OT: The next President of the United States: ★★★ Donald Trump ★★★

[the ultimates]

The fact that many people are of Russian descent means nothing. In the coming years California will have a Hispanic majority does that give Mexico the right to annex San Diego? Like you said it was given to the Ukraine, Russia uses the port why take over the city if not for expansion purposes. Yes we hack them and they hack us. They make a big deal about it as well they should but apparently we can't in your mind because that increases tension. Its not an act of aggression for an independent country in the Ukraine to make deals or become a NATO member.

I agree we should stop the world police mentality. The problem is when the country doesn't act internationally we get blamed. Boko Haram slaughtering villages in Nigeria, Rwanda, Darfur, the ethic cleansing by Slobodan Milosevic in the Balkans. The U.S. was either late to react or had to be practically begged to intervene in those atrocities. I've never heard of countries asking Russia or China for that kind of help or those countries willingly offering it.

The first sentence is false. It means a lot. Russia didn't just Annex Crimea against the people's will. The people of Crimea fully support it and this fact cannot be ignored. As for the California example - if the majority of people living in California want to be annexed to Mexico and if Mexico wants them, then yes, Mexico would have a claim to California.

Having a country bordering with Russia join NATO (which is basically and anti-Russian alliance) is an act of aggression which ever way you look at it. NATO should not be expanding there.

As for the world police - nobody can blame the US for not intervening. We control our own destiny and it's time for us to say "this is a local conflict which is none of our business". This world cop role is both idiotic and bound for failure. We do not have the solution for every conflict in the world. If one tribe is killing another in Africa, it's not our problem to solve. If the Serbs and the Bosnians are at war, it's not our problem to solve. If the Shias and Sunnis are fighting a sectarian war, it's not our problem to solve. If the Israelis and the Palestinians don't want to split the country, its not our problem to solve. We force unsustainable solutions on unwilling parties and then get blamed when these "solutions" break down. This needs to stop. Local conflicts need to be resolved locally. The US should stop intervening unless there is a clear and imminent threat to us, such as the nuke situation in Iran.

You can't have it both ways. Russia can take Crimea back which is part of another country not a sovereign nation. The Ukraine however can't make an alliance Russia doesn't like? Ok so in those incidents in the Balkans and Africa would you have helped if those countries they asked for it.

[TimRobbins]

You can't have it both ways. Russia can take Crimea back which is part of another country not a sovereign nation. The Ukraine however can't make an alliance Russia doesn't like? Ok so in those incidents in the Balkans and Africa would you have helped if those countries they asked for it.

Russia has a very legitimate claim to Crimea and it's not of our business whether it takes it back or not. The Ukraine can make any alliance it wants to, but WE should not enter into an Anti-Russian military alliance with the Ukraine.

If ALL sides of the conflict ask for our help, I guess we can consider helping. However, we should NOT intervene and try to force OUR solutions on these local conflicts. It's really none of our business and forcing and outside solution almost always makes things worse.

[GetBuLLish]

When people claim things like Obama is a closet muslim, the funniest part about it is not even that they believe it honestly without evidence, but that they believe that if others knew that alleged truth also, that those others would and or should be outraged at it. SMH

Great point.

By the way, in the leaked emails, Clinton's campaign from 2008 listed Obama's father being Muslin as one of Obama's negative attributes that they could possibly attack. They did some polling on this to see if this would be an effective attack but found at that it wouldn't.

[the ultimates]

You can't have it both ways. Russia can take Crimea back which is part of another country not a sovereign nation. The Ukraine however can't make an alliance Russia doesn't like? Ok so in those incidents in the Balkans and Africa would you have helped if those countries they asked for it.

Russia has a very legitimate claim to Crimea and it's not of our business whether it takes it back or not. The Ukraine can make any alliance it wants to, but WE should not enter into an Anti-Russian military alliance with the Ukraine.

If ALL sides of the conflict ask for our help, I guess we can consider helping. However, we should NOT intervene and try to force OUR solutions on these local conflicts. It's really none of our business and forcing and outside solution almost always makes things worse.

They gave Crimea away. Its part of another country if Russia wants it back go the democratic route. Contact the Crimean and Ukrainian leaders to try and broker a deal. Don't send troops saying your officially apart of another country yet because you were part of us before we will just take you back by force.

If all sides of a conflict ask for help you say? What help would you give Boko Haram? What help would you give those who kill others because their women who want to get an education? What help would you give those who kill people just for being a different ethnicity?

[dice]

It's an unfortunate truth, but debating Hillary Clinton's qualities isn't even relevant anymore. It's all about Trump and whether he should be POTUS. And we all know he should not be.

Right coldfish? I mean you agree with that part yeah? That Trump shouldn't be POTUS?

I was prepared to vote Rebublican in a Presidential election in 2004 if Hillary won the primary. I have always gone Dem in POTUS elections but would have made an exception if it was McCain v. Clinton. Not a Hillary fan. And unlike Trump, McCain is an honorable American (not according to Trump though, he likes to rank the quality of tortured veterans based on whether or not they got caught, despite being a pussy who dodged armed service and who blasts the family of dead veterans - my god he is such a huge piece of ****, but I digress).

But Trump? The fact we are even discussing him is like the end of a Scooby Doo episode, except the mask being pulled off is one worn by America.

i'd like to add a caveat to the bolded portion above:

(unless putting sarah palin an old man's heartbeat away from being president is considered dishonorable to america)

[AKfanatic]

Oh, so let me leave the oil behind so some make-shift phony democratic government can "control" it and let it fall into the hands of various militias/ISIS.

Sometimes the morally "right" thing to do is also the most stupid thing to do.

Last reply...you believe what you want, I'm not trying to change your mind.....

Again though, how do you think the international community would respond to us "plundering the oil"?

Do you not think rivals such as Russia would use (rightly so) our "plundering of oil" to push the UN for sanctions against the US?

Let's pretend Obama had the lack of brain cells to come to the decision to "plunder the oil"...do you honestly believe his political rivals, as well as citizens, would have signed off on using our military as thiefs? Do you believe our military, which follows the articles of war, would follow such orders from an "undercover Muslim"?

It's easy for a blowhard like Trump to push such moronic ideas to his screaming masses of uninformed fans, but the fact is doing such a thing would lead to an even more dangerous position for the US within the world community, politically, economically, as well as destroy any good will we may have had amoungst long time allies.

enjoy your bubble...you should avoid sharp objects.

You are trying to frame your argument under the pretense that America has NEVER broken any international law or has EVER committed a war crime; therefore plundering Iraq's oil would make Russia see America in a different light and garner support from the international community for sanctions against the U.S.

The REALITY is that when America invaded Iraq (illegally BTW) Russia and dozens of other countries frowned upon it. America has violated international laws DOZENS of times and committed War Crimes on numerous occasions. You'll never hear about them because you watch CNN. Do you know how many innocent civilians our drones KILL every month?

So please stop pretending like taking the oil would be some big deal that would turn the whole world against America, when we already do way worse things.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule52

The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) states:
When searching dwellings in enemy towns or villages, do not take nonmilitary items. Theft is a violation of the laws of war and US law. Stealing private property will make civilians more likely to fight you or to support the enemy forces. You do not want to have to fight both the enemy armed forces and civilians.

There are exceptions such as taking weapons, vehicles owned by the state which could be used in war. One could argue, we're taking the oil for our war drive...of course under that reasoning, we are now occupying Iraq.

I know I know, we've punched countries in the face, may as well kick them in the nuts!!

And yes, I know Iraq was a fuster-cluck. Brought on by a greedy, incompetent, war happy, lying administration. An administration that should have faced consequences, if not from the international community, then most definitely by the people they represent as an administration.
...
Don't pretend to know how I get my worldview. I grew up in more nations than most people can name. I've been in war-zones. I've served my country. I spend months at a time every year in countries that are both our allies and our rivals. You keep enjoying thinking it's some simple no consequence action....I guarantee you are completely wrong.

[TimRobbins]

They gave Crimea away. Its part of another country if Russia wants it back go the democratic route. Contact the Crimean and Ukrainian leaders to try and broker a deal. Don't send troops saying your officially apart of another country yet because you were part of us before we will just take you back by force.

If all sides of a conflict ask for help you say? What help would you give Boko Haram? What help would you give those who kill others because their women who want to get an education? What help would you give those who kill people just for being a different ethnicity?

I never said anything about approving the methods Russia used. However, it's done and it's none of our business. Again, we are not the world cop. We do not get to decide what "wrong" and "right" about every conflict in the world. We should not have meddled in the Ukraine to begin with.

If two (or more) sides approach us and ask to help broker a peace agreement, I would say yes. However, I do not think the US should get involved in local conflicts otherwise. I deeply believe in our core values, such as democracy, equality, freedom of religion, free markets, property rights, etc. However, I don't every country needs to be exactly like us and I definitely don't believe we should be forcing our values on others. We do not have solutions for every conflict and often trying to force a solution (according to our values) and using our military has counterproductive results. It's sad to see the violence emerging from the Middle-East and Africa, but you need to understand that this violence is deeply rooted in centuries of conflict. If people want to live in a theocracy (i.e. Iran), who are we to say they can't?

My belief is that the US should not be intervening in local conflicts. We need to be a little more humble and understand that our power is also limited and military force should be used a lot more rarely than we actually use it. The Shia-Sunni conflict is none of our business and is way beyond our ability to resolve. We should not be taking sides (for some unexplained reason, Obama is siding with the Shias), and we should not be offering solutions. We should sit back and let the parties work it out. They need to go through this process until they are ready to live in peace with each-other. Same for the Israeli-Arab conflict. It's not up to us to determine the solution and try to force a "peace" neither side wants. We cannot determine arbitrary borders between countries, we need the facts on the ground determine that. Same thing goes for Nigeria, and the rest of the conflicts in Africa.

Just look at how much damage we caused in Iraq and Lybia by trying to be "humanitarian". Stop being the world cop. Stop determining what's "right" and "wrong" for others and stop using the military so frequently. We need to be guided by a minimal-intervention policy in our foreign relations. Intervene only when there's a clear and imminent threat to the US.

[waffle]

You can't have it both ways. Russia can take Crimea back which is part of another country not a sovereign nation. The Ukraine however can't make an alliance Russia doesn't like? Ok so in those incidents in the Balkans and Africa would you have helped if those countries they asked for it.

Russia has a very legitimate claim to Crimea and it's not of our business whether it takes it back or not. The Ukraine can make any alliance it wants to, but WE should not enter into an Anti-Russian military alliance with the Ukraine.

If ALL sides of the conflict ask for our help, I guess we can consider helping. However, we should NOT intervene and try to force OUR solutions on these local conflicts. It's really none of our business and forcing and outside solution almost always makes things worse.

and when does local not become local? Was WW II just a local conflict? Sounds kinda like it.

Aggression like this unchecked makes the rest of the world less safe, especially when we are talking about Putin/Russia. They have a HUGE historical chip on their shoulder that justifies some pretty unsavory actions

[TimRobbins]

and when does local not become local? Was WW II just a local conflict? Sounds kinda like it.

Aggression like this unchecked makes the rest of the world less safe, especially when we are talking about Putin/Russia. They have a HUGE historical chip on their shoulder that justifies some pretty unsavory actions

If and when we see a country build a massive army with global domination aspirations, that's when we get involved. WW2 was hardly a local conflict. The Nazis had clear plans to take over the world and they never tried to hide them. They also created a massive army which gave them the capability to materialize their plans. You also need to add the (known) fact that the Nazis were absolute psychopaths. If you're looking at the corollary in our world - it would be Iran. They have (pronounced) global aspirations and they are building a massive army. Fortunately, they don not have the economic or technological power to fully act on their ambitions, but that's where we should get involved and make sure they never get nukes. Stopping a country like Iran from getting Nukes is just about the only time I would approve of using military power in a foreign conflict.

Again, we are not the world cop and it's not our job to make the entire world "safe". We are only responsible to make the continental US safe. You need to understand that we cannot contain all violence and sometimes violence is needed to get to a long-term resolution.

I do not believe Putin has the aspirations (and he definitely does not have the capability) to take over the world. Putin's aspirations are mostly local in nature. All he wanted to do was keep his port in the Crimea. He's not going to launch his tanks to take over former Soviet republics and re-create the USSR. Russia is very economically fragile. Putin is not a threat to us. Just ignore him.

[TeK]

Remember those Chicago Trump "protests" that turned violent. Looks like the DNC actually planted these instigators and apparently Hill knew of their methodology.

Utterly disgusting.

Watch on YouTube

[TimRobbins]

Remember those Chicago Trump "protests" that turned violent. Looks like the DNC actually planted these instigators and apparently Hill knew of their methodology.

Utterly disgusting.

Come on. Everything you see is a show. You have to be naive to think otherwise.

[TeK]

Remember those Chicago Trump "protests" that turned violent. Looks like the DNC actually planted these instigators and apparently Hill knew of their methodology.

Utterly disgusting.

Come on. Everything you see is a show. You have to be naive to think otherwise.

Meaning the DNC orchestrated a show for the gain of their candidate? Call me naive, but I was not expecting them to put hundreds of ppl's safety at risk for the betterment of Hillary.

Yes, I'm realizing literally EVERYTHING she does/says is for show.

[Bascitball]

Remember those Chicago Trump "protests" that turned violent. Looks like the DNC actually planted these instigators and apparently Hill knew of their methodology.

Utterly disgusting.

Come on. Everything you see is a show. You have to be naive to think otherwise.

Tim, I think I've agreed with most of your posts in this thread. But a large percentage of voters either won't believe that video at all, or will just say "well the other side does the same." I think this video is a BIG deal. So yeah, I think many are naive (to put it nicely).

The right wing may have their own issues, but the left has mastered propaganda like no other. That cannot be denied at this point. The left also happens to have the media, universities, and Hollywood on their side. They can use these tools to spin any message they want, including helping to cover up major corruption.

If the left wing is accusing somebody of something, you can bet they themselves are guilty of it. They project onto others and I'm not sure why people buy it. They bash the deplorables with all kinds of labels and isms, but then in the Podesta emails we find out that they are the ones saying some nasty stuff about most Americans (Catholics, Muslims, Evangelicals, Hispanics, Millennials, among others). Go figure. I think we'd all be naive to think any politician gives two hoots about any one of us at this point. Very very few are giving back charitably and serving for noble reasons.

[TimRobbins]

Tim, I think I've agreed with most of your posts in this thread. But a large percentage of voters either won't believe that video at all, or will just say "well the other side does the same." I think this video is a BIG deal. So yeah, I think many are naive (to put it nicely).

The right wing may have their own issues, but the left has mastered propaganda like no other. That cannot be denied at this point. The left also happens to have the media, universities, and Hollywood on their side. They can use these tools to spin any message they want, including helping to cover up major corruption.

If the left wing is accusing somebody of something, you can bet they themselves are guilty of it. They project onto others and I'm not sure why people buy it. They bash the deplorables with all kinds of labels and isms, but then in the Podesta emails we find out that they are the ones saying some nasty stuff about most Americans (Catholics, Muslims, Evangelicals, Hispanics, Millennials, among others). Go figure. I think we'd all be naive to think any politician gives two hoots about any one of us at this point. Very very few are giving back charitably and serving for noble reasons.

Media has always and will always favor the left. So will Academia and Hollywood. Nothing has changed here. It's been this way for decades. I think the social networks have lessened the power of these institutions, so the trend is now going the other way.

This kind of instigation happens in every campaign. With the money Hillary spends, I'll guarantee you, there's a lot more going on that we have no clue about. I think anybody with half a brain knows who Hillary is and what she's about. Even most of her supporters don't delude themselves. I also think Trump supporters know what's he's about (i.e. not the good of the people).

These elections are about bad and worse. The only question is who is the "bad" and who is the "worse". Personally, I believe Hillary is the "worse", but I can respect somebody who thinks Trump is "worse". I can't respect somebody who thinks Hillary is "good". That's simply lying to yourself.

I liked Rubio. Too bad he's not on the ballot.

[Bobbalu]

I'm getting disgusted with the media. Yeah what Trump says in all these commercial clips is disturbing, but I don't think these same comments come out of his mouth nearly as regularly as the commercials repeat them. It almost feels like they're promoting it in a sick subliminal way.

[coldfish]

These elections are about bad and worse. The only question is who is the "bad" and who is the "worse". Personally, I believe Hillary is the "worse", but I can respect somebody who thinks Trump is "worse". I can't respect somebody who thinks Hillary is "good". That's simply lying to yourself.

Good post. Everyone who I know that supports Trump doesn't actually like him. They either want to vote for him to stick it to the establishment or fear Hillary more. Hillary supporters aren't quite as negative about their own candidate but I have yet to find someone who is actually enthused about electing her.

.......

As a side note, I kind of wish we had a different set of offices for government. Our systems were set up when there simply wasn't as many responsibilities. With how many wedge issues and responsibilities there are, its virtually impossible to elect someone who comes close to what people want on all issues.

I would break up these jobs.

For example, state governments should have an elected official responsible for the road department with checks and balances with other groups like the legislature. You don't like the roads? Blame him or her instead of making it issue number 78 for the governor.

More relevant, I would break up the presidency into a triumvirate with divided responsibilities among them.
- Foreign policy and treaty negotiation
- Government bureaucracy and management
- Economics
- Military
- Nominating judicial appointments
etc.

Hell, I would go so far as to create a 4th branch of government to oversee government. A huge department of internal affairs that could investigate corruption, police officer shooters, etc. Its somewhat naive to believe that the government can objectively police itself.

/rant

[League Circles]

These elections are about bad and worse. The only question is who is the "bad" and who is the "worse". Personally, I believe Hillary is the "worse", but I can respect somebody who thinks Trump is "worse". I can't respect somebody who thinks Hillary is "good". That's simply lying to yourself.

Good post. Everyone who I know that supports Trump doesn't actually like him. They either want to vote for him to stick it to the establishment or fear Hillary more. Hillary supporters aren't quite as negative about their own candidate but I have yet to find someone who is actually enthused about electing her.

.......

As a side note, I kind of wish we had a different set of offices for government. Our systems were set up when there simply wasn't as many responsibilities. With how many wedge issues and responsibilities there are, its virtually impossible to elect someone who comes close to what people want on all issues.

I would break up these jobs.

For example, state governments should have an elected official responsible for the road department with checks and balances with other groups like the legislature. You don't like the roads? Blame him or her instead of making it issue number 78 for the governor.

More relevant, I would break up the presidency into a triumvirate with divided responsibilities among them.
- Foreign policy and treaty negotiation
- Government bureaucracy and management
- Economics
- Military
- Nominating judicial appointments
etc.

Hell, I would go so far as to create a 4th branch of government to oversee government. A huge department of internal affairs that could investigate corruption, police officer shooters, etc. Its somewhat naive to believe that the government can objectively police itself.

/rant

I agree, and agree so strongly that I have discussed with people that while I generally consider myself libertarian leaning, I will go along with nearly any system that is the result of a "clean slate" sort of approach, where we redefine much of what the government is doing and who does it. Yes, this would require a constitutional convention probably, but it would be well worth it. The mess is so big and so bad, we must do something along the lines of what you advocate.

I think it's so important to start over, so to speak, that IF we could "start over", I'd support nearly any policy philosophy that results, from extreme Libertarianism to near communism.

[TimRobbins]

As a side note, I kind of wish we had a different set of offices for government. Our systems were set up when there simply wasn't as many responsibilities. With how many wedge issues and responsibilities there are, its virtually impossible to elect someone who comes close to what people want on all issues.

I would break up these jobs.

For example, state governments should have an elected official responsible for the road department with checks and balances with other groups like the legislature. You don't like the roads? Blame him or her instead of making it issue number 78 for the governor.

More relevant, I would break up the presidency into a triumvirate with divided responsibilities among them.
- Foreign policy and treaty negotiation
- Government bureaucracy and management
- Economics
- Military
- Nominating judicial appointments
etc.

Hell, I would go so far as to create a 4th branch of government to oversee government. A huge department of internal affairs that could investigate corruption, police officer shooters, etc. Its somewhat naive to believe that the government can objectively police itself.

/rant

You need to be careful not to create governance problems. I don't think splitting the presidency is a good idea. We can't elect too many people.

I agree that you need some sort of oversight. I'm just not sure what kind of format it needs to take. There's always an issue of who oversees the overseer. I think the problem is that the public simply accepts corruption. Look at how nothing came out of occupy wall street.

All I know is that the current system isn't working. The current system is not only riddled with corruption, but also the incentives are extremely short-sighted. I guess it would take a major collapse for things to change.

[TheSuzerain]

These elections are about bad and worse. The only question is who is the "bad" and who is the "worse". Personally, I believe Hillary is the "worse", but I can respect somebody who thinks Trump is "worse". I can't respect somebody who thinks Hillary is "good". That's simply lying to yourself.

Good post. Everyone who I know that supports Trump doesn't actually like him. They either want to vote for him to stick it to the establishment or fear Hillary more. Hillary supporters aren't quite as negative about their own candidate but I have yet to find someone who is actually enthused about electing her.

.......

As a side note, I kind of wish we had a different set of offices for government. Our systems were set up when there simply wasn't as many responsibilities. With how many wedge issues and responsibilities there are, its virtually impossible to elect someone who comes close to what people want on all issues.

I would break up these jobs.

For example, state governments should have an elected official responsible for the road department with checks and balances with other groups like the legislature. You don't like the roads? Blame him or her instead of making it issue number 78 for the governor.

More relevant, I would break up the presidency into a triumvirate with divided responsibilities among them.
- Foreign policy and treaty negotiation
- Government bureaucracy and management
- Economics
- Military
- Nominating judicial appointments
etc.

Hell, I would go so far as to create a 4th branch of government to oversee government. A huge department of internal affairs that could investigate corruption, police officer shooters, etc. Its somewhat naive to believe that the government can objectively police itself.

/rant

Yeah this is pretty terrible.

[burlydee]

For the life of me I can't see what Hillary has done to warrant all this anger towards her. Its like people are putting Trumps real actions up against conspiracies about Hillary Clinton. Now we have people pushing the conspiracy that Clinton is stealing the election without any REAL proof. Its an echo chamber of misinformation.