2016 Democratic Thread

[CrimsonWeltall]

What do you mean both sides?

 

Some guy wrote a stupid headline calling Trump "Putin" due to various pro-Putin comments.

 

This is basically the same thing as a crazy person who literally believes that Hillary Clinton holds some reverence for an evil devil monster.

[bmags]

DOOMSDAY! EVERYONE RUN FOR THE HILLS! THE COMMIES ARE COMING!

 

Jesus that article is so bad. Throw out a conspiracy theory (Trumps campaign manager used to work for the President of Ukraine, who was backed by PUTIN. OHHHHHH!!!!! I'm not saying Putin is running Trump's campaign, but i'm not, not saying it either!!!!); claim that Trump would let Russia "advance" its interests into the Middle East and Europe and that Trump would "immediately" trigger instability by dismantling global relations (what power he has!); claim Trump wouldn't defend NATO members and then quote Trump saying he would do exactly that after determining if said country had fulfilled their own obligations to the US (the gall! Making sure other parties to an agreement hold up their end of the deal!)

 

Yep! Cuz Obama's hard, pro-American world police force stance on foreign policy prevented Putin from doing anything close to that! Putin/Russia have been so quiet the last few years!

 

How many liberals have said this exact line? Didn't Obama go on a world wide apology tour saying the exact same thing? That we lack legitimacy after our own mistakes? And now this is a bad thing to say? oh, ok, if you say so!

 

What a drama queen.

 

Seriously, there is SO many reasons why Trump would be an awful President. Why make up some fear mongering commie bulls***?

 

The hysterical thing is that you think that undermining one of the most important and globally important treaty that exists, against a country that has already openly taken territory (which doesn't happen in modern global politics) is no big deal.

 

How is it fear mongering? Why on earth did they water down the Ukraine language? It came from Trump's camp. There are like, a few places where we don't want to tamp down our power, and eastern europe is a big one.

 

"There are so many reasons why trump wouldn' tbe a good president" Give me a break. This is the biggest. This is actual policy he is prescribing and he is showing he's an idiot.

 

Acting like hiring Manafort after he was a lobbyist for a Putin puppet PM in Ukraine is nothing. That would be true, some people need work. But when they then start signalling all of this crap about not supporting eastern european countries? That's a big deal.

[Jenksismyhero]

The hysterical thing is that you think that undermining one of the most important and globally important treaty that exists, against a country that has already openly taken territory (which doesn't happen in modern global politics) is no big deal.

 

How is it fear mongering? Why on earth did they water down the Ukraine language? It came from Trump's camp. There are like, a few places where we don't want to tamp down our power, and eastern europe is a big one.

 

"There are so many reasons why trump wouldn' tbe a good president" Give me a break. This is the biggest. This is actual policy he is prescribing and he is showing he's an idiot.

 

Acting like hiring Manafort after he was a lobbyist for a Putin puppet PM in Ukraine is nothing. That would be true, some people need work. But when they then start signalling all of this crap about not supporting eastern european countries? That's a big deal.

 

I think it's a HUGE (Trump voice) stretch to say Trump is "undermining" NATO based on one instance of him not wanting to openly declare that we would supply Ukraine with weapons they need to fight Russia. I don't necessarily agree with that stance, but i'm also not going to claim this is all part of a master plan to allow Putin to take over Europe and the Middle East. It's a huge, huge leap and it's just a fear mongering play involving communists.

 

edit: and it's a fear mongering headline. He could have easily made the point that this is worrisome for global stabilization or regional stabilization without calling Trump Putin or indirectly saying Trump wants to help Putin take over Europe and the Middle East.

 

edit 2: those statements also fall in line with his prior comments and his general foreign policy position: it's not our fight, let someone else handle it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-po...-united-states/

Edited July 21, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[lostfan]

I seriously doubt Trump even knows what the f*** he was talking about and he was talking out of his ass. His comments on NATO sounded like a high school student who didn't do the reading assignment trying to bulls*** his way through an answer when he gets called on unexpectedly. But this wasn't some small thing and don't be trying to downplay it. It was *NOT* a responsible statement in any context whatsoever.

[bmags]

I think it's a HUGE (Trump voice) stretch to say Trump is "undermining" NATO based on one instance of him not wanting to openly declare that we would supply Ukraine with weapons they need to fight Russia. I don't necessarily agree with that stance, but i'm also not going to claim this is all part of a master plan to allow Putin to take over Europe and the Middle East. It's a huge, huge leap and it's just a fear mongering play involving communists.

 

Jenks, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/polit...rview.html?_r=0

 

His actual words are that he would only follow the NATO treaty if "they are paying their bills".

 

Putin politics are showing a remarkable amount of power in the Trump platform. That's a real thing, that's not theoretical.

 

So it's not just watering down platform language conspicuously to be on pro-russian terms, it's openly claiming he will not follow the NATO Treaty.

[lostfan]

Jenks, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/polit...rview.html?_r=0

 

His actual words are that he would only follow the NATO treaty if "they are paying their bills".

 

Putin politics are showing a remarkable amount of power in the Trump platform. That's a real thing, that's not theoretical.

 

So it's not just watering down platform language conspicuously to be on pro-russian terms, it's openly claiming he will not follow the NATO Treaty.

I read that, and my first thought was "he literally thinks NATO countries write the United States a check in exchange for military protection, and he's worried they're in arrears? because no..."

[bmags]

I read that, and my first thought was "he literally thinks NATO countries write the United States a check in exchange for military protection, and he's worried they're in arrears? because no..."

 

Obama has pushed the "no free riders" extensively in his presidency, but his major pressure was to prevent Britain/France from cuts. Luckily Hollande is fairly hawkish. but Cameron almost went beneath 2% and had to make sure that didn't happen.

 

But that's not what Trump is arguing for. He's basically saying the biggest part of the treaty doesn't matter because incredibly small countries aren't keeping their target military.

[bmags]

Maybe Putin isn't quite Satan, buts it's hilarious to mock that ridiculous comparison then literally post an article titled "It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin". I mean come on, lol. But #bothsides and all that.

 

I wish I knew of a big time satanist player like the one Jimmy Page hung out with to make ajoke about hiring him as a campaign manager, but alas I don't.

 

Funny that you think of global players in caricatures though. Saying he is putin isn't close to saying he's the devil. Putin has policies and strategies he's advancing. It's not an abstract concept of evil.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/polit...rview.html?_r=0

 

His actual words are that he would only follow the NATO treaty if "they are paying their bills".

 

Putin politics are showing a remarkable amount of power in the Trump platform. That's a real thing, that's not theoretical.

 

So it's not just watering down platform language conspicuously to be on pro-russian terms, it's openly claiming he will not follow the NATO Treaty.

 

I don't see where he says he won't honor NATO in there. Where does it say that?

 

He explains pretty clearly this is about negotiation tactics:

 

TRUMP: Or, if we cannot make the right deal, to take on the burden themselves. You said it wrong because you said or — or if we cannot make the right deal for proper reimbursement to take on the burden themselves. Yes. Now, Hillary Clinton said: “I will never leave Japan. I will never leave Japan. Will never leave any of our ——” Well now, once you say that, guess what happens? What happens?

 

HABERMAN: You’re stuck.

 

TRUMP: You can’t negotiate.

 

HABERMAN: Right.

 

TRUMP: In a deal, you always have to be prepared to walk. Hillary Clinton has said, “We will never, ever walk.” That’s a wonderful phrase, but unfortunately, if I were on Saudi Arabia’s side, Germany, Japan, South Korea and others, I would say, “Oh, they’re never leaving, so what do we have to pay them for?” Does that make sense to you, David?

 

SANGER: It does, but we also know that defending the United States is a harder thing to do if you’re not forward-deployed.

 

TRUMP: By the way, and I know what I’m talking about is massive. If we ever felt there was a reason to defend the United States, we can always deploy, and it would be a lot less expense. …

 

HABERMAN: Can we switch to current events, recent events?

 

TRUMP: You understand what ——

 

SANGER: I do, I do.

 

TRUMP: You always have to be prepared to walk. It doesn’t mean I want to walk. And I would prefer not to walk. You have to be prepared and our country cannot afford to do what we’re doing.

 

He wants to hold the card that says we'll walk if we can't get paid for being the world's police. Rightly or wrongly, he views everything as a business negotiation.

 

Trump is talking about removing our soldiers from various places around the world. This is precisely what uber-liberals like Maher have been demanding for years and years.

 

[bmags]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING PAID. If you think that is a good interview, there is nothing left to discuss.

[Jenksismyhero]

I read that, and my first thought was "he literally thinks NATO countries write the United States a check in exchange for military protection, and he's worried they're in arrears? because no..."

 

I think he's saying those same countries can afford their own military and we don't need to be involved unless we're being compensated for doing so. He's right - we have our own s*** to worry about.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING PAID. If you think that is a good interview, there is nothing left to discuss.

 

Ok, being paid versus not wasting our money. Same difference.

[bmags]

I think he's saying those same countries can afford their own military and we don't need to be involved unless we're being compensated for doing so. He's right - we have our own s*** to worry about.

 

OK so you are agreeing that his strategy is we abandon NATO.

[Jenksismyhero]

OK so you are agreeing that his strategy is we abandon NATO.

 

Uh, no. I think he pretty clearly states that that's not his desire, that's not his wish and that as a negotiation tactic it would be better if those countries understood that we COULD leave. That's literally all he says there.

 

 

Again, please cite to me where he says he won't honor NATO or he wants to get rid of it (or at least our involvement in it). I'd like to see that because apparently i've glossed over it.

Edited July 21, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[Jenksismyhero]

And how do YOU guys not agree with this:

 

SANGER: So that suggests that you would not, as, say, President Bush did, the last President Bush, make the spread of democracy and liberty sort of a core of your foreign policy. You would say, “We need allies, we’re not going to lecture them about what they do inside their borders.”

 

TRUMP: We need allies.

 

SANGER: And lecture inside their borders?

 

TRUMP: I don’t know that we have a right to lecture. Just look about what’s happening with our country. How are we going to lecture when people are shooting our policemen in cold blood. How are we going to lecture when you see the riots and the horror going on in our own country. We have so many difficulties in our country right now that I don’t think we should be, and there may be a time when we can get much more aggressive on that subject, and it will be a wonderful thing to be more aggressive. We’re not in a position to be more aggressive. We have to fix our own mess.

 

I 100% agree with this! How can we lecture other people about how they act when we have the problems we have? It's completely disingenuous. That doesn't mean democracy and freedom aren't great things and we should be pushing that around the world, but how do we have the standing to lecture with the s*** going on in our own backyard?

 

Hot damn, I think that's the first time i've agreed with something he's said.

Edited July 21, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[lostfan]

And how do YOU guys not agree with this:

 

 

 

I 100% agree with this! How can we lecture other people about how they act when we have the problems we have? It's completely disingenuous. That doesn't mean democracy and freedom aren't great things and we should be pushing that around the world, but how do we have the standing to lecture with the s*** going on in our own backyard?

 

Hot damn, I think that's the first time i've agreed with something he's said.

Place the goalposts back where you found them please.

[Jenksismyhero]

Place the goalposts back where you found them please.

 

Huh? That was a point raised in that crap article bmags posted.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I 100% agree with this! How can we lecture other people about how they act when we have the problems we have? It's completely disingenuous. That doesn't mean democracy and freedom aren't great things and we should be pushing that around the world, but how do we have the standing to lecture with the s*** going on in our own backyard?

 

Good point. We really can't criticize other countries for anything given that Donald Trump is a major party nominee here.

 

More seriously though, what s*** are you referring to?

 

"Hey Turkey, stop trending towards dictatorship and purging massive numbers of suspected opponents from government and academia."

"Shut up America, you had some a-hole shoot 5 cops."

"Good point, nm"

Edited July 21, 2016 by CrimsonWeltall

[bmags]

Uh, no. I think he pretty clearly states that that's not his desire, that's not his wish and that as a negotiation tactic it would be better if those countries understood that we COULD leave. That's literally all he says there.

 

 

Again, please cite to me where he says he won't honor NATO or he wants to get rid of it (or at least our involvement in it). I'd like to see that because apparently i've glossed over it.

 

So NATO is this treaty signed by a bunch of North Atlantic countries that's core purpose is basically that if you attack any of those countries you attack all of them. It served as a check on Russian overreach, and has continued to preserve peace against western Europe. That's the core purpose of NATO.

 

The question was if Russia invaded a NATO baltic country would the US come to their defense. And he said "have they fulfilled their obligations to us".

 

The 2% thing is nice, but all countries did send troups to the ISAF. If you are saying you will fail to come to the assistance of a NATO ally unless you like how much they contributed, you are walking away from NATO. What is its purpose otherwise?

 

Russia invading a sovereign nation is a big deal even if it is not NATO. But come on. Why on earth would you signal that you wouldn't protect the biggest treaty the US has going? It's not like he's saying the Monroe Doctrine is bulls***.

[bmags]

And how do YOU guys not agree with this:

 

 

 

I 100% agree with this! How can we lecture other people about how they act when we have the problems we have? It's completely disingenuous. That doesn't mean democracy and freedom aren't great things and we should be pushing that around the world, but how do we have the standing to lecture with the s*** going on in our own backyard?

 

Hot damn, I think that's the first time i've agreed with something he's said.

 

Yes. Because that is what people are upset about. That question.

[lostfan]

Huh? That was a point raised in that crap article bmags posted.

That's not the part of his interview anyone's criticizing him for, especially in this thread, so it sounds like you're trying to play a semantic game where you can score points than actually engage the criticism of Trump.

[lostfan]

Good point. We really can't criticize other countries for anything given that Donald Trump is a major party nominee here.

 

More seriously though, what s*** are you referring to?

 

"Hey Turkey, stop trending towards dictatorship and purging massive numbers of suspected opponents from government and academia."

"Shut up America, you had some a-hole shoot 5 cops."

"Good point, nm"

I'd be very surprised to see him criticize that considering Christie has actually said, out loud, that he wants to do that very thing.

[bmags]

I'd be very surprised to see him criticize that considering Christie has actually said, out loud, that he wants to do that very thing.

 

EU Has way more leverage than US anyway. But impossible to see how Turkey has any momentum to get in. Entry would mean a surge of kurds and other dissidents into Germany, et al.

 

Edit: I didn't really read what you wrote, lol.

Edited July 21, 2016 by bmags

[Jenksismyhero]

Good point. We really can't criticize other countries for anything given that Donald Trump is a major party nominee here.

 

More seriously though, what s*** are you referring to?

 

"Hey Turkey, stop trending towards dictatorship and purging massive numbers of suspected opponents from government and academia."

"Shut up America, you had some a-hole shoot 5 cops."

"Good point, nm"

 

I mean, that's kind of a good point actually... we nominated a permanently sunburnt racist with no political experience whatsoever as a nominee for President, so yeah, maybe we shouldn't be going around the world telling people how to govern themselves.

 

That's different from telling countries to stop murdering people though. You went a little extreme there with your example.

[Jenksismyhero]

So NATO is this treaty signed by a bunch of North Atlantic countries that's core purpose is basically that if you attack any of those countries you attack all of them. It served as a check on Russian overreach, and has continued to preserve peace against western Europe. That's the core purpose of NATO.

 

The question was if Russia invaded a NATO baltic country would the US come to their defense. And he said "have they fulfilled their obligations to us".

 

The 2% thing is nice, but all countries did send troups to the ISAF. If you are saying you will fail to come to the assistance of a NATO ally unless you like how much they contributed, you are walking away from NATO. What is its purpose otherwise?

 

Russia invading a sovereign nation is a big deal even if it is not NATO. But come on. Why on earth would you signal that you wouldn't protect the biggest treaty the US has going? It's not like he's saying the Monroe Doctrine is bulls***.

 

So, right, he didn't say he wanted to get rid of NATO or that the US wouldn't fulfill it's obligation. That's what I thought.