Washington Post rules out endorsing 'threat to democracy' Donald Trump in brutal full-page editorial - Polidicks

Washington Post rules out endorsing 'threat to democracy' Donald Trump in brutal full-page editorial

182 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758538]I believe Mexico will take it because according to [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/05/the-numbers-behind-donald-trumps-threat-to-block-money-from-being-sent-back-to-mexico/]The Washington Post[/url] Mexico gets $2 billion sent in remittances per month. The WP criticizes the legality of doing so, but that's left for lawyers and courts to decide. I'm not familiar with finances so I'll give you the debt issue. And again its opinion. I don't think torture works either and I don't even think that the CIA and other agencies will reintroduce torture even if Trump becomes president so I'm not concerned with that, but you can't argue about effectiveness until you hear from people in the intelligence community. Civilian women, children, and men get killed in total war. No one likes war. There's an argument for security vs human rights, and right now innocent women, children, and men in the US and Europe are getting killed because we relaxed on security measures to take care of migrants. I don't like it, I don't like the implications it has on our military decisions, but I view it objectively.[/QUOTE] For the wall I'll quote HumanAbyss here. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50758444] As far as thinking that Mexico is going to pay for that wall, you're literally deluded if you believe that a country that is struggling with debt, poverty, wars, drugs, and all of these other issues is going to prioritize a wall that [B]fucks them[/B]. They will not. The wall you Trumpsters are so passionate about will be paid for [B]BY YOU.[/B] There is no feasible way to take Mexico to task for paying for the wall, there is no feasible way to do well over half of the things that Trumpsters want from Trump. [/QUOTE] Onto torture. The most effective interrogator of all time was Hanns Scharff, and as stated in other threads, [B]HE DID NOT TORTURE PEOPLE WITH HIS METHODS AND WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL AT GETTING INFORMATION.[/B] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff#Technique[/url] [QUOTE]Scharff was opposed to physically abusing prisoners to obtain information. Learning on the job, he instead relied upon the Luftwaffe's approved list of techniques, which mostly involved making the interrogator seem as if he is his prisoner's greatest advocate while in captivity. Scharff described various experiences with new POW's (prisoners of war), outlining the procedure most of his fellow interrogators were instructed to use. Initially, the POW's fear and sense of disorientation, combined with isolation while not in interrogation, were exploited to gain as much initial biographical information as possible. A prisoner was frequently warned that, unless he could produce information beyond name, rank, and serial number, such as the name of his unit and airbase, the Luftwaffe would have no choice but to assume he was a spy and turn him over to the Gestapo for questioning. For Scharff, this technique apparently worked quite well. In addition to initially preying upon his prisoner's fears of the infamous Gestapo, he portrayed himself as their closest ally in their predicament, telling them that while he would like nothing more than to see them safely deposited in a POW camp, his hands were tied unless the prisoner gave him the few details that he requested to help him properly identify the prisoner as a true POW. After a prisoner's fear had been allayed, Scharff continued to act as a good friend, including sharing jokes, homemade food items, and occasionally alcoholic beverages. He was fluent in English and knowledgeable about British customs and some American ones, which helped him to gain the trust and friendship of many of his prisoners. Some high-profile prisoners were treated to outings to German airfields (one POW was even allowed to take a BF 109 fighter for a trial run), tea with German fighter aces, swimming pool excursions, and luncheons, among other things. Prisoners were treated well medically at the nearby Hohe Mark Hospital, and some POW's were occasionally allowed to visit their comrades at this hospital for company's sake, as well as the better meals provided there. Scharff was best known for taking his prisoners on strolls through the nearby woods, first having them swear an oath of honor that they would not attempt to escape during their walk. He chose not to use these nature walks as a time to directly ask his prisoners obvious military-related questions but instead relied on the POW's desire to speak to anyone outside of isolated captivity about informal, generalized topics. Prisoners often volunteered information the Luftwaffe had instructed Scharff to acquire, frequently without realizing they had done so.[/QUOTE] Read through it, and come back. [QUOTE]Civilian women, children, and men get killed in total war. No one likes war. There's an argument for security vs human rights, and right now innocent women, children, and men in the US and Europe are getting killed because we relaxed on security measures to take care of migrants. I don't like it, I don't like the implications it has on our military decisions, but I view it objectively. [/QUOTE] No. This isn't """total war""". Total War was the war against Germany in World War 1 and 2. Total War was fighting against Japan. Fighting terrorism is not total war. Now you claim that innocent men, women, and children are being killed in the US and Europe. What about the innocent men, women, and children being horribly executed and tortured in Syria? In Iraq? In terrorist hellholes in Africa? In Afghanistan? Oh right, because they aren't American or European, they don't matter to you. Just the few dead compared to the countless more.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50758444]1) Trump refuses to release his tax returns. How shady is that? Apparently, to pro Trumpsters, not at all, to the rest of us, it's super telling of how shady, and how untrust worthy your choice for president is. 2) Donald Trump doesn't read, he didn't even write his own best seller. And the person who did write it describes Donald Trump as a person who carries all the traits of a sociopath and shows an utter lack of interest in anything that's not related to him. You're voting for a narcissist of the highest order. A person who literally redefines what "selfishness" is. You'll have a hell of a time arguing those are positive traits in a leader. 3) His utter lack of policy relating to trade deals and his insistence that trade deals are stacked against America, and that without any plan in place, he'd fix that. That's an empty promise. 4) That stupid wall. 5) Leaving NATO 6) His constitutional ignorance should be disturbing for so called republicans who revere it but so many of you seem to throw your values away for fucking demagoguery [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] There are statistics on waterboarding and torture. [/QUOTE] If you have stats on torture bring them up. I already shared my thoughts on it but I'd be interested to see its effectiveness/ineffectiveness on getting intel. I expect Trump to release his tax returns before the election, it doesn't bother me. I understand your criticism of it though. Trump doesn't read because that's not his job as a businessman. Part of his job as president will be to read over bills from congress and daily reports from his staffers and advisers, he'll be reading a lot more. I really don't see this being an issue. Trump's trade deal issues are that he sees himself being able to make better deals rather than the ones we have. Even if there's theoretically nothing wrong with what we have now, he believes he can always do better deals. I posted about the wall already. As far as I recall with NATO he said it needed to do a better job of addressing terrorism, which since his criticisms it has (he mentioned that at the RNC). And the US pays more than anyone in NATO, and a lot of countries aren't meeting the NATO contribution goal and no one cares. Threatening to leave will either get them to meet the goal because they think Trump actually is ballsy enough to leave, or we will actually leave and keep the money we keep dumping into NATO. Explain Constitutional ignorance, like what specifically are you referring to?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50758122]Yeah but you don't get it you fucking islamist cucks! He tells it like it is! #nofilter!!! I have not seen a single Trump supporter actually explain why they like him outside of bullshit populist rhetoric and soundbites. Any attempts to discuss policy are futile as he doesn't [I]have[/I] policy, he just has vague ideas with no rhyme or reason behind half of them, and no plan to implement them behind the rest.[/QUOTE] Far as I can tell Trump is intentionally keeping his policies vague. Probably because so many of his voters have made up their own version of what Trump's policies are that it would be literally impossible to meet the expectations of even a majority of them.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50758620]For the wall I'll quote HumanAbyss here. Onto torture. The most effective interrogator of all time was Hanns Scharff, and as stated in other threads, [B]HE DID NOT TORTURE PEOPLE WITH HIS METHODS AND WAS THE MOST SUCCESSFUL AT GETTING INFORMATION.[/B] [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff#Technique[/URL] Read through it, and come back. No. This isn't """total war""". Total War was the war against Germany in World War 1 and 2. Total War was fighting against Japan. Fighting terrorism is not total war. Now you claim that innocent men, women, and children are being killed in the US and Europe. What about the innocent men, women, and children being horribly executed and tortured in Syria? In Iraq? In terrorist hellholes in Africa? In Afghanistan? Oh right, because they aren't American or European, they don't matter to you. Just the few dead compared to the countless more.[/QUOTE] [del]Give me a minute and I'll read through the torture stuff.[/del] Scharff found a technique that was more effective than torture. If that's the case then there's no reason for the CIA or FBI or anyone to try torture in the first place. Doesn't say anything about what the results of getting intel from torture are though. Still, the CIA said they won't implement it, and they are a public service and aren't bound to the president's orders. They need permission for certain sketchy things but their actions are given by the agency's director, not the president. The whole point of a country is having a group of people you agree to protect. You need to make an argument as to why protecting lives in all those other countries is worth spending our own money and soldier's lives to protect, and why its not their problem to solve. As for HumanAbyss, Mexico the money as I explained with the remittances. And if they're struggling that much, then they'd be really screwed when the remittances are cut off. That's why they would pay for a wall that fucks them, because they'd be really fucked if they didn't. And if they still can't, that's not our problem to address.

[QUOTE=pentium;50758377]I don't fucking want Trump in either. I just want his influence to be a catalyst for more critical issues. Even as it stands if he did get in the vote would be so split my money is that he'll be just as badly stalemated as Obama is on Capitol hill with the Republicans.[/QUOTE] You want a catalyst? You want change? Go out there and take part in your country's fucking political system if you want change. Pay attention to politics, fact check, caucus and vote. Encourage people you know to go out and do the same, get out there and make your voice heard instead of just summing it up as a worthless effort and going back to gluing your ass in front of your computer and going online and complaining about how terrible everything is. Trump isn't some shortcut, he's another step in a direction that everyone angry about our choice of candidates desperately wants to move away from. Did you know that half of our country doesn't even vote? People bitch and moan constantly over the fact that our leaders don't represent us, there's your reason. This is directed at everyone that reads this that wants Trump in because he'll 'reset everything', if you want change you're going to have to go out there and actually work to not only get yourself involved in politics, but get everyone you possibly can that's been apathetic to pay attention and take part. If you want someone to make a difference, if you're so fed up and want to see the system move away from corruption, that movement is going to have to come from you and whoever you can get to do the same because you can be sure that some Wallstreet billionaire with a history of lining his own pockets by screwing over others isn't going to give a shit whether you live or die, and a electing leader like that isn't going to 'scare' the country straight. The people of the our country should not be forced to suffer because voters like you can't let go of their own apathy and cynicsm.

[QUOTE=Paramud;50758800]If we take the $2 billion per month, we'll pay for the wall in just over 41.5 years.[/QUOTE] Do you have a construction analysis that would explain your numbers

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758727] The whole point of a country is having a group of people you agree to protect. You need to make an argument as to why protecting lives in all those other countries is worth spending our own money and soldier's lives to protect, and why its not their problem to solve. [/QUOTE] And the point of being involved in the international community is to help others in need. That's what being part of the global community is about. Isolationism and keeping America "first" hasn't worked before and it sure as hell will not work again. What's keeping China from being aggressive toward Korea, Japan, and the whole of Southeast Asia? What keeping Russia from the Baltic states and Eastern Europe? What's keeping North Korea in check? What's keeping many terrible wars from coming out? Oh, that's right, the United States' influence in global geopolitics.

[QUOTE=DiscoMelon;50758747]You want a catalyst? You want change? Go out there and take part in your country's fucking political system if you want change. Pay attention to politics, fact check, caucus and vote. Encourage people you know to go out and do the same, get out there and make your voice heard instead of just summing it up as a worthless effort and going back to gluing your ass in front of your computer and going online and complaining about how terrible everything is. Trump isn't some shortcut, he's another step in a direction that everyone angry about our choice of candidates desperately wants to move away from. Did you know that half of our country doesn't even vote? People bitch and moan constantly over the fact that our leaders don't represent us, there's your reason. This is directed at everyone that reads this that wants Trump in because he'll 'reset everything', if you want change you're going to have to go out there and actually work to not only get yourself involved in politics, but get everyone you possibly can that's been apathetic to pay attention and take part. If you want someone to make a difference, if you're so fed up and want to see the system move away from corruption, that movement is going to have to come from you and whoever you can get to do the same because you can be sure that some Wallstreet billionaire with a history of lining his own pockets by screwing over others isn't going to give a shit whether you live or die, and a electing leader like that isn't going to 'scare' the country straight. The people of the our country should not be forced to suffer because voters like you can't let go of their own apathy and cynicsm.[/QUOTE] If you really want to make a change in the political system then rather than merely voting, go be a part of the political system yourself. I've considered it after my graduation because I'm sick of having to dumb down science for lawyers and politicians and would much rather have a Congressman have a technical, scientific background than attorney experience. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=joshuadim;50758853]And the point of being involved in the international community is to help others in need. That's what being part of the global community is about. Isolationism and keeping America "first" hasn't worked before and it sure as hell will not work again. What's keeping China from being aggressive toward Korea, Japan, and the whole of Southeast Asia? What keeping Russia from the Baltic states and Eastern Europe? What's keeping North Korea in check? What's keeping many terrible wars from coming out? Oh, that's right, the United States' influence in global geopolitics.[/QUOTE] From the creation of the US until WWI we kept to ourselves and didn't get involved in European wars or affairs, all we did was trade. We did really well selling war supplies to warring European empires, and we only got involved in the global community because Germany unjustly killed Americans and tried getting Mexico to go to war with us. The reason we got involved in world affairs was to protect American citizens. Of course we have American citizens living abroad all over the world, but the threats of China, Russia, and North Korea aren't our issue until they threaten to overtake or attack the United States. Trump's whole philosophy is that the other countries should run their own defense systems out of their own pocket so that our defense money focuses on protecting American citizens.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758855] [B]Of course we have American citizens living abroad all over the world, but the threats of China, Russia, and North Korea aren't our issue[/B] until they threaten to overtake or attack the United States. Trump's whole philosophy is that the other [B]countries should run their own defense systems out of their own pocket so that our defense money focuses on protecting American citizens.[/B][/QUOTE] Oh so we just abandon our allies that we have long standing treaties and agreements with and let them know that they're on their own from now on? Awesome logic. There is no other country on Earth that can spend on military and defense as the United States does. The point that you bring up that other countries should fund their own defense is honestly ignorant because not every country CAN effectively fund defenses for themselves save for a few (Great Britain, Germany, maybe Japan/South Korea, but fuck everyone else right as long as the war doesn't affect us!!). EDIT: There is a reason why many, if not all, world leaders despise Donald Trump currently. Because he would destroy the current balance of power and equilibrium that keeps the world at a steady peace just to "keep a few American lives safe" at the cost of the lives of our allies. Ridiculous and ignorant.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;50758687]Far as I can tell Trump is intentionally keeping his policies vague. Probably because so many of his voters have made up their own version of what Trump's policies are that it would be literally impossible to meet the expectations of even a majority of them.[/QUOTE] It's because he has no real policies. Really. He just says whatever sounds good at the time. The New Yorker's [url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all]interview with his 'Art of the Deal' ghostwriter[/url] was eye-opening and terrifying.

-snip MERGE FAIL-

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758677]If you have stats on torture bring them up. I already shared my thoughts on it but I'd be interested to see its effectiveness/ineffectiveness on getting intel.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/senate-report-finds-cia-interrogation-tactics-were-ineffective-n264621[/url] Boom. [QUOTE] I expect Trump to release his tax returns before the election, it doesn't bother me. I understand your criticism of it though.[/QUOTE] He's made a big issue of it thus far, he'd appear weak to give in and release them at this point. I don't think he will, and I think he's hiding some serious shit because of it. Even Robot Romney released them. [QUOTE]Trump doesn't read because that's not his job as a businessman. Part of his job as president will be to read over bills from congress and daily reports from his staffers and advisers, he'll be reading a lot more. I really don't see this being an issue.[/QUOTE] This is just factually wrong. If you look at the leaders of industry, you'll find these are very well read men and women who read for the pleasure of it and because reading is factually speaking, one of the most informative and perspective growing forms of media there is. Trump doesn't read. Trump doesn't widen his perspectives. Trump is arrogantly assured he's a fucking genius and nothing can shake that. That is literally the worst trait possible for a world leader. [QUOTE]Trump's trade deal issues are that he sees himself being able to make better deals rather than the ones we have. Even if there's theoretically nothing wrong with what we have now, he believes he can always do better deals. [/QUOTE] But he can't? That's the thing. To do a good deal, a person needs leverage. America will lose a lot of it's leverage due to have a leader no one respects, no one likes, and no one can deal with. [QUOTE]I posted about the wall already.[/QUOTE] And your defense of it makes little sense to me. They won't pay for it. They'd literally riot before doing that. You'll have 100,000 mexicans on your border rioting, before you have any of them paying a dime towards a wall that harms them immensely. It's literally the stupidest idea to "stop immigration". You're going to spend 40 billion minimum over 5 years for a wall that fails to do what it's sold as doing. [B]and then[/B] you'll be footing the bill when mexico finally says "you're still thinking you're going to get a dime out of us?" [QUOTE] As far as I recall with NATO he said it needed to do a better job of addressing terrorism, which since his criticisms it has (he mentioned that at the RNC). And the US pays more than anyone in NATO, and a lot of countries aren't meeting the NATO contribution goal and no one cares. Threatening to leave will either get them to meet the goal because they think Trump actually is ballsy enough to leave, or we will actually leave and keep the money we keep dumping into NATO.[/QUOTE] Nato works because it's a group. Yes the US has been having to cover for other nations. I don't think leaving NATO, or threatening to do so, is going to get those nations to step up on that front. [QUOTE]Explain Constitutional ignorance, like what specifically are you referring to?[/QUOTE] Well, lets see... He doesn't know how many articles are in the constitution, something that you'd think would matter to so called constitutionalists. He stated "“I am going to abide by the Constitution whether it’s number 1, number 2, number 12, number 9.”. He's shown nothing but contempt for those that criticize them, saying [B]literally[/B] that they'd suffer under a Trump Presidency. The way he attacked a judge over his ethnicity was literally bonkers, and you can expect to see that as a government norm in Trumps world. Not to mention, Trump has actually, more times than I can count on one hand, encourage his fanbase to be violent. In his own words.

[quote]You want a catalyst? You want change? Go out there and take part in your country's fucking political system if you want change. Pay attention to politics, fact check, caucus and vote. Encourage people you know to go out and do the same, get out there and make your voice heard instead of just summing it up as a worthless effort and going back to gluing your ass in front of your computer and going online and complaining about how terrible everything is.[/quote] Assuming you were not watching Canadian news last winter, I and the majority of the country kicked the Conservative party out and replaced them with a Liberal majority. In the following months our public broadcasting network had confirmation their funding would be restored and various long-term scientific projects were permitted to resume and findings published without requiring government approval (because in the Harper days they didn't want them shitting on Steve's plans), money was invested into badly decaying infrastructure and an obscene amount of money was dumped into the system to ensure some form of stability and consistency unemployment and disability benefits while the oil patch is in the midst of an economic downturn. I can assure you not all of what I wanted has been resolved or addressed yet but I'm more than satisfied so far with who we elected. It's your turn now to do what is right for your country, whatever and whoever that may be.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50758970]Oh so we just abandon our allies that we have long standing treaties and agreements with and let them know that they're on their own from now on? Awesome logic. There is no other country on Earth that can spend on military and defense as the United States does. The point that you bring up that other countries should fund their own defense is honestly ignorant because not every country CAN effectively fund defenses for themselves save for a few (Great Britain, Germany, maybe Japan/South Korea, but fuck everyone else right as long as the war doesn't affect us!!).[/QUOTE] The countries that can't defend themselves form alliances with countries that can. The alliances we have right now cost us money, at least that's Trump's argument. He want's them to pay so we make money on defending other countries, and if not then how they handle their country's defense is up to them. Also being an ally goes beyond active military protection, it involves trade, immigration policies, travel, ect. If we stop protecting Japan it doesn't mean we will cut off Toyota's, Playstations, and anime from entering the U.S. It doesn't mean we won't let Japanese tourists visit us. Also if you want to talk global politics, even from a historical perspective, why should a country exist in the first place if it can't hold it's own? That's been the whole course of human development from villages and towns to castles and fortresses to military bases and what we have today.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758333]Get Mexico to pay for the wall by threatening to cut off money imports to Mexico. Simple. Don't know about the debt issue. [B]Last two is just war is hell. I don't like it, but you fight war to win with whatever you have. Now that's just an opinion, if you want to talk about effectiveness then we both need statistics.[/B] [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] Until you bring up stats there is no criticism, its just differing opinions. I saw no sources for the fact checking stuff they did in the videos in the source, just fancy graphics.[/QUOTE] No you don't, there are treaties upon treaties on why this isn't the case. We're not going to suddenly break out our chemical weapons stores to win a war either because it would have massive global consequences.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50759037]TBH I think people are really overestimating [B]Trumps ability to actually get all of his craziness through the system[/B] (he's going to have bipartisan resistance) and [B]underestimating how dangerous Clinton is.[/B][/QUOTE] At least someone gets it. We have a system of checks and balances in power for a reason. There's already enough info on Clinton. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=plunger435;50759058]No you don't, there are treaties upon treaties on why this isn't the case. We're not going to suddenly break out our chemical weapons stores to win a war either because it would have massive global consequences.[/QUOTE] I'm aware of what symmetric warfare is. Those treaties are in place to prevent world wars with major powers which is why we don't use nukes or chemical weapons [I]on countries that can respond with equal weapons[/I]. Countries that don't have the same means form alliances with ones that do so they don't get the shit kicked out of them with these weapons. Terrorists don't give a shit about their own life or those of others, and one of the greatest national security concerns is what if a terrorist group gets a hold of radioactive materials, stolen nukes, or chemical weapons? The places we are fighting terrorism often have unstable governments, and in that case the alliances become a suggestion rather than a pact if the new government offers the country a better deal. Asymmetric warfare is an option for what we are fighting, but I don't have enough information to make a solid case for or against it.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50759037]TBH I think people are really overestimating Trumps ability to actually get all of his craziness through the system (he's going to have bipartisan resistance) and underestimating how dangerous Clinton is.[/QUOTE] There is a set of check of balances for presidency, which I doubt Trump know are and would blatantly ignore anyways, but even if they were to hold him back, his presidency would cause immense damage to everyone. [b]World leaders now have to deal with Trump.[/b] No one would ever want to negotiate with the U.S. again. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't think any amount of damage Hillary could do would even remotely compare to what Trump would do. She could murder someone and I'd still vote against Trump.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759061]At least someone gets it. We have a system of checks and balances in power for a reason. There's already enough info on Clinton.[/QUOTE] Yeah, there's possible corruption (Clinton Foundation donors and weapons deals) and there was the incident with the email server. But as personally repugnant as she is, she won't walk out of negotiations, break treaties or start wars because someone insulted her. She has an actual working knowledge of government, and she isn't running to fulfill her own ego. She will not irreparably damage the United States. Donald Trump is a cartoon character who is only here to aggrandize himself. He is arrogant and out of touch with reality. He is childish and short-tempered. He lies constantly and fluently, and appears to totally believe it. He is only successful in business due to (1) being rich and in real estate, where it's almost impossible to lose, and (2) underhanded scumbag system-gaming like tactical bankruptcies and multiple LLCs for each of his properties, and he only pays attention to someone or something if he can get something of value from it. No matter how much you dislike Clinton, Trump cannot be allowed in the White House.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759054]The countries that can't defend themselves form alliances with countries that can. The alliances we have right now cost us money, at least that's Trump's argument. He want's them to pay so we make money on defending other countries, and if not then how they handle their country's defense is up to them. Also being an ally goes beyond active military protection, it involves trade, immigration policies, travel, ect. If we stop protecting Japan it doesn't mean we will cut off Toyota's, Playstations, and anime from entering the U.S. It doesn't mean we won't let Japanese tourists visit us. Also if you want to talk global politics, even from a historical perspective, why should a country exist in the first place if it can't hold it's own? That's been the whole course of human development from villages and towns to castles and fortresses to military bases and what we have today.[/QUOTE] The US already makes money through the countries its pledged to defend through those respective country's economies. If the US or its allies didn't have vested economic interest in those nations, there would be no reason to protect them. Backing out of those partnerships because a nation isn't paying a flat fee is like firing a double sided shotgun.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50759037]TBH I think people are really overestimating Trumps ability to actually get all of his craziness through the system (he's going to have bipartisan resistance) and underestimating how dangerous Clinton is.[/QUOTE] I don't understand this argument. So it's totally reasonable to elect a leader that believes in a whole bunch of crazy bullshit, because maybe they will only be able to put some of that crazy bullshit into place? What?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758855]From the creation of the US until WWI we kept to ourselves and didn't get involved in European wars or affairs, all we did was trade. We did really well selling war supplies to warring European empires, and we only got involved in the global community because Germany unjustly killed Americans and tried getting Mexico to go to war with us. The reason we got involved in world affairs was to protect American citizens.[/QUOTE] what is the barbary wars the war of 1812 the opium wars the boxer rebellion the spanish american war the mexican american war japan korea the phillipines or every single piece of diplomacy between us and europe and the entirety of american history leave it to the forums most steadfast trump supporter to literally have no clue about american history, but hey, you might not know what america is or ever was, BUT WELL MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN RIGHT!?

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759061]At least someone gets it. We have a system of checks and balances in power for a reason. There's already enough info on Clinton. [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] I'm aware of what symmetric warfare is. Those treaties are in place to prevent world wars with major powers which is why we don't use nukes or chemical weapons [I]on countries that can respond with equal weapons[/I]. Countries that don't have the same means form alliances with ones that do so they don't get the shit kicked out of them with these weapons. Terrorists don't give a shit about their own life or those of others, and one of the greatest national security concerns is what if a terrorist group gets a hold of radioactive materials, stolen nukes, or chemical weapons? The places we are fighting terrorism often have unstable governments, and in that case the alliances become a suggestion rather than a pact if the new government offers the country a better deal. Asymmetric warfare is an option for what we are fighting, but I don't have enough information to make a solid case for or against it.[/QUOTE] It's a republican controlled congress, numerous republicans support Trump, he will be getting legislation in, more so than Clinton for the time being. You're also ignoring the entire diplomatic ramifications of ignoring these treaties, we're not meant to use chemical weapons or torture is because they've been deemed inhumane, not because they'll cause a war, it's assumed it's already a war if you're even using them. If we start doing any of those things again our allied states will immediately start reprimanding for us it.

[QUOTE=Luni;50759107]Yeah, there's possible corruption (Clinton Foundation donors and weapons deals) and there was the incident with the email server. But as personally repugnant as she is, she won't walk out of negotiations, break treaties or start wars because someone insulted her. She has an actual working knowledge of government, and she isn't running to fulfill her own ego. She will not irreparably damage the United States. Trump is a cartoon character who is only here to aggrandize himself. He is arrogant and out of touch with reality. He is childish and short-tempered. He lies constantly and fluently, and appears to totally believe it. He is only superficially successful in business, and he only pays attention to someone or something if he can get something of value from it. No matter how much you dislike Clinton, Trump cannot be allowed in the White House.[/QUOTE] Clinton leaking classified information that could bring down our government out of her own negligence is more than a mere incident. I don't know why people claim he's superficially successful in business when he has $10 billion dollars from starting with $1 million he borrowed from his dad, his name plastered everywhere, and a bunch of skyscrapers. I can argue Clinton is running to fulfill her own ego based on her history and the Wikileaks emails that came out today, but honestly it doesn't matter. Trump's running because he thinks this country has gone to shit and he wants to fix it, but whatever you believe he's running for doesn't matter. What matters is what each candidate will do when in office. I can't convince you that Trump isn't lying in the same sense no one can convince me Clinton isn't lying about a ton of shit she says. Your claims that Trump is out of touch, arrogant, childish, and short-tempered are subjective. I can say similar things about Clinton and it would be just as valid because its an opinion. And what's wrong with looking for stuff that can make you better off? People network in their careers out of their own interest and it benefits everyone by having connections. Making deals with someone doesn't necessarily mean that one person is getting scammed; deals happen because both parties agree to it under the assumption that it will benefit each party member. If someone is getting ripped off they stop dealing with that person.

-snip-

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759257]Clinton leaking classified information that could bring down our government out of her own negligence is more than a mere incident. I don't know why people claim he's superficially successful in business when he has $10 billion dollars from starting with $1 million he borrowed from his dad, his name plastered everywhere, and a bunch of skyscrapers. I can argue Clinton is running to fulfill her own ego based on her history and the Wikileaks emails that came out today, but honestly it doesn't matter. Trump's running because he thinks this country has gone to shit and he wants to fix it, but whatever you believe he's running for doesn't matter. What matters is what each candidate will do when in office. I can't convince you that Trump isn't lying in the same sense no one can convince me Clinton isn't lying about a ton of shit she says. Your claims that Trump is out of touch, arrogant, childish, and short-tempered are subjective. I can say similar things about Clinton and it would be just as valid because its an opinion. And what's wrong with looking for stuff that can make you better off? People network in their careers out of their own interest and it benefits everyone by having connections. Making deals with someone doesn't necessarily mean that one person is getting scammed; deals happen because both parties agree to it under the assumption that it will benefit each party member. If someone is getting ripped off they stop dealing with that person.[/QUOTE] Small loan of a million dollars is so much more than 95% of people will have in their entire lives. He doesn't know what it's like to struggle or live in poverty. He was born into and raised in wealth and had everything fed to him with a golden spoon, just like any out of touch rich person. [QUOTE]Trump's running because he thinks this country has gone to shit and he wants to fix it, but whatever you believe he's running for doesn't matter[/QUOTE] He isn't going to fix it. He's going to run it into the ground if elected. [QUOTE]Your claims that Trump is out of touch, arrogant, childish, and short-tempered are subjective.[/QUOTE] Many of his voices, tweets, actions, interviews suggest otherwise that he is an out of touch, arrogant, childish, thin skinned, and short tempered man baby.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50758444]1) Trump refuses to release his tax returns. How shady is that? Apparently, to pro Trumpsters, not at all, to the rest of us, it's super telling of how shady, and how untrust worthy your choice for president is.[/QUOTE]You were the guy who was calling me paranoid in another thread for chasing after Hillary's questionable behavior, it's the equivalent of this shit right here. Yeah it's shady, but if it were me I wouldn't do it either and I'm guessing you would probably try to look through the numbers for discrepancies if you could. I know I would. That's just asking for trouble, and given Trump's chronic lack of funds I really, really don't think he has the time or the money to defend himself in court. (or simply avoid it like some people, but hahaha I'm paranoid when I point that out!) [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50758444]2) Donald Trump doesn't read, he didn't even write his own best seller.[/QUOTE]Show's over boys! He can't be president now. [QUOTE]Donald Trump doesn't read, he didn't even write his own best seller. And the person who did write it describes Donald Trump as a person who carries all the traits of a sociopath and shows an utter lack of interest in anything that's not related to him.[/QUOTE]So what if he is? Let's entertain this notion for a moment: this makes him no different than his opponent. Hillary Clinton is exhibits the same traits and you don't see me tossing out stupid, uninformed conjecture like this and I [U]truly[/U] [U]hate[/U] that woman. So I've got a choice between two sociopaths or being a retard who [I]apparently[/I] doesn't understand economics and doesn't believe in roads. Awesome, looks like I'm either fucked or I get insulted and honestly I'll be insulted anyway so I'll vote for Johnson. [QUOTE]You're voting for a narcissist of the highest order.[/QUOTE]I truly don't see why this matters, see above. [QUOTE]A person who literally redefines what "selfishness" is. You'll have a hell of a time arguing those are positive traits in a leader.[/QUOTE]Hoo boy. Well I'm not going to argue that they are, but considering your recommended option has all of the same traits I don't see why you're even talking right now. [QUOTE]3) His utter lack of policy relating to trade deals and his insistence that trade deals are stacked against America, and that without any plan in place, he'd fix that. That's an empty promise.[/QUOTE]What a [I]bastard![/I] Telling lies to get elected, it's unheard of! [QUOTE]4) That stupid wall.[/QUOTE]Fair point, but like every massive project promised by a presidential candidate this has a high chance of failing before it starts. I'll be honest with you, this wall idea doesn't even strike me as a possibility and it's just hot air. We simply don't have the money to actually do this, even if we take the measures laid out by his website it's just fiscally unreasonable to build a literal wall when there's plenty of other options that would do all of that and more. Hell, we could [I]mine the border[/I] and put up automatic sentry guns for far less if blood is what the people want, but realistically self-sufficient pylons with armored cameras to direct border patrol toward intruders would be far more effective and a hell of a lot cheaper. Hell even if people are obsessed with an actual physical barrier we could just extend the current measures and say "oh ho ho we built a fucking wall!" while having a five mile zone behind the border watched by thousands of electronic eyes. There's still going to be some cost involved though, even the most self-sufficient surveillance unit will break down and I imagine a shitload of border jumpers will shoot at them. That last point is why I'm A-OK and a hundred percent for beefing up border security, there [I]is[/I] actually violence there and if we're not going to do away with the retarded war on drugs then we might as well make the border strong. I think it should be strong anyway, I've never been much of a fan of the idea of free movement across these "imaginary lines" because socially and politically we're very different from Mexico. (and Canada to an extent) Sure, ~we're all human~ but knowing actual Mexicans I can't really say I want their political influence here in any capacity, so obviously the national border serves a purpose. Since it's staying it needs to weather all the bad things that come with geopolitics, and the flow of drugs really is a geopolitical issue once you get down to it. Cartels in South America are really their own little oligarchies with their own little armed forces and agendas, so in a way we truly are in a war. Plus there's always a threat of extremists slinking in which is a big issue for everyone I think, part of the reason why home-grown radicalism is even a thing here is because foreign terrorists have a hard time getting in. I would rather the advocates of nanny states focus on the edges of the country rather than trying to implement the shit we see in the UK, so I'm happy with the border being a constant source of attention. [QUOTE]5) Leaving NATO[/QUOTE]"NATO members do not pay their fair share" =/= "We will leave NATO" I agree with him on this point, why the fuck are we subsidizing Europe's defense? There's plenty of wealthy countries in Europe that enjoy nice social programs because they're not putting that money toward defense, meanwhile [I]my[/I] tax dollars are going toward keeping the same people who constantly insult me safe. Frankly I could live with pulling out of NATO and completely scaled back our overseas presence, the international community shouldn't be relying on us to solve all the problems in the third world and then bitch when we do it. Fuck that and every foreigner who does this can go straight to hell, fix it yourselves. I'll probably be dismissed as some dumb amerifat/burger/epithets/memes though, which would prove my point, and any point that might have been made will be ignored. I'm not really feeling like I should give a shit about you people beyond the border, at least not as far as my or anyone else's tax dollars are concerned, so please explain to me why my well-armed, [I]nuclear-capable,[/I] and economically strong nation needs to keep sending troops, tanks, planes, and ships all over the world. I'd love to know. Don't give me some argument about stability either, if we're that goddamn important to the rest of the world that we keep them from turning into savage cannibals then you might as well start paying us protection money. Or on the other hand people aren't actually barbarians in disguise and are just largely motivated by self-interest and don't need our firm hand to guide them. (PROTIP: I believe this last sentence, just for everyone who's seething with rage right now or otherwise can't read) [QUOTE]6) His constitutional ignorance should be disturbing for so called republicans who revere it but so many of you seem to throw your values away for fucking demagoguery[/QUOTE]Yeah I saw that part of this "scathing editorial" but the Washington Post cited the Washington Post seemingly taking Trump's response out of context. Way to open up on that point, Washington Post! By the way, was it clear that the Washington Post wanted you to read the Washington Post? Yes, I too enjoy citing my own opinions as fact and then having other people parrot my words as pure truth. Beyond that I'm not sure what ignorance Trump has displayed, and really, [I]I don't care[/I] because our government is chock full of people who don't know what the constitution says. Trump is not going to be any different than all those other people, so using any supposed ignorance on his part as some extraordinary reason why he's [I]just terrible[/I] is quite honestly absolutely fucking stupid. Psst, before you or anyone else accuse me of shilling for trump I'm voting for Johnson. I have to reiterate that since we're quickly reverting to primitive tribalism, if I'm not a hundred percent crystal clear on this I'll never hear the end of some error or turn of phrase in my post. (to be fair I don't think you would do this, but it needs to be said) [editline]22nd July 2016[/editline] Oh hey, the thread advanced quite a bit while I was typing that up.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50759257]I don't know why people claim he's superficially successful in business when he has $10 billion dollars from starting with $1 million he borrowed from his dad, his name plastered everywhere, and a bunch of skyscrapers. [/QUOTE] [quote]Trump’s self-portrayal as a Horatio Alger figure has buttressed his populist appeal in 2016. But his origins were hardly humble. Fred’s fortune, based on his ownership of middle-income properties, wasn’t glamorous, but it was sizable: in 2003, a few years after Fred died, Trump and his siblings reportedly sold some of their father’s real-estate holdings for half a billion dollars. In “The Art of the Deal,” Trump cites his father as “the most important influence on me,” but in his telling his father’s main legacy was teaching him the importance of “toughness.” Beyond that, Schwartz says, Trump “barely talked about his father—he didn’t want his success to be seen as having anything to do with him.” But when Barrett investigated he found that Trump’s father was instrumental in his son’s rise, financially and politically. In the book, Trump says that “my energy and my enthusiasm” explain how, as a twenty-nine-year-old with few accomplishments, he acquired the Grand Hyatt Hotel. Barrett reports, however, that Trump’s father had to co-sign the many contracts that the deal required. He also lent Trump seven and a half million dollars to get started as a casino owner in Atlantic City; at one point, when Trump couldn’t meet payments on other loans, his father tried to tide him over by sending a lawyer to buy some three million dollars’ worth of gambling chips. Barrett told me, “Donald did make some smart moves himself, particularly in assembling the site for the Trump Tower. That was a stroke of genius.” Nonetheless, he said, “The notion that he’s a self-made man is a joke. But I guess they couldn’t call the book ‘The Art of My Father’s Deals.’ ”[/quote]

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50759157]what is the barbary wars the war of 1812 the opium wars the boxer rebellion the spanish american war the mexican american war japan korea the phillipines or every single piece of diplomacy between us and europe and the entirety of american history leave it to the forums most steadfast trump supporter to literally have no clue about american history, but hey, you might not know what america is or ever was, BUT WELL MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN RIGHT!?[/QUOTE] I've taken World History and U.S. Naval History at my university, I know a lot about our history. [B]The Barbary Wars [/B]occured because the Barbary States were fucking up our trade in the Mediterranean, and our ships kept getting captured. [B]The War of 1812[/B] occured because Britain captured our sailors and made them part of the royal navy, restricted our trade in Europe (in particular France) because Britain was at war with France, and Britain armed and provided for Native Americans in the Northwest territories which hindered our country's expansion. The US was not a main part of the opium wars or the boxer rebellion. [B]The Mexican American War[/B] started over a territory dispute between the US and Mexico. [B]The Spanish American War[/B] started over the USS Maine, one of our armored cruisers, getting sunk in Havana Harbor. Everything else you mentioned happened [B]after WWI[/B] which is when we got globally involved. All of those wars started because [del][B][I]the national security of our country was challenged.[/I][/B][/del] we had our own interest in mind, either in security or expansion of our land. We didn't have those wars because of alliances with other countries, we had those wars because people were directly threatening us.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50758727][del]Give me a minute and I'll read through the torture stuff.[/del] Scharff found a technique that was more effective than torture. If that's the case then there's no reason for the CIA or FBI or anyone to try torture in the first place. Doesn't say anything about what the results of getting intel from torture are though. Still, the CIA said they won't implement it, and they are a public service and aren't bound to the president's orders. They need permission for certain sketchy things but their actions are given by the agency's director, not the president. The whole point of a country is having a group of people you agree to protect. You need to make an argument as to why protecting lives in all those other countries is worth spending our own money and soldier's lives to protect, and why its not their problem to solve. As for HumanAbyss, Mexico the money as I explained with the remittances. And if they're struggling that much, then they'd be really screwed when the remittances are cut off. That's why they would pay for a wall that fucks them, because they'd be really fucked if they didn't. And if they still can't, that's not our problem to address.[/QUOTE] It [B]is[/B] your issue. You're the country complaining about immigration, [B]even though net immigration is down in the last 3 years so the problem you're so concerned with is solving itself[/B]. If they refuse to pay for the wall, and it hurts them as much as I suspect, it'll blow back on to you. You have this strange idea your two peoples aren't connected. They are. What hurts one, will hurt the other. They will fucking riot over it, and you'll have to commit a military action, or back down? Trump will kill thousands over it is my guess.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.