• Large child Donald "Trump" claims unbreakable party unity as major GOP figures turn against him
    93 replies, posted
Sorry but I have to [QUOTE=Luni;50824202] (1) Clinton wants to drag us into more worthless money-sink conflicts, involving [b]nuclear weapons[/b][/quote] I like how you threw nukes thing in there, because you knew you had to set them apart. Unfortunately, you'll fail if you're trying to paint Trump as the hawk here. Clinton is the one that will start WW3. Her foreign policy (which is related to her trade policy) is her biggest embarrassment for a 'left' candidate, and for the Democratic party to produce a candidate to the right of the last one, in 2016, is abysmal. She represents all that is wrong with America, from a left or right perspective. Trump has an America first foreign policy that entails realizing Russia isn't an enemy and the interests of NATO do not necessarily correlate with ours, that it instead represents the 'empire of liberalism' cancer that rotted Britain and now America, and has left behind groups like the native working class. Trump has the opposite foreign policy of someone like Clinton, who takes money from Saudi royals (and Ukrainian oligarchs). He does not believe in building democracy in the middle east and overthrowing secular arab nationalists, and he will break the collusion between the EU's hawk lobby in Eastern Europe and the global-minded, 'humanitarian' imperialists here in America that work the detriment of the West and Russia, because money. As a non-globalist, Trump has no use for the East-West divide after the cold war. [quote](2) Clinton has suggested abandoning NATO allies in eastern Europe or the Balkans at the instant they need our support the most[/quote] Horseshit, Russia isn't taking the offensive anytime soon. With both Ukraine and Georgia, a cursory reading shows it clearly in response to changing stakes in a wider geopolitical struggle. Everyone who isn't a centrist opportunist and is trying to present an alternative has a nuanced position on things like NATO in Eastern Europe and doesn't believe things are so black and white. Trump is no different. Georgia, controlled by pro-west nationalists who do not agree to the independence of Soviet-recognized minorities and their oblasts, did not take well to Russia tightening relations with these separatists in response to NATO aspirations in Tbilisi. A war naturally broke out over parts of ossetia and abkhazia held by georgia. Similar happened in Donbass, not being an oblast but a historically Russian part of a Tsarist colony, but also having the misfortune of being one of the wealthiest of provinces and necessary for Kiev if it wanted a good deal from the IMF. Crimea being Russian and an important naval base under NATO speaks for itself. Russia is not the problem, neoliberalism and international finance is, and it comes at the expense of the jobs of our workers and the lives of our soldiers. It provides an incentive for nation-states (the last thing we can hold accountable) to centralize, elect technocrats, have less respect for privacy, enforce a copyright claim from across the world, and overthrow any form of national resistance in other countries (commonly derided as dictatorships we supposedly bring freedom to). The latter has reached a critical point with it coming back home in the form of the refugee crisis and the economic issues, leading to the rise of the 'far-right' in the form of national liberals Trump, Orban, and Putin, and reformed fascist parties who have adopted what's basically civic nationalism (we were quick to point this out about Svoboda, of course). We missed an opportunity with Russia in the 90s (in part thanks to the hawkish foreign policy of Bill Clinton) and didn't try to bring them into the fold that would become the 'European project' and a globalizing europe/west, which would give it a diversifying economy and democratic traditions. Instead, unlike a country like Poland, Russia would experience a completely different transition to liberal-capitalism and there was little interest in the West in its success and integration. It was winner takes all (the other president Clinton also had a serious case of this), and past arrogance is biting millenials in the ass and pushing the burden of the 'East-West question' down the line when it has never been more pointless. If anyone really cares to know why Russia is the way it is today should start with it straight from the [url=http://jeffsachs.org/2012/03/what-i-did-in-russia/]horse's mouth[/url]: [quote]The lack of Western assistance was grim and was my greatest frustration[32] during late 1991 and 1992. The early days were inauspicious to say the least. When the G-7 deputies came to Moscow in late November 1991, just a few days after Gaidar had come to power as head of Yeltsin’s economic team, the main focus of the G-7 message was the urgency that the Soviet Union should continue to service the external debts at any cost. There was no discussion of the upcoming economic reforms, and no realism among the G-7 deputies about the extreme desperation of the economic scene. Gaidar was warned by the assembled powers that day that any suspension of debt payments would result in the immediate suspension of urgent food aid, and that ships nearly arrived at the Black Sea ports would turn around. Russia in fact continued to service the debts for a few more weeks before completely running out of cash by February 1992. In December 1991 I had continuing discussions with the IMF about Western assistance for Russia. The IMF’s point man, Mr. John Odling Smee, who lasted for a decade as the head of the IMF’s efforts, was busy telling the G-7 that Russia needed no aid, that the “balance of payments gap” as calculated by the IMF was essentially zero. I believe that the IMF was simply parroting the political decisions already decided by the United States, rather than making an independent assessment. This is just a conjecture, but I make it because of the very low quality of IMF analysis and deliberations. They seemed to be driving towards conclusions irrespective of the evidence. The IMF’s approach was in any event just what the rich countries wanted to hear. The technical methodology was primitive beyond belief. To summarize a long saga succinctly, Russia never received much in grant aid, stabilization support,[33] or debt relief. What little did come was far too late to save the collapsing initial momentum of reforms, as most of the reformers were long gone from the scene or at least from the center of power. A very senior U.S. official, Lawrence Eagleburger, told me bluntly in the spring of 1992: “Jeffrey, you must understand. Assume for the sake of argument that I agree with you. It doesn’t matter. Do you know what this year is? It’s an election year. There will be no large-scale financial support.” I had heard that before, many times indeed, in Bolivia, Poland, and elsewhere. In those earlier cases, persistent persuasion had made a difference. I did not take Eagleburger’s statement at face value, though perhaps I should have done so. He was, of course, proved accurate in subsequent events. U.S. policy on aiding Russia was indeed intransigent, and wrongheaded. [...] [b]In its second meaning, shock therapy refers to the dismantling of all government intervention in the economy in order to establish a “free-market” economy. This second variant of shock therapy is also sometimes called “neoliberalism.”[/b] [...] I have occasionally been an advocate of the first kind of shock therapy (notably in Bolivia, Poland, Russia, and some other post-Communist transition economies), always in the context of specific conditions of high inflation, shortages and inconvertible currencies. [b]I never have been an advocate of shock therapy in its second, neoliberal context.[/b] I regard a pure “free-market” economy as a textbook fiction, not a practical or desirable reality.[/quote] Rather than accept Russia was a failed experiment in liberalism politically and economically, the blame is laid at the foot of Russian culture, of the people and their 'political maturity' for democracy (i.e. their ability to accept massive national sacrifices for a wealthy class that will hopefully trickle down its successes). Russia is treated as an enemy, as a bastion against liberalism and globalization (at least how we're directing Europe through it) and a non-European civilization we cannot reconcile with. In fact, Putin is Hitler and we are helpless little democracies. The only parallel to WW2 is that there exists an unjust international, economic order. [quote](3) Clinton has publicly railed against the Geneva Conventions because not slaughtering the families of suspected terrorists is hamstringing our American might[/quote] Trump is very authoritarian in approach to terrorism and understandably so, however Clinton is far worse if you're concerned about, you know, bombing brown people, regime change, cultivating Sunni radicals directly and indirectly then bringing the problem home in the form of terrorism and then mass immigration, all in tandem with countries like the Saudis out of military and economic interests. Clinton is a candidate of American imperialism and the military-industrial complex, the establishment Americans don't actually want. Trump is uncompromising on the safety and popular interests of american nationals. That means doing less 'arsenal of democracy, exporter of both' and not believing in this 'if you kill them, they win' bullshit. Moral supremacy doesn't keep us safe is the point he drives home. [quote](4) Clinton has repeatedly lied to her supporters, and responded to each controversy by making ever-more-outrageous claims[/quote] Clinton lies, period. She's a 'third way' liberal first of all, meaning a centrist opportunist that magically 'evolves' (aka panders and flip-flops), and a careerist on top of that that got rich with her husband, going from broke ex-president to wealthy quicker than anyone else to leave the white house. I don't think Trump is known for lying any more than the usual politician, which is a problem if he wants to be different but he certainly isn't worse than Clinton in this regard. [quote](5) Clinton has publicly pledged to destroy parts of the federal government that she doesn't like (the EPA)[/quote] Clinton being a status quo candidate bred by the establishment is kind of the problem, from both a right and left standpoint. It's the fact she stands for no systemic change at all is why hardly anyone likes her. Trump's philosophy is about making the US more competitive but still prioritizing the nation and its workers rather than removing all related barriers like neoliberalism does. This is why he is a civic nationalist, not a fascist, by the way. [quote](6) the President himself has declared Clinton unfit for office[/quote] Who cares. Obama disappointed the left and only angered the right. He's part of the problem, promising a lot but only ending up slightly more left wing than the third way of the Clintons. [quote](7) world leaders have declared Clinton a repulsive person unfit for office[/quote] The rest of the West is in the same boat as America and captured by a similar political establishment. The whole point is challenging this mythical consensus that seems to have arrived in the 90s and exists on a bubble. [quote]Until then, Trump remains orders of magnitude worse than Clinton.[/QUOTE] The absurdity of 2016 will be the people choosing to take an international class of capitalists and a military-industrial complex, an empire, just to save them from mythical white nationalism and the big bad native working class, to deliver us from what is seen as the 'ignorance' and 'political immaturity' of plebs in the eyes of a wealthy class of liberals who speak so much about democracy but create plutocratic republics that openly disdain their voters. 'White privilege' will be cemented as an argument used by a liberal political and economic elite, a rich 'feminist' in particular, to divide the lower class and distract from real, economic privilege, from the whole marriage between a centralized, unaccountable, massive government and its two parties with an un-patriotic, materialist economic elite. It is a merger of state and capital, of multiculturalism and neoliberalism, of misguided SJWs on the ground and a fucking Clinton at the top. It is the cancer that is the empire of liberalism, the 'arsenal of democracy' that exports both to the misery of the rest of the world, and now America itself. All of this is worse than civic nationalism because we must distance ourselves as much as possible from Hitler. Talk about first world problems.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;50825015]Kicking a mother and her baby out is a huge over exaggeration. The fact that so many sources rolled with the "trump hates babies" and "trump kicks out baby" head lines should show you how fucking desperate the media is to sink trump.[/QUOTE] Yeah that one article VS the numerous other dumb things he's said and done that don't need even a partial slant to make him look bad. They don't have to go very far 90% of the time.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;50824919]You're wasting your breath. The Hillary marketing team is too strong, looking past partisan sensationalist headlines and using critical thinking is out of the question now.[/QUOTE] The "everyone who disagrees with me is a paid hillary shill" argument is so fucking dumb and contrived you might as well just say "well i dont agree with you but i can't possibly conjure up a good reason why". Do you seriously think the Clinton campaign would pay anyone to post on a forum dedicated to a now 12 year old modification for a 12 year old game?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.