Donald Trump

To both sides: how the hell do you decide if something is racist/sexist anyway? I have a lot of things to say about Trump but generally avoid using those words because that guy just lacks a filter; it's hard to differentiate someone saying the first shit that comes to his mind from the real deal.

"

Hilbert wrote:

Those nuclear questions in debates are mainly asking where in the military will you invest because the Republican voters want to be prepared for worst case war scenarios.

Trump being the idiot he is wants to polarize and takes harsher stances than the most lunatic candidates. IE >Waterboarding and now >Carpetbombing

A normal rep candidate would say something such as: "Our enemies aren't states, they are terrorist groups we need to take down their leaders in seperate operations drone attacks/covert missions ...."

Saying "Nukes aren't of the table" is just stupid. What would you gain to nuke ie Iraq/Syria aside from Nato and UN being mad at you.

Even if you mention Nukes as a card to threaten others it's just on the level of North Korea.

Who do you wanna threat? Russia? Good way to start a Cold War again and create an economical crsis in Europe.
ISIS and other terrorist groups? They only hope for actions as nuking carpet bombing to get more recruits.

The threats nowdays are on an economical level. "You shoot your own people no tanks/planes for you"
"You stopped our imports for us so do we"

The thing is, Trump doesn't give a fuck about foreign policy at the moment, he cares about his demographic.

I mean, seriously, when you listen to a crazy blowhard like Coulter or O'Reilly or Limbaugh, do you think to yourself "this guy is a moron" (wrong) or do you think "this guy is making a living telling morons what they want to hear" (correct)?

I think it's clear to a discerning eye that Trump is not the candid straight-talker he paints himself as, but instead someone deliberately and carefully painting himself as a candid straight-talker. (Much like Bush deliberately painted himself as dumb to appeal to anti-intellectualism; motherfucker graduated Yale and Harvard Business School, he isn't stupid. Not saying he's brilliant or anything, just playing dumber for the camera.)

So Trump isn't answering those questions as a crazy nuke-button-hovering international bully, but as someone pretending to be a crazy nuke-button-hovering international bully, because all he wants is to win the nomination and doesn't care what he has to say to get it.

The more I actually look at what Trump says, the more convinced I am that it has nothing to do with what he believes, that he could politically be almost anywhere... the only thing which seems clear is his determination for office, not what he'd do with it.

Well, probably bankrupt the nation and get out on a golden parachute. That's his track record so far.

------

The one thing he obviously can't do answering that question is say he'll use the current threats of "you shoot your own people no tanks/planes for you"
or "you stopped our imports for us so do we." You can't run on a position of dominance and have your foreign policy be "hey, if you're not nice we're going to stop sucking your dick."

"

NeroNoah wrote:

To both sides: how the hell do you decide if something is racist/sexist anyway? I have a lot of things to say about Trump but generally avoid using those words because that guy just lacks a filter; it's hard to differentiate someone saying the first shit that comes to his mind from the real deal.

I try to use common sense. When Trump says that some illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals and rapists, that doesn't mean "Trump says Mexicans are rapists", like the media always spins it. Just one example.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

To both sides: how the hell do you decide if something is racist/sexist anyway? I have a lot of things to say about Trump but generally avoid using those words because that guy just lacks a filter; it's hard to differentiate someone saying the first shit that comes to his mind from the real deal.

I try to use common sense. When Trump says that some illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals and rapists, that doesn't mean "Trump says Mexicans are rapists", like the media always spins it. Just one example.

It's you giving it a spin. This is him verbatim: "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

Why do we have to take action? Why is it the US's responsibility to be the worlds police force? World peace is never going to happen, and we should only deal with threats that are a danger to our country and citizens. Its not our responsibility to get involved in civil wars or fighting between 3rd world countries any more than its their responsibility to get involved in world wars between first world countries.

I would personally prefer Ron Paul as president over Trump, he'd put an end to a lot of the warmongering and mingling overseas. He asks a lot of the same questions I do about US involvement. We got enough nuclear weapons to deter any major foreign military aggression. No, China is not going to invade us, Russia is not going to invade us. Not gonna happen. We don't need to be spending 10x more on our military than the rest of the world combined to ensure that never happens.

well first off, it is in the benefit of the united states, and really the rest of the world for the united states and nato countries to be involved in the affairs of the world. Maintaining communications, monitoring activity, involving their science in your science, really an endless list of benefits for and from the united states, western Europe, and nato to hold and maintain spheres of influence in the world. And secondly, many of our spheres of influence developed from a legitimate cry for help. The world begged us to help, so we did, even if they have forgotten now.

You have no idea what the world would be like if we didn't maintain our spheres of influence. So in a sense you are right, with our influence in place, Russia and china are not going to invade us. You have no idea, NONE, nobody does, what the wolrd would be like if we didnt involve ourselves. You say it would be hands down better, I say bullshit and what we have isn't so bad, other than a few extremists like trump, putting all focus on the negative.

It is the lens in which he displays the world, pure negativity. Measuring people by the worst elements, but claiming white man's plight when the world does the same. Back and forth.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The more I actually look at what Trump says, the more convinced I am that it has nothing to do with what he believes, that he could politically be almost anywhere... the only thing which seems clear is his determination for office, not what he'd do with it.

Somedays I think he is just cynically manipulating everyone, but then I end thinking "What if what he says is what he actually thinks?". Again, Republican party.

"

Jojas wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

To both sides: how the hell do you decide if something is racist/sexist anyway? I have a lot of things to say about Trump but generally avoid using those words because that guy just lacks a filter; it's hard to differentiate someone saying the first shit that comes to his mind from the real deal.

I try to use common sense. When Trump says that some illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals and rapists, that doesn't mean "Trump says Mexicans are rapists", like the media always spins it. Just one example.

It's you giving it a spin. This is him verbatim: "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

^See?

Scrotie's Guide to US Political Parties

DEMOCRATS
While running for office: Democrats will appeal to those who want big government, do not mind paying for it, and in general view the US government's job as to do everything worth doing to become secular saviors of the world (to include making pseudoscience bogeymen as strawman threats when necessary). And then, true to their word...
Once in office: Democrats make government bigger, ensure the disadvantaged and those pretending to be get unearned assistance, and raise taxes on the American people to pay for it.

REPUBLICANS
While running for office: Republicans will appeal to those who think big government is stupid, do not want to pay for it, and to accomplish this appeal they deliberately act as anti-status-quo as reasonably possible, to include catering to anti-intellectualism and related belief systems which are threatened by progress (most notably Christianity). However, it's all just an act, because...
Once in office: Republicans make government bigger, ensure their pals get unearned assistance (usually under the guise of military spending), and massively increase debt instead of having anyone pay for anything.

It's like Trump read my guide before I even wrote it, and figured out how to be more Republican than Republicans. He's certainly been a Republican CEO to his companies once in office.

"

Jojas wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

To both sides: how the hell do you decide if something is racist/sexist anyway? I have a lot of things to say about Trump but generally avoid using those words because that guy just lacks a filter; it's hard to differentiate someone saying the first shit that comes to his mind from the real deal.

I try to use common sense. When Trump says that some illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals and rapists, that doesn't mean "Trump says Mexicans are rapists", like the media always spins it. Just one example.

It's you giving it a spin. This is him verbatim: "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Pretty sure he said a bit more than that before, something like "they are not sending us their best".Or you gonna tell me there are no mexican drugs and gangs inside the US?
But hey, context is for racists. Omitting is for "good people".


you know, the same kind of "good people" who here also in the forums, easily expressed opinions regarding the "refugee" crysis (use "" cause you know very fucking well the majority are economic migrants taking advantage of syrian refugees plight) as pretty much for open borders and when shit like cologne news years happens they did not say a thing. Then you wonder why people dont like you.
But its ok, just label those that do not agree with you however you like. Remember its not discriminatory (and is actually speaking of high intelligence) to do so (John Oliver told me so).

Refugees are all poor people, the majority of them engineers, trump voters are all inbred dumb uneducated racist rednecks. (actually pretty funny some time ago people mentioned violent trump supporters while clearly avoiding the fact that leftists have been disrupting his speeches for a while, have gotten violent before they did, insulting everybody there by calling them racists, the man was jumped twice and that at least one speech had to be cancelled due to the "tolerance" shown by these "good" people. Im pretty sure Im missing a lot too. )




take a side of the picture, cmon, you know the middle section is bad.

"

FattyMcFatpants wrote:

"

Hilbert wrote:

You know what's a Hyperbole?


Trump doesn't give two shits about abortion and so on. He is a complete egomaniac.

Simple example: He tries to pretend to be Pro Life and gain points but when asked if the woman should be punished he said yes. The Pro Life movement is about punishing the doctors because they "commit they murder" those are ancient catholic ideas. Their morale not punishing the woman is such as you want to see certain terrorist being dead.

to be fair he said he believed they should be punished if abortion were illegal

Well, I could say as an hyperbole that because of the bird ordeal the other day (which was clearly trained, though I dont think Sanders was on in on it, more likely owned by a supporter), Bernie is into bestiality, that would still not be very well correct, would it?

and he was asked if it was illegal and they did it should they legally be punished for it.
so tell me in this hypothetical situation why should the woman be above the law?

"

NeroNoah wrote:

@Dalailama: About START: it depends on who you ask. Your interpretation is as likely as mine, nuclear disarmament is a goal many have. I think I more of a half full glass person.

The goal of less nuclear weapons is a good one, no matter what the primary incentive behind START was. Like many current events, there is a lot of information around when something is happening that gets lost, although some analyses later on are very insightful.

If the US and USSR had tried to maintain their current nuclear expansion rates, both economies would have been devastated - and some wars in Africa started.

I didn't save links to recent news, but the ridiculous costs of maintaining and updating the current stockpile and silos are again pushing Congress toward revisiting START III. The submarine fleet update was partially absorbed by the need for new subs anyway- and the political brouhaha over which state would get the contracts. Bomber updates have been under way for a long time, and that cost is huge, but anticipated.

The third part of the nuclear triad - land based is in dire need of revamping and maintainence. It has no real political friends, and I do think the budget axe for this aspect will help bring about overall reduction - though I think the treaty will need to include more nations this time around and terms of stronger cooperation against nuclear proliferation.