their delusions with them.

Russia has repeatedly invaded nearby countries (IE, Ukraine) in the recent past, for reasons which do not justify war. Along with Putin's stance on LGBT rights and war in general, I'd vote for Jim the Butcher across the street than for someone who can be seen as "Putin in America."

So there are Russian tanks rolling down the streets of Kiev? If not, then there hasn't been any invasion. As for Crimea, the people living there made their choice democratically. Strange for proponents of democracy to deny the democratic will of a people when it does not give the desired result. As for gay rights, I am against them.

 

[Mistress]

I haven't been following this thread. Probably still won't.

Imagine the ripple effects within the US government, if enough people commit to change and actually vote the third party candidate into office. The left and right have never taken this option seriously.

 

[Aleksandr]

If my choice for President is between a woman who - despite her perceived "failure and incompetence" - has actual experience dealing with foreign policy (for better or worse), or a man who's only claim to the office is "I'm smart because I didn't pay my taxes", then my answer will be yes, unequivocally. Absolutely.

Hillary may not be the best choice, but she sure as hell beats a casino owner in my book.

My analogy may have run a little too far insofar as the comparison goes, so I can see how my comment could be misconstrued.

To clarify though, I was not equating Trump to Hitler in the strictest sense, but the fact that he idolizes Putin in a way similar to what Hitler did with Mussolini (c. 1920s-30s) is the beginning of a very dangerous slope that leads to autocracy more often than not.

Trump's message throughout his campaign has not been one of discussing issues or offering tangible solutions, but rather preying on the rampant social tensions in the country and making outrageous promises like "On day one, I'll restore law and order". A statement that in and of itself is vague and ill defined considering he's never proposed HOW he intends to "restore order".

History has shown us time and again that many a despot in the making is prone to making very similar claims during times of crisis. Why? Because in times of great social strife, people will flock towards the strongest voice, regardless of whether or not that voice is necessarily sane. In a sense, all Trump has set himself up to be is a "political molotov" that people can throw at "the system" come November.

And anyone with a brain and a basic education should understand just how dangerous that concept is as a domestic (and even foreign) political policy.

Thanks for clarifying.

Often times an authoritarian system is what is necessary, such as in the current situation.

 

[Outlander]

Thanks for clarifying.

Often times an authoritarian system is what is necessary, such as in the current situation.

Uh.

Did you just agree that a Hitler analogy was correct?

 

[Arian Korzak]

I haven't been following this thread. Probably still won't.

Imagine the ripple effects within the US government, if enough people commit to change and actually vote the third party candidate into office. The left and right have never taken this option seriously.

I suppose they just don't think people will do it, or maybe that they think people just don't pay any attention to them

 

[Gamov]

As for gay rights, I am against them.

Often times an authoritarian system is what is necessary, such as in the current situation.

I strongly disagree with both of these statements.

And with that, I will respectfully bow out of the discussion and refrain from further comment.

 

[Jabonicus]

So there are Russian tanks rolling down the streets of Kiev? If not, then there hasn't been any invasion. As for Crimea, the people living there made their choice democratically. Strange for proponents of democracy to deny the democratic will of a people when it does not give the desired result.

Considering the annexation of Crimea, which is globally considered illegal, from Ukraine, Russia has done many acts against Ukraine, resulting in many civil conflicts and has left 10,000 dead, and 1.5 million people without homes. This is not to mention Russia's open advancement towards flat out war all throughout 2016.

As for gay rights, I am against them.

Good to know you don't support my rights as a basic human being. I'm honestly curious, by what authority can you claim that I deserve less rights than you?

 

[Green Ranger]

It's well documented to the point of being writing on the wall. Facts are facts, do with them as you will. Luckily, more and more people have become awakened, as evidenced by the rise of nationalism in Europe and the support for Trump in the US. The leftists may continue to deny it as much as they want, but we are not obligated to share in their delusions with them.

Well documented, eh? As evidenced by Trump trailing in the polls? Interesting evidence. How about the fact that Hillary is in fact broadening her lead over Trump? No? Maybe that his right wing backers are withdrawing support in the droves?

I repeat, not a single thing you've said aligns with reality.

 

[Logan]

Thanks for clarifying.

Often times an authoritarian system is what is necessary, such as in the current situation.

Guess you can take the Russian out of Russia but not the Russia out of the Russian.

If you want Authoritarian, America is not for you. This is a land of freedom, not nazi-esque ideologies and authoritarian rhetoric. To be quite frank, I find your beliefs disgusting.

 

[Green Ranger]

Guess you can take the Russian out of Russia but not the Russia out of the Russian.

Having known quite a lot of sensible, moderate (and yes, occassionally leftist) Russians in my time, this isn't so much a Russian thing as it it individual crackpottery tbh.

 

[Raydo]

Arguing with someome from Russia about American Politics and Human rights is laughable at best.

Quit trying to get him trouble with the KGB and just let him be.

Go talk about Star Wars.