US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[Ithekro]

How much soap?

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Clintons are not exactly clean when it comes to underhanded tactics to get elected.

I doubt it's an underhand tactic. The staffer that breached the database had been recommended by the DNC according to the Sanders campaign. We have no proof but it looks like a DNC plant to make Sanders look bad.

Check out Hilllary's top donors, all banks. Sanders campaign is funded by small individual donations. Hillary's loyalties don't rest with ordinary people.

[risingstar3110]

I can't quite comment on the US internal politics. But please, can't anyone do anything about Hillary's hawkish fireign policy?

Was late news, but during the 3rd debate, wasn't she just out rightly admit she want a regime change in Syria to isolate Iran influence in the region? I means Syria? Wasn't the strongest force available in the region right now are:

• Syrian government backed by Russia
• ISIS: no need to comment here
• Al Nursa: Al Quaeda in Syria
• FSA: who is 'moderate' by Western media, but want Sharia Law, and believe they can create a joint government with Al Quaeda and ISIS once they have topple current Syrian goverment
• Islamic Front: the "moderate" rebel group that was so important in Syrian peace talk by Western media. Despite leader openly say he want ethnic cleansing of all Alawites And Shias, which is 15% of the whole Syrian population

I means there is a reason why after spending 500 millions to train moderate rebel. The US only managed to train 50 of the "so-called moderate rebels". And the moment they get back to Syria, 90% of them immediately join ISIS or escape.

And Hillary want to both destroy ISIS and topple Syrian government in the same time? Assume she can work miracle and avoid a head on collision with Russia and Iran. Which force will occupy the power vacuum in Syria? NATO? US Army? Remember that the reason why Iraq government was so ineffective against ISIS, was because the vacuum left by withdrawn US force, despite US stayed there for almost decade. How many more decades US want to occupy Syria to totally get rid of extremist element there?

You don't need to look far to see what Hillary want in Syria. Basically she want something like Lybia, a currently failed state. If anyone want to say "oh, it's not that bad over there", I dare you to paint American flag on your cheek and go there right now. And Hillary still defend the US decision for regime change in Lybia? No matter what a joke Trump is. At least he oppose the war on Iraq, and have no interest in contest against Russia for regime change in Syria.

And even if she miraculously solve the situation with Syria, then what's next? Apparently the Saudi is still in deadlock in Yemen as well? Maybe the US forces can move there as well?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Hillary is merely following Obama's choice of foreign policy. Yes, it is Hawkish, but it is about par for being a modern Democrat. Of course both Obama and Hillary are technically no different from the Republicans of old, but that's just what happens when the Republicans became radicalised. There is just no room for Democrats who are actually anti-war. That's what Americans choose.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Hillary is merely following Obama's choice of foreign policy. Yes, it is Hawkish, but it is about par for being a modern Democrat. Of course both Obama and Hillary are technically no different from the Republicans of old, but that's just what happens when the Republicans became radicalised. There is just no room for Democrats who are actually anti-war. That's what Americans choose.

Obviously, it doesn't help either when foreign geopolitical opponents of the US have also adopted a more hawkish/radicalised tone from the moment they perceived any form of weakness with the current president in the last 7 years. Although Bush was an idiot of the worst kind (and God forbid we have someone else like him at the White House ever again), not many people tried to push the wrong buttons with him for some reason.

Considering everything that stands around at the moment, whoever becomes the next president will have to be ruthless. As much as Obama might go down in history as someone who did great things, there's a need for someone more ruthless at the helm.

[Ithekro]

You don't push the buttons of a country who's President can and will send troops to your country as a follow up of a massive airstrike.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Obviously, it doesn't help either when foreign geopolitical opponents of the US have also adopted a more hawkish/radicalised tone from the moment they perceived any form of weakness with the current president in the last 7 years. Although Bush was an idiot of the worst kind (and God forbid we have someone else like him at the White House ever again), not many people tried to push the wrong buttons with him for some reason.

Considering everything that stands around at the moment, whoever becomes the next president will have to be ruthless. As much as Obama might go down in history as someone who did great things, there's a need for someone more ruthless at the helm.

I don't mind about playing hard ball on politics. But just like John Steward once ask, why the US have to be always a 2-wars countries? Like since 9/11, the US have always been bombing or support the bombing of at least 2 countries at any given time. Afghanistan, Iraq, then Lybia, then Syria, then back to Iraq and Afghanistan again with now Yemen on sideline.

And the thing is... this is not even to spread democracy. In fact talking with people from developing country and lots of them gave me the impression that the word "Democracy" to them is now just a nice wrapped package of "American influence". I means , the elephant in the room here, but aren't two of US biggest allies in Middle East were Saudi and Israel, who aren't quite as democratic and also a big violator of human right?

Honestly, 21st century, how can you defend chopping people head for committing adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft and sorcery?

Also is it a surprise that Saudi actually is the biggest foreign donor to Clinton Foundation? Despite they are nowhere close to Top 10 foreign NGO donor

[Ithekro]

Got to use up those old Cold War era weapons so they can justify buying new ones to Congress.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

but aren't two of US biggest allies in Middle East were Saudi and Israel, who aren't quite as democratic and also a big violator of human right?

I'm no fan of Israel's expansionist policies, but it is ludicrous to suggest it is not a democracy. Israel remains the only functioning democracy in the region with a parliamentary system that dates back to 1948. I suspect the Kurds might form a functioning democracy if anyone gave them a chance, but the collection of monarchies and authoritarian military states that make up the Arab world are still far away from democracy. Tunisia might be an exception though it still teeters on instability. As for the rest of the countries involved in the "Arab Spring," we all know what happened when the Egyptians freely elected a government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I'm no fan of Israel's expansionist policies, but it is ludicrous to suggest it is not a democracy. Israel remains the only functioning democracy in the region with a parliamentary system that dates back to 1948. I suspect the Kurds might form a functioning democracy if anyone gave them a chance, but the collection of monarchies and authoritarian military states that make up the Arab world are still far away from democracy. Tunisia might be an exception though it still teeters on instability. As for the rest of the countries involved in the "Arab Spring," we all know what happened when the Egyptians freely elected a government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

I never claimed that Israel is not a 'democracy' country. I claimed that Israel is not democratic (or liberally democratic).

I don't think it's hard to prove really. Deny rights include those under Geneva Convention to their current "occupied (or disputed) territories". Can you argue that a country be both colonial and democratic in the same time? Then wasn't Israel by its constitution a Jewish state despite only 75% of its population is? Wouldn't it be a theocratic state here simply by definition (and actions such as impose religious hostility, or only recognised Jewish holy site)? Theodemocratic? I suppose Iran also qualified as one in this case

I don't know why do you talk about surrounding countries unless you just want to argue that Israel is certainly more democratic in comparison. But it's like China officials justify their authoritarian ruling by pointing to Middle East in comparison. It's hard to get worse than what happened in that region unfortunately.

Edit: btw, sorry but hopefully we can get back to the topic. Anyway my point is... can't the we have a US president who not willing to bomb and topple foreign government just because they resist American interest? While condone those with similar nature as long as they submit to US? Frankly, liberal democratic process have gotten so many bad reputation since US start to use it as excuses for bombing any other countries.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Edit: btw, sorry but hopefully we can get back to the topic. Anyway my point is... can't the we have a US president who not willing to bomb and topple foreign government just because they resist American interest? While condone those with similar nature as long as they submit to US? Frankly, liberal democratic process have gotten so many bad reputation since US start to use it as excuses for bombing any other countries.

And I will repeat my statement earlier; The government would stop the bombings if it is at all harming their political prospects. The truth is it does not. There IS an anti-war faction in the US of A, but it is tiny and not making enough waves.

Back in the Vietnam War, conscription backlash was what caused the population to reject it. But in the modern day conscription is no longer used because it is no longer necessary. Without anyone being forced to fight, there is just no wide outrage with war. And any retaliation in American soil just makes the Hawks more powerful.

Most of the people who suffered due to American wars in the modern day, are non-Americans. This is really quite intentional, and really expected. War has always been about making as many foreigners suffer as possible. America just is now good enough at it that the population no longer FEEL the effect of being in two wars at once. If there was conscription or rationing, I am sure the Doves would have had an upper hand. But that is just not happening anymore. Americans who want Peace is just going to have to work harder to earn it. War Fatigue is just more difficult to reach these days.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And I will repeat my statement earlier; The government would stop the bombings if it is at all harming their political prospects. The truth is it does not. There IS an anti-war faction in the US of A, but it is tiny and not making enough waves.

Back in the Vietnam War, conscription backlash was what caused the population to reject it. But in the modern day conscription is no longer used because it is no longer necessary. Without anyone being forced to fight, there is just no wide outrage with war. And any retaliation in American soil just makes the Hawks more powerful.

Most of the people who suffered due to American wars in the modern day, are non-Americans. This is really quite intentional, and really expected. War has always been about making as many foreigners suffer as possible. America just is now good enough at it that the population no longer FEEL the effect of being in two wars at once. If there was conscription or rationing, I am sure the Doves would have had an upper hand. But that is just not happening anymore. Americans who want Peace is just going to have to work harder to earn it. War Fatigue is just more difficult to reach these days.

Maybe that's the reason why I can't quite understand the American foreign politic.

Like my impression is: anti-war/ anti-bombing other country should be the default sentiment. And the government need to convince the citizens otherwise. But I have a feeling that in US , it was opposite. The government will go do the bombing first, and then the citizens need to voice their concern if they don't want that to happen.

It's also slightly ironic how when Russia started to go and bombing in Syria the first time. There was a lots of analysis about how much it will cost Russia each day, and how long can Russia sustain that bombing intensity before it affect their economy. And then you look at how Russia economy actually is one-fifth or one-sixth of American economy. And how much longer US have spent bombings two or three countries at one, despite using much more sophisticated and costly weapons. Not to mention all of the money going to rebuilding contracts or military aids toward foreign government.

The cost was there, and the built-up deficit was there. BUt I guess it's just like looking at your credit card spending. It was that much harder to care

[RRW]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/4t1p2K-7Eww

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by RRW

YouTube

https://youtu.be/4t1p2K-7Eww

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

You know that something have f*cked up real bad, when you don't know whether it's a real ad, or just a satire video...

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

You know that something have f*cked up real bad, when you don't know whether it's a real ad, or just a satire video...

Even that is quite polite to say about the ad. Trump really is the lowest of the low, the scum of all f*cking Earth for even daring to put up that kind of stuff.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Even that is quite polite to say about the ad. Trump really is the lowest of the low, the scum of all f*cking Earth for even daring to put up that kind of stuff.

Is he really scum, if he is merely delivering what his supporters want?

I am glad he is doing what he did. He is putting out in the open the type of people who vote and what they really feel. Voters need to be honest with themselves, you can't hide what you really are.

If Americans voted and decided that Trump should represent them, that is what Americans deserve. You get the government you want.

[Marcus H.]

Is he really scum, if he is merely delivering what his supporters want?

He's also delivering the same shit ISIS wants and Al-Shabaab had used that to reel in more people.

If USA gets Trump, the world might as well be FUBAR.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Marcus H.

If USA gets Trump, the world might as well be FUBAR.

If American voters would elect Trump, then Trump isn't the problem at all. And that even if Trump never existed the same voters would have elected someone just as bad.

[MrTerrorist]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/T9xoVdRgDiU

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[yulinard]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

If American voters would elect Trump, then Trump isn't the problem at all. And that even if Trump never existed the same voters would have elected someone just as bad.

I heard metrocast from a youtuber Mistermetokur or Internet Aristocrat about 2016 election. Or his podcast with Milo and Sargon, another youtuber. He said something like one more terrorist act and Trump will be elected by landslide.