• Trump finally reveals his brilliant plan to defeat ISIS (he doesn't have one; ask the generals)
    146 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kigen;51017413]So this election cycle is where voting for the lesser evil has gotten us. The only reason the main political parties can even offer up these candidates is because they have such a low bar to pass. Oh, the other candidate is shit. Then we can just sit here and provide an equally shitty candidate (but our opinion is that this candidate is just slightly less shit than the other candidate). Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised that if the next election is even worse. And it'll keep getting worse as long as the main two parties can keep up with their bullshit. People seriously need to stop voting lesser evil. Because when you vote lesser evil your ignoring the evils of the person your voting into power. And please, stop comparing people to fucking Hitler. Trump is not Hitler. Neither is Hillary.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sb27;51017439]The political parties didn't 'offer up' these candidates. In the case of Trump, he won the Republican presidential nomination (which is a democratic process) because a plurality of the voters, the alt-right, were united behind Trump, whereas the votes of the majority of Republican voters were severely split between about ten other candidates. So because traditional Republican voters couldn't get behind a single person, a bunch of outsiders came in and toppled the process onto its head.[/QUOTE] "Voting for the lesser evil" is literally how democracy works. You will never be happy with the presidential candidates on offer because they get where they are by appealing to literally everybody. It's a compromise between the citizens of a country for the sake of fairness; instead of one group having absolute power and everyone else sucking it, it means that everybody is equally unhappy- or at least that's the plan anyway. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton got to be the presidential candidates because they appeal to a majority (or in Trump's case, a plurality) of people. That doesn't mean that the majority (or plurality) 'like' them, it means that out of the huge number of people with all sorts of different views and beliefs the views expressed by the candidates is the most agreeable. However, there are arguably problems with the primary process, mainly that a small dedicated group of people can dictate the primaries because hardly anybody votes in the primaries, especially when there's a large number of candidates and the votes are spread out between them. There are also problems with FPTP (first past the post) style voting, where each citizen only votes for one candidate, and how it isn't as representative of the wishes of the constituency as preference voting (where you number your preferred candidates from most prefered to least prefered on a ballot paper)- but it's important to realize that these are structural issues and that even with a more representative democratic system you still have to vote for people you don't like.
[QUOTE=sb27;51017439]The political parties didn't 'offer up' these candidates. In the case of Trump, he won the Republican presidential nomination (which is a democratic process) because a plurality of the voters, the alt-right, were united behind Trump, whereas the votes of the majority of Republican voters were severely split between about ten other candidates. So because traditional Republican voters couldn't get behind a single person, a bunch of outsiders came in and toppled the process onto its head.[/QUOTE] Trump got ahead because all the Republican party has been pushing is fucking religious politicians. People are tried of stupid shit being hashed over like gay marriage, the bathroom crap, etc. I'm not voting for either Trump or Hillary. I'm voting Gary Johnson. And that is because I can agree with the majority of his policies. Can you find a politician you 100% agree with, no. But that doesn't mean you should vote for a candidate just so the other candidate can't get into office.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51017512]Trump got ahead because all the Republican party has been pushing is fucking religious politicians. People are tried of stupid shit being hashed over like gay marriage, the bathroom crap, etc.[/QUOTE] Trump also got ahead because of all the fear mongering over Muslims and Immigrants, it's the core argument of his platform.
[QUOTE=Zyler;51017487]"Voting for the lesser evil" is literally how democracy works. You will never be happy with the presidential candidates on offer because they get where they are by appealing to literally everybody. It's a compromise between the citizens of a country for the sake of fairness; instead of one group having absolute power and everyone else sucking it, it means that everybody is equally unhappy- or at least that's the plan anyway. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton got to be the presidential candidates because they appeal to a majority (or in Trump's case, a plurality) of people. However, there are arguably problems with the primary process, mainly that a small dedicated group of people can dictate the primaries because hardly anybody votes in the primaries, especially when there's a large number of candidates and the votes are spread out between them. There are also problems with FPTP (first past the post) style voting, where each citizen only votes for one candidate, and how it isn't as representative of the wishes of the constituency as preference voting (where you number your preferred candidates from most prefered to least prefered on a ballot paper)- but it's important to realize that these are structural issues and that even with a more representative democratic system you still have to vote for people you don't like.[/QUOTE] I didn't vote for the lesser evil, I voted for Bernie. [i]I'll be voting for Hillary but I'm not happy about it[/i]
Ironically, asking the Generals for input would be the best possible response to this question.
[QUOTE=false prophet;51017808]Ironically, asking the Generals for input would be the best possible response to this question.[/QUOTE] It's good that Trump will actually listen to other people (I believe he once called himself his best advisor), but the way he's said it is condescending as it implies that the generals have been sitting there with their thumbs up their asses this whole time; saying they have '30 days to submit their plans to defeat ISIS', yet those generals have been working on the ISIS problem with Obama for [i]years[/i]. It also shows a lack of understanding on Trump's part. He's classifying this as just a military issue, as if all that it takes to destroy ISIS is to drop a few bombs here and shoot some people there; but he's not considering [i]why[/i] people are joining ISIS in the first place. You can't destroy an ideology with bombs and guns. That's why the allies implemented an extensive de-nazification program in Germany following the Second World War.
[QUOTE=rilez;51017283]I feel like I've been in an episode of the fucking Twilight Zone for this entire election cycle.[/QUOTE] It's like political parody made real. The Trump Campaign: brought to you by [I]The Onion.[/I]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51017883]It's like political parody made real. The Trump Campaign: brought to you by [I]The Onion.[/I][/QUOTE] I've been relating more and more to that one tweet that says something along the lines of "I feel like I'm in the start of a very tense and awkward chapter of my childrens' history books."
[QUOTE=false prophet;51017808]Ironically, asking the Generals for input would be the best possible response to this question.[/QUOTE] The same generals that Trump implied didn't know what they were doing? [B]"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."[/B] The same generals that Trump promised to teach how to destroy ISIS? [B]“I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table or, beyond that, defeat ISIS very quickly.”[/B] The same generals who, as implied by the very goddamn nature of his demand to have a plan to destroy Islamic extremism for good in 30 days or less, must have been sitting around doing nothing for the past 15 years? I agree that asking military leaders for their input on how to best handle the ISIS situation is a sound strategy, but Trump has spent his entire campaign accusing them of fucking the whole situation up and promising to teach them how to do their jobs once he was in office. Trump has stated for over a year now that he has a surefire plan to achieve [U]total victory[/U] over ISIS ([I]a plan so brilliant that he daren't even [b]speak[/b] it for fear of alerting ISIS lmao[/I]) and yet when push came to shove, it turned out this fabled plan... didn't actually exist. All that fucking guff, and he has [B]nothing[/B] to show for it.
I hope people stop saying that they won't vote for Hillary because she's a flip flopper. Sure, Hillary has changed her stances over the years (who hasn't?), but Trump literally changes his stances every other month [i]during[/i] his campaigning for the Presidency.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51017921]The same generals that Trump implied didn't know what they were doing? [B]"I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."[/B] The same generals that Trump promised to teach how to destroy ISIS? [B]“I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table or, beyond that, defeat ISIS very quickly.”[/B] The same generals who, as implied by the very goddamn nature of his demand to have a plan to destroy Islamic extremism for good in 30 days or less, must have been sitting around doing nothing for the past 15 years? I agree that asking military leaders for their input on how to best handle the ISIS situation is a sound strategy, but Trump has spent his entire campaign accusing them of fucking the whole situation up and promising to teach them how to do their jobs once he was in office. Trump has stated for over a year now that he has a surefire plan to achieve [U]total victory[/U] over ISIS ([I]a plan so brilliant that he daren't even [b]speak[/b] it for fear of alerting ISIS lmao[/I]) and yet when push came to shove, it turned out this fabled plan... didn't actually exist. All that fucking guff, and he has [B]nothing[/B] to show for it.[/QUOTE] But you don't understand -- this is just another move in his game of 4D chess. His supporters will just wave it away, saying you just don't understand his master plan, or the media is lying just like they "lied" to "smear" him as a racist.
Isis is pretty much just about dying, seems he's just trying to look tough
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51015826]If you are voting for Trump, you are voting for a vapid, ineffectual, anti-intellectual demagogue who has absolutely no idea what he's doing and no actual plan for moving forward. He contradicts himself at every possible turn. He spews whatever inane bullshit he thinks he needs to in order to win over the voters.[/QUOTE] Calm yourself, you are a mod ffs
[QUOTE=SirJon;51018110]Isis is pretty much just about dying, seems he's just trying to look tough[/QUOTE] The thing about extremist organizations is that they never really [I]disappear,[/I] they just change form. As ISIS continues to crumble, its supporters will fracture into new or different extremist organizations and war for influence. Eventually, so long as the conditions that breed extremism remain right (and we are in fertile ground indeed), the most powerful of these groups will begin to annex the smaller ones, and the world will see a new extremist threat. Call it ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, Hezbollah, or anything else: the real name is Islamic extremism, and it's not a threat that can be destroyed with bombs or bullets. Don't get me wrong, military action is often necessary to break down extremist groups, but before, during, and especially [I]after[/I] the bullets have stopped flying, it is critically important to attack the [i]factors[/I] of radicalization, and not just the people who have become radicalized. Religious persecution, as seen in Europe, or especially as seen between different factions of the Muslim faith, is a major factor of radicalization. Social, economic, and political instability are factors of radicalization. Gutted public infrastructures are factors of radicalization. Though it's a bit of an oversimplified explanation, these are some of the key points to focus on in the [I]real[/I] war against religious extremism within the Middle East. The problem with men like Trump is that they are blind to this. They believe the problem can be solved by "bombing the shit out of them," but what happens when the dust settles? You can't just kill extremists, you have to [I]prevent[/I] people from being pushed into it in the first place. The ignorant like to chalk it up to the basic common denominator, that all Islamic extremists are Muslim, but considering that less than 0.067% of Muslims are actually involved in extremism, and that extremism tends to originate geographically rather than demographically, it's clear that this is far from the most important factor.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51018261]Calm yourself, you are a mod ffs[/QUOTE] His post was an attack on trump, not on the posters who have been defending him. Although there has been a trend of Trump supporters here reveling in shitposting, insults, and generally lowering the level of dialogue here with memes and arguments ripped straight from infowars and /pol/
[QUOTE=MasterKade;51016039]Lesser evil, prevents Trump from getting into office, more likely to win in comparison to third party candidates.[/QUOTE] It's like choosing between being stabbed and being shot. It fucking sucks either way.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51017236]You wouldn't just throw the blame at the capitalists who decided "Banking isn't generating enough money, lets do some really shady shit to bundle and repackage debts, risks, and other obligations into investments that are falsely rated AAA"? Because it's their fucking fault more than any ideology or "Ignorant analyst". Rich people with too much greed, rich institutions with too much greed. Greed is the problem. And you want to elect the greediest man in your country to run it because... [editline]7th September 2016[/editline] Greenspan was an idiot who ignored obvious signs to maintain his ideology. He's at fault for at least part of what the US, and global economies suffered through in 2008/9.[/QUOTE] You want someone to blame go back to the Bill Clinton administration when the foundation for the housing bubble was started with bankers and mortgage companies given the go ahead to disregard all credit scores, job history, and income all for the sake of getting people in homes. Greenspan was an idiot, but he isn't the only one to blame here.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51020939]You want someone to blame go back to the Bill Clinton administration when the foundation for the housing bubble was started with bankers and mortgage companies given the go ahead to disregard all credit scores, job history, and income all for the sake of getting people in homes. Greenspan was an idiot, but he isn't the only one to blame here.[/QUOTE] No but people hold Greenspan up like he's the fucking messiah of the economy. He wasn't, isn't, never has been. Clinton did stupid shit, and I'm full well down with blaming him, but don't act like Greenspan, who chaired the reserve from 87 onwards didn't play a pivotal, central role in convincing the Clinton administration that it was a prudent move to do that. And they listened, because he's been hailed as the messiah. To act like he wasn't vastly important, central, and formative to that movement is ignorant. The Clinton administration is responsible, for listening to him, and going with his ideas.
Because America's generals have just not been making plans to fight ISIS. All they needed was an actual president to just tell them to do it :goodjob:
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51021169]No but people hold Greenspan up like he's the fucking messiah of the economy. He wasn't, isn't, never has been. Clinton did stupid shit, and I'm full well down with blaming him, but don't act like Greenspan, who chaired the reserve from 87 onwards didn't play a pivotal, central role in convincing the Clinton administration that it was a prudent move to do that. And they listened, because he's been hailed as the messiah. To act like he wasn't vastly important, central, and formative to that movement is ignorant. The Clinton administration is responsible, for listening to him, and going with his ideas.[/QUOTE] Oho I'm not going to argue that Greenspan wasn't a idiot or had a role, he most definitely did. I just get tired of hearing how he's the only one taking blame the vast majority of the time.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51021219]Because America's generals have just not been making plans to fight ISIS. All they needed was an actual president to just tell them to do it :goodjob:[/QUOTE] I bet the generals proposed 500 different solutions to the situation in the middle east at no cost, but Obama just went "Nah fuck that, I ain't doing shit".
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51021432]Oho I'm not going to argue that Greenspan wasn't a idiot or had a role, he most definitely did. I just get tired of hearing how he's the only one taking blame the vast majority of the time.[/QUOTE] They all played a part in it but it's hard to argue that due to Greenspans perceived status, people were more inclined to listen to him. Because of that, an administration followed the advice of the foremost financial adviser at the time, who wouldn't? It just ends up being that he was, at the heart of it all, basing his ideology on a falsehood.
Sorry - your plan is backfiring. When paid Hillary supports [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html"]spam lies on forums[/URL], it just rallies the TRUMP supporters. PS: MAGA [B]PPS: Check out the definition of hypocrisy in my [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1533761&p=51021565&viewfull=1#post51021565"]Refugee Camp thread[/URL]![/B] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
The implication of course being that BDA is a paid Hillary shill, right?
[QUOTE=Leo5gg;51021457]Sorry - your plan is backfiring. When paid Hillary supports [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html"]spam lies on forums[/URL], it just rallies the TRUMP supporters. PS: MAGA[/QUOTE] if you honestly think there's a paid shill on here of all websites, you're too far gone. I can never tell if you Trumpets are trolls, or just genuinely deluded.
Directly quoting Donald Trump = Liberal [I]Lies[/I] [editline]8th September 2016[/editline] Hillary, if you're reading this, you can send the money directly to my PayPal account.
[QUOTE=sb27;51017937]I hope people stop saying that they won't vote for Hillary because she's a flip flopper. Sure, Hillary has changed her stances over the years (who hasn't?), but Trump literally changes his stances every other month [i]during[/i] his campaigning for the Presidency.[/QUOTE] To be fair a lot of the time he first expresses his actual opinions (e.g. pro trans), then retracts it. It's a pretty clever tactic because liberals who don't see his change for whatever reason will possibly vote for him because he's socially pro-X. Then he expresses the opinions that the right wing wants to hear so they think that he's genuinely flip flopped and settled on being against X.
Not that I support trump, because quite frankly hrs a bumbling fool, but that's more or less what most presidents do when they take office. Damn near every candidate for the Last 30 years have been politicians first, with only a handful who ever served. HW bush was the last one to actually see combat, but even then he was a LT flying airplanes. Long story short you're more or less going in blind not knowing the situation in its entirety as well as lacking little too no experience handling it tactfully. That's why a strong cabinet and advisors are such an important thing, and why people like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheng were able to sway things the way they did under a president who trusted them a little too much.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51015826]If you are voting for Trump, you are voting for a vapid, ineffectual, anti-intellectual demagogue who has absolutely no idea what he's doing and no actual plan for moving forward. He contradicts himself at every possible turn. He spews whatever inane bullshit he thinks he needs to in order to win over the voters.[/QUOTE] And if you vote for clinton you are voting for a brain-damaged crone puppet who will say anything to get elected and fulfill absolutely none of her promises (Obama literally said this about her), so your point is...? [editline]9th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MasterKade;51016039]Lesser evil, prevents Trump from getting into office, more likely to win in comparison to third party candidates.[/QUOTE] Clinton isn't a lesser evil. She's a quieter, more experienced evil who knows how to hide her intentions better and not make as much of an ass of herself. That doesn't make her the lesser evil.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;51023535]And if you vote for clinton you are voting for a brain-damaged crone puppet who will say anything to get elected and fulfill absolutely none of her promises [B](Obama literally said this about her)[/B], so your point is...?[/QUOTE] Citation needed
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.