4 ms·

Please don't buy this idea that Trump is just an innocent buffoon. The guy is genuinely dangerous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc https://m.youtube.c

by oneloop 10y ago

Please don't buy this idea that Trump is just an innocent buffoon. The guy is genuinely dangerous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc

ThomPete 10y ago
Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton. Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  You meant "Trump" in your last sentence?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Yes sorry too late to change
- oneloop 10y ago
  My issue with Trump is how ignorant he seems to be about everything he's asked. You might say that Clinton is dangerous, but she's not stupid. Trump IS very stupid. Also, what is this "power vacuum"that you're talking about? What are you trying to say, that if Obama was militarily more aggressive, there would be less ISIS? Weren't you just before concerned about Clinton wanting war? You can't have both.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    The power vacuum comes from topping Saddam Hussein for geopolitical reasons. Opportunistic use of the September 11 attacks to open up a new era of wild-wild-west politics, where the world is up for grabs. And we wonder that Russia feels emboldened to push its geopolitical interests? Russia needs to do that, or risk being wiped out from the world stage by an extremely aggressive US.
    - oneloop 10y ago
      Regarding your second paragraph, awareness amongst the US population should be risen about that. For the past 3 or so years Russia has been getting more and more nervous about the US defence shield. Its argument is that the US can use it for offence missiles which could be used to strike and neutralise its nuclear potential. Instead of addressing the issue, the US has been playing dumb by claiming that "don't worry mate, this is against Iran not Russia!" Now, Russia plays its own geopolitical game too, of course. And you might believe that the US defence shield poses no danger to Russia. But you have to ask yourself, what does Russia believe? Because if Russia really believes the US is making moves to neutralise its nuclear threat, it's just a matter of time until it strikes, because like you said the alternative is to be wiped out from the world stage. Don't corner a rat. Very very concerning. And this has been some ten years in the making, since the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (which the US argued at the name was so that it could build its missile defence system). This does not seem conducting of stability in the world.
    - pluma 10y ago
      Not just Hussein but the entire Arab Spring. Heck, the US is still trying to topple Assad although it's blindingly obvious that doing so will only strengthen ISIS in Syria. The problem with US foreign politics is that in the face of it they seem entirely ignorant of how their actions appear to the rest of the world (and what it might mean to their interests and how they would react to that). EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying the US was responsible for the entire Arab spring, but the Arab Spring and the mess it caused (when the initial euphoria had ended) are part of the fallout from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  - pluma 10y ago
    I don't know whether he's stupid, but he's wilfully ignorant. I think he genuinely just doesn't care about many topics and isn't interested in learning more about them than necessary to make some vague statements that may seem relevant. I was extremely surprised how serious Americans take Trump as a candidate when it is so obvious the vast majority of his speeches are incoherent rambling around one or two talking points played for effect. I mean, seriously? A wall between the US and Mexico? There is already a wall between the US and Mexico. The various specifications he gave at various points throughout the primaries are obviously figures he pulled out of his ass to paint a more visually impressive picture. And a stop for Muslim immigrants is entirely on par for the course. Sure, any other politician would have been more nuanced and phrased it differently so it doesn't sound like it's religious discrimination but let's not pretend that racism is a new thing in the US. Trump's campaign boils down to bar-room clichés: lazy, half-baked "solutions" to real and complex problems. None of that is likely representative of what he would actually do once elected. Just like none of the "shatter the glass ceiling" and "yay minorities" rhetorics actually represent what Clinton will do once elected.
- jrs235 10y ago
  >Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person. Did you mean Trump (not Clinton)?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Yes sorry too late to change
gonvaled 10y ago
But is this Trump? I would argue that the current escalation is inherent to how policy has been conducted particularly in the recent time with Russia, alienating it instead of continuing the fruitful period which started after the fall of the Soviet Union, but more generally how humankind has (not) dealt with the nuclear arsenal. So, tensions are bound to raise, no matter who is in the White House or in the Kremlin, simply because the arsenal is there, we have done little to get rid of it, and we have allowed the military complex to hold us hostage to a campaign of terror (I am talking about State Terror) swiping the world specially after the September 11 attacks. And regarding Trump rhetoric: the only thing that differentiates him to other politicians is that he is able to say one thing and the opposite in the same sentence. But all politicians, continuously, say something in one moment, and the opposite in another, or say something, and do the opposite, including important issues. So, Clinton saying "I would not use nuclear weapons, ever", is not reassuring to anybody.
pluma 10y ago
Please don't link to The Young Turks. They're on par with Fox News even if they're politically on the opposite end of the spectrum. Again: we know Clinton's stance on war and the Middle East, Russia and China. Clinton already holds a lot of political power in the US (just look at her campaign's biggest sponsors and the Clinton Foundation -- plus the entire thing with her having been the de facto blessed Democrat candidate since before the primaries even started). Trump is an outsider who has the majority of the country against him (the GOP is still reluctant to present him as "their" candidate). Hyperbole aside, the POTUS is not actually an autocrat. There is still a large body of bureaucracy and checks and balances preventing the POTUS from doing as (s)he pleases. Clinton would only have to worry about the Republicans, Trump would likely have everyone against him at some level. He's not innocent, but he's significantly less dangerous. He's controllable (recently he went so far as to suggest that he would cede most of his duties to his VP -- effectively just leaving the prestige and title). Clinton is not (she already has an actual agenda and is far more nuanced when it comes to manipulating people in her favour). Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see either of them become president. I would have loved to see Sanders win the primaries (simply because to me as a European he felt like a healthy counterbalance to the usual American politics) even though I was certain one of the other Republicans would have eventually won the election. But at this point you're basically forced to choose between Chaotic Evil with no political support (i.e. built-in limitations to the damage he can do) and Lawful Evil with an entire body of politics behind her (i.e. a lot of paved roads).
- oneloop 10y ago
  > Please don't link to The Young Turks. They're on par with Fox News even if they're politically on the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't understand why. They're just commenting on something that someone else reported. Are you suggesting that they're lying? Are you suggesting that they're reporting "X happened" when X actually didn't happen? I wasn't linking for their opinion, but for what they report. But if it makes you happier, I'll link to the original source instead: https://youtu.be/O13kaQAg5KE https://youtu.be/O13kaQAg5KE Can you please do me a favour and watch that? > He's controllable Ok, now you're just trolling me.
- oneloop 10y ago

by oneloop 10y ago

Please don't buy this idea that Trump is just an innocent buffoon. The guy is genuinely dangerous. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j1vlMUfR_Wc

ThomPete 10y ago

Yet the only one who sent US troops in war and partly responsible for the power vacuum which allowed ISIS to gain power is Clinton. Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person.

gonvaled 10y ago
You meant "Trump" in your last sentence?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Yes sorry too late to change
oneloop 10y ago
My issue with Trump is how ignorant he seems to be about everything he's asked. You might say that Clinton is dangerous, but she's not stupid. Trump IS very stupid. Also, what is this "power vacuum"that you're talking about? What are you trying to say, that if Obama was militarily more aggressive, there would be less ISIS? Weren't you just before concerned about Clinton wanting war? You can't have both.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  The power vacuum comes from topping Saddam Hussein for geopolitical reasons. Opportunistic use of the September 11 attacks to open up a new era of wild-wild-west politics, where the world is up for grabs. And we wonder that Russia feels emboldened to push its geopolitical interests? Russia needs to do that, or risk being wiped out from the world stage by an extremely aggressive US.
  - oneloop 10y ago
    Regarding your second paragraph, awareness amongst the US population should be risen about that. For the past 3 or so years Russia has been getting more and more nervous about the US defence shield. Its argument is that the US can use it for offence missiles which could be used to strike and neutralise its nuclear potential. Instead of addressing the issue, the US has been playing dumb by claiming that "don't worry mate, this is against Iran not Russia!" Now, Russia plays its own geopolitical game too, of course. And you might believe that the US defence shield poses no danger to Russia. But you have to ask yourself, what does Russia believe? Because if Russia really believes the US is making moves to neutralise its nuclear threat, it's just a matter of time until it strikes, because like you said the alternative is to be wiped out from the world stage. Don't corner a rat. Very very concerning. And this has been some ten years in the making, since the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (which the US argued at the name was so that it could build its missile defence system). This does not seem conducting of stability in the world.
  - pluma 10y ago
    Not just Hussein but the entire Arab Spring. Heck, the US is still trying to topple Assad although it's blindingly obvious that doing so will only strengthen ISIS in Syria. The problem with US foreign politics is that in the face of it they seem entirely ignorant of how their actions appear to the rest of the world (and what it might mean to their interests and how they would react to that). EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying the US was responsible for the entire Arab spring, but the Arab Spring and the mess it caused (when the initial euphoria had ended) are part of the fallout from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
- pluma 10y ago
  I don't know whether he's stupid, but he's wilfully ignorant. I think he genuinely just doesn't care about many topics and isn't interested in learning more about them than necessary to make some vague statements that may seem relevant. I was extremely surprised how serious Americans take Trump as a candidate when it is so obvious the vast majority of his speeches are incoherent rambling around one or two talking points played for effect. I mean, seriously? A wall between the US and Mexico? There is already a wall between the US and Mexico. The various specifications he gave at various points throughout the primaries are obviously figures he pulled out of his ass to paint a more visually impressive picture. And a stop for Muslim immigrants is entirely on par for the course. Sure, any other politician would have been more nuanced and phrased it differently so it doesn't sound like it's religious discrimination but let's not pretend that racism is a new thing in the US. Trump's campaign boils down to bar-room clichés: lazy, half-baked "solutions" to real and complex problems. None of that is likely representative of what he would actually do once elected. Just like none of the "shatter the glass ceiling" and "yay minorities" rhetorics actually represent what Clinton will do once elected.
jrs235 10y ago
>Clinton might be saying many crazy things but he is fundamentally a business man not religious or idealistic person. Did you mean Trump (not Clinton)?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Yes sorry too late to change

gonvaled 10y ago

But is this Trump? I would argue that the current escalation is inherent to how policy has been conducted particularly in the recent time with Russia, alienating it instead of continuing the fruitful period which started after the fall of the Soviet Union, but more generally how humankind has (not) dealt with the nuclear arsenal. So, tensions are bound to raise, no matter who is in the White House or in the Kremlin, simply because the arsenal is there, we have done little to get rid of it, and we have allowed the military complex to hold us hostage to a campaign of terror (I am talking about State Terror) swiping the world specially after the September 11 attacks. And regarding Trump rhetoric: the only thing that differentiates him to other politicians is that he is able to say one thing and the opposite in the same sentence. But all politicians, continuously, say something in one moment, and the opposite in another, or say something, and do the opposite, including important issues. So, Clinton saying "I would not use nuclear weapons, ever", is not reassuring to anybody.

pluma 10y ago

Please don't link to The Young Turks. They're on par with Fox News even if they're politically on the opposite end of the spectrum. Again: we know Clinton's stance on war and the Middle East, Russia and China. Clinton already holds a lot of political power in the US (just look at her campaign's biggest sponsors and the Clinton Foundation -- plus the entire thing with her having been the de facto blessed Democrat candidate since before the primaries even started). Trump is an outsider who has the majority of the country against him (the GOP is still reluctant to present him as "their" candidate). Hyperbole aside, the POTUS is not actually an autocrat. There is still a large body of bureaucracy and checks and balances preventing the POTUS from doing as (s)he pleases. Clinton would only have to worry about the Republicans, Trump would likely have everyone against him at some level. He's not innocent, but he's significantly less dangerous. He's controllable (recently he went so far as to suggest that he would cede most of his duties to his VP -- effectively just leaving the prestige and title). Clinton is not (she already has an actual agenda and is far more nuanced when it comes to manipulating people in her favour). Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see either of them become president. I would have loved to see Sanders win the primaries (simply because to me as a European he felt like a healthy counterbalance to the usual American politics) even though I was certain one of the other Republicans would have eventually won the election. But at this point you're basically forced to choose between Chaotic Evil with no political support (i.e. built-in limitations to the damage he can do) and Lawful Evil with an entire body of politics behind her (i.e. a lot of paved roads).

oneloop 10y ago
> Please don't link to The Young Turks. They're on par with Fox News even if they're politically on the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't understand why. They're just commenting on something that someone else reported. Are you suggesting that they're lying? Are you suggesting that they're reporting "X happened" when X actually didn't happen? I wasn't linking for their opinion, but for what they report. But if it makes you happier, I'll link to the original source instead: https://youtu.be/O13kaQAg5KE https://youtu.be/O13kaQAg5KE Can you please do me a favour and watch that? > He's controllable Ok, now you're just trolling me.
oneloop 10y ago