The Trump Lump: How do you feel?

[Thief]

I think if any Republican candidate gets in we'll be in WWIII, and I don't want to be drafted.

I believe THAT will happen anyway.
but at the moment.....Obama is reducing our nukes to an all time low.

 

[Awoon]

I think if any Republican candidate gets in we'll be in WWIII, and I don't want to be drafted.

Who would profit from another WW?

 

[Thief]

Who would profit from another WW?

any survivor that had enough lead to hold on to what he stored up.....

long live the Preppers!

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I think if any Republican candidate gets in we'll be in WWIII, and I don't want to be drafted.

When it comes to invading foreign countries I'd have to say mainstream Republicans and Democrats are as bad as each other. Obama's quite the keen bean when it comes to bombing other nations and spreading the gospel of democracy around the world, a prime example would be wrecking Libya and causing a huge migrant crisis in Europe. He even nearly started bombing Syria too, if it wasn't for the UK pulling out thanks to Ed Miliband and hence stopping the USA, because they didn't want to go in by themselves. And at that point if they did go in, Obama would have been fighting President Assad alongside ISIS!

On top of this, Obama has done nothing to solve the Ukraine crisis except exacerbate tensions with Russia by placing sanctions on them, when the USA supported the Euromaiden riots in Ukraine which started this all off in the first place, despite claiming to be a supporter of democratic process!

There's nothing conservative about invading foreign countries, nor is there anything liberal about it. This is the new political ideology that came to the fore in the 80s and 90s (though it had been creeping in for decades really), the USA is the world policeman (whether Republican or Democrat) along with his less spectacular sidekick the UK, and together they go around saving the world (when in reality, they go around destabilising the world and leaving huge power vacuums after toppling a dictator, only to be filled by another authoritarian regime or by mass anarchy).

So if you're worried about WWIII, don't worry, there'd be no difference if either party wins (unless, somehow, the Republicans elect Rand Paul as their leader, who is generally against foreign interventions, and the Democrats somehow elect a non-interventionist leader too).

 

[Underhill]

When it comes to invading foreign countries I'd have to say mainstream Republicans and Democrats are as bad as each other. Obama's quite the keen bean when it comes to bombing other nations and spreading the gospel of democracy around the world, a prime example would be wrecking Libya and causing a huge migrant crisis in Europe. He even nearly started bombing Syria too, if it wasn't for the UK pulling out thanks to Ed Miliband and hence stopping the USA, because they didn't want to go in by themselves. And at that point if they did go in, Obama would have been fighting President Assad alongside ISIS!

On top of this, Obama has done nothing to solve the Ukraine crisis except exacerbate tensions with Russia by placing sanctions on them, when the USA supported the Euromaiden riots in Ukraine which started this all off in the first place, despite claiming to be a supporter of democratic process!

There's nothing conservative about invading foreign countries, nor is there anything liberal about it. This is the new political ideology that came to the fore in the 80s and 90s (though it had been creeping in for decades really), the USA is the world policeman (whether Republican or Democrat) along with his less spectacular sidekick the UK, and together they go around saving the world (when in reality, they go around destabilising the world and leaving huge power vacuums after toppling a dictator, only to be filled by another authoritarian regime or by mass anarchy).

So if you're worried about WWIII, don't worry, there'd be no difference if either party wins (unless, somehow, the Republicans elect Rand Paul as their leader, who is generally against foreign interventions, and the Democrats somehow elect a non-interventionist leader too).

The US "supporting" the riots is a bit of a stretch. We condemned the treatment of protesters, which led to the riots. But that is not the same as supporting the riots.

I think the primary difference between Obama and his right wing counterparts is the influence of allies.. Overall I think Obama has tried, in a very tough time, to pick the lesser of two evils in most of these cases. I support what he has done with Russia. It's the only logical response. The Iran deal is much the same, with the only realistic alternatives being watch everyone else in the world lift sanctions so we are forced eventually to bomb Iran. Syria, Libya and Iraq right now are a cluster*&%^. There is no "good answer". It is navigating a mine field and I doubt anyone could do so unscathed.

I'm no expert by any stretch. But it seems the republicans work from a different playbook. I think they see Russia as a potential trade partner. They see the entire middle east only through the lenses of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

I don't know your political leanings but I've noticed many people condemning Obama for, on the one hand, sanctioning Russia who is actively invading another country while, at the same time, condemning him for lifting sanctions against Cuba, who hasn't done anything serious since the early 70's. *boggle

 

[YmirGF]

Although I can't vote legally in the American election *giggles* when one considers the alternatives, Trumpet doesn't seem quite so bad. Of late, I've been rather smitten by Carly though. Seriously, anybody but the Hildebeest.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The US "supporting" the riots is a bit of a stretch. We condemned the treatment of protesters, which led to the riots. But that is not the same as supporting the riots.

“Violence and intimidation should have no place in today’s Ukraine. We continue to support the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to achieve a prosperous European democracy. European integration is the surest course to economic growth and to strengthening Ukraine’s democracy.” - White House press secretary Jay Carney. http://www.euronews.com/2013/12/03/the-un-and-washington-condemn-violence-in-ukraine/

There are all sorts of theories that the US supported the riots financially, but what we do know from quotes like the one above is that the US government did explicitly support the riots at least in words, when really they should have stayed out of another country's business and respected its democratic process. "We continue to support the aspirations of the Ukranian people". This is blatant misinformation on the part of the US, at best it's ignorance, which would be surprising for the all-knowing superstate, and at worst it's full-on propaganda. The majority of Ukrainians did not support the Euromaiden riots, nor did the majority support more European integration. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Support_for_Euromaidan_in_Ukraine)

I think the primary difference between Obama and his right wing counterparts is the influence of allies.. Overall I think Obama has tried, in a very tough time, to pick the lesser of two evils in most of these cases. I support what he has done with Russia. It's the only logical response. The Iran deal is much the same, with the only realistic alternatives being watch everyone else in the world lift sanctions so we are forced eventually to bomb Iran. Syria, Libya and Iraq right now are a cluster*&%^. There is no "good answer". It is navigating a mine field and I doubt anyone could do so unscathed.

Iran has many forward-thinking modern citizens, and many would say it's actually more of an ancient European civilisation in the Middle East. I have my doubts about the Iran deal, and am very uneasy about what their true intentions are, but I do want them to be a part of the international community again, we cannot leave them in isolation forever.

I'm no expert by any stretch. But it seems the republicans work from a different playbook. I think they see Russia as a potential trade partner. They see the entire middle east only through the lenses of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

I believe the mainstream Republican candidates support the sanctions on Russia, and some probably want harsher ones. I think Donald Trump wants to be friends with Putin, but he is Donald Trump. Jeb Bush called Putin "a bully", and Ted Cruz wants to arm Ukranian fighters.

I don't know your political leanings but I've noticed many people condemning Obama for, on the one hand, sanctioning Russia who is actively invading another country while, at the same time, condemning him for lifting sanctions against Cuba, who hasn't done anything serious since the early 70's. *boggle

I oppose the sanctions on Russia, and I am fine with lifting them on Cuba. As to my political leanings, I am more a conservative I suppose, but not the neo-foreign-war type who is obsessed with the free market and privatising everything in sight, and with a good bit of libertarianism thrown in.

 

[Underhill]

“Violence and intimidation should have no place in today’s Ukraine. We continue to support the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to achieve a prosperous European democracy. European integration is the surest course to economic growth and to strengthening Ukraine’s democracy.” - White House press secretary Jay Carney. http://www.euronews.com/2013/12/03/the-un-and-washington-condemn-violence-in-ukraine/

There are all sorts of theories that the US supported the riots financially, but what we do know from quotes like the one above is that the US government did explicitly support the riots at least in words, when really they should have stayed out of another country's business and respected its democratic process. "We continue to support the aspirations of the Ukranian people". This is blatant misinformation on the part of the US, at best it's ignorance, which would be surprising for the all-knowing superstate, and at worst it's full-on propaganda. The majority of Ukrainians did not support the Euromaiden riots, nor did the majority support more European integration. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Support_for_Euromaidan_in_Ukraine)


Iran has many forward-thinking modern citizens, and many would say it's actually more of an ancient European civilisation in the Middle East. I have my doubts about the Iran deal, and am very uneasy about what their true intentions are, but I do want them to be a part of the international community again, we cannot leave them in isolation forever.


I believe the mainstream Republican candidates support the sanctions on Russia, and some probably want harsher ones. I think Donald Trump wants to be friends with Putin, but he is Donald Trump. Jeb Bush called Putin "a bully", and Ted Cruz wants to arm Ukranian fighters.


I oppose the sanctions on Russia, and I am fine with lifting them on Cuba. As to my political leanings, I am more a conservative I suppose, but not the neo-foreign-war type who is obsessed with the free market and privatising everything in sight, and with a good bit of libertarianism thrown in.

I don't put much stock in theories of what the US might have done behind the scenes. In my 40 years of paying attention, those theories have been wrong more than they were right. The regime put down protest in a violent manner, the next day there are riots. Seems like a natural reaction and not something manufactured. But who knows.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is Trump gaining widening traction?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...black-woman-rips-council-over-illegal-aliens/

 

[esmith]

Is Trump gaining widening traction?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...black-woman-rips-council-over-illegal-aliens/

I'm not sure if Trump is attempting to be a rabble-rouser just to get others to talk about issues they would prefer not to or he thinks what he is doing is the path to the Presidency. It is curious that his recent comments on illegal aliens fly's directly in opposition to what he said about Romney's comments about illegal aliens. If you remember Romney said they should "self-deport" themselves and Trump castigated the GOP for being too harsh on illegals. I don't believe that Trump is that stupid; therefore there must be a reason for his current comments. The way I see it Trump has tapped into a small part of the population that is fed up with Washington and are willing to accept anything he says that is anti-Washiington. I really don't think that the average voting person is that interested in politics at this time. Sure Fox got the largest audience for a debate but that was to watch the Trump show (IMO). Let see where the polls stand in say Feb of next year. That will be a better indicator of the voting public's thought process.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I'm not sure if Trump is attempting to be a rabble-rouser just to get others to talk about issues they would prefer not to or he thinks what he is doing is the path to the Presidency. It is curious that his recent comments on illegal aliens fly's directly in opposition to what he said about Romney's comments about illegal aliens. If you remember Romney said they should "self-deport" themselves and Trump castigated the GOP for being too harsh on illegals. I don't believe that Trump is that stupid; therefore there must be a reason for his current comments. The way I see it Trump has tapped into a small part of the population that is fed up with Washington and are willing to accept anything he says that is anti-Washiington. I really don't think that the average voting person is that interested in politics at this time. Sure Fox got the largest audience for a debate but that was to watch the Trump show (IMO). Let see where the polls stand in say Feb of next year. That will be a better indicator of the voting public's thought process.

It is a substantial chunk of the population. Not just a small portion. But I agree there really hasn't been enough time for the hate politics to tear him down and make him look stupid to the general public. However can you really say he is any worse than the rest of the nominations? Everyone else is either moronic, insane, criminal or invisible. It just so happens that Trump is a mixture of the first three.

 

[Underhill]

It is a substantial chunk of the population. Not just a small portion. But I agree there really hasn't been enough time for the hate politics to tear him down and make him look stupid to the general public. However can you really say he is any worse than the rest of the nominations? Everyone else is either moronic, insane, criminal or invisible. It just so happens that Trump is a mixture of the first three.

I think Trump is the republican party (or at least a large percentage of it). I've heard people say multiple times that while trump might not be able to win the national election, at least he is a real republican. A lot of them see Bush and the rest as either posers for the mainstream or charlatans.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think Trump is the republican party (or at least a large percentage of it). I've heard people say multiple times that while trump might not be able to win the national election, at least he is a real republican. A lot of them see Bush and the rest as either posers for the mainstream or charlatans.

He isn't really a politician. He has been a very loud non-politician making a lot of comments about politics. He is very counter to many "republican" stances. A good example is that he and the Clinton have been long time friends and this was especially true during Bill's terms. He also has been very vocal on single payer systems of healthcare and mostly anti war. He has never strongly opposed same sex marriage much in the same way that democrats of the 90's and early 200's didn't strongly oppose it.
I can see why others in the party might not like him.

 

[Underhill]

He isn't really a politician. He has been a very loud non-politician making a lot of comments about politics. He is very counter to many "republican" stances. A good example is that he and the Clinton have been long time friends and this was especially true during Bill's terms. He also has been very vocal on single payer systems of healthcare and mostly anti war. He has never strongly opposed same sex marriage much in the same way that democrats of the 90's and early 200's didn't strongly oppose it.
I can see why others in the party might not like him.

I agree he isn't a politician. But I think his stances are right in line with more people than you may think. Remember McCain in his last race? National Health Care was high on his list too. And McCain was all for same sex marriage prior to the primaries. A lot of republicans have shifted on those two issues. Those that haven't have shown they will still vote republican regardless of those issues.

I'm not saying Trump is what the republican establishment wants. Obviously that isn't the case. But he is what a lot of grass roots republicans crave. The anti politician with views they can mostly get behind.

It's much the same with Sanders on the left.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree he isn't a politician. But I think his stances are right in line with more people than you may think. Remember McCain in his last race? National Health Care was high on his list too. And McCain was all for same sex marriage prior to the primaries. A lot of republicans have shifted on those two issues. Those that haven't have shown they will still vote republican regardless of those issues.

I'm not saying Trump is what the republican establishment wants. Obviously that isn't the case. But he is what a lot of grass roots republicans crave. The anti politician with views they can mostly get behind.

It's much the same with Sanders on the left.

I don't recal McCain ever having supported a single payer system of any kind. He supported another system that was slightly similar to Obamacare but if I recall it had vouchers or something.

 

[Underhill]

I don't recal McCain ever having supported a single payer system of any kind. He supported another system that was slightly similar to Obamacare but if I recall it had vouchers or something.

Right. But the point is he wasn't that far off. I know a fair number of republicans who like the idea of single payer. Technically I am one of them although, admittedly, I rarely vote republican in national races.

 

[Ouroboros]

One option missing: Trump is evil. He will become a dictator and completely ruin our country, but by doing so, in the future, we can restart this--once amazing--country and do it right next time. So I'll vote for him, because he's the worst candidate. And that's what we need now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Right. But the point is he wasn't that far off. I know a fair number of republicans who like the idea of single payer. Technically I am one of them although, admittedly, I rarely vote republican in national races.

Most are pretty far away from single payer. I can't even think of any that have supported it. They say 'healthcare reform" all the time but they usually never mean single payer system.

 

[Underhill]

Most are pretty far away from single payer. I can't even think of any that have supported it. They say 'healthcare reform" all the time but they usually never mean single payer system.

Most politicians are. Of course what that means is anyone's guess in most cases. Lately that seems to mean doing away with Obama-care. What the alternatives are (assuming we don't go to single payer or back to the mess that existed before) is a toss up.

Personally I think single payer is the only way to cut cost. You cannot control the cost when you don't control the system.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Personally I think single payer is the only way to cut cost. You cannot control the cost when you don't control the system.

The above is true.