US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[Ithekro]

And in the end, biggest problem that ME people have to be able to advance is to never had any real chance to do it. Ever since known history they have been plagued either by wars or by conquest from foreign powers. You cannot make progress when war breaks out every 10 years or so and new foreigner power comes also every 10 years and so an start implementing their own views and laws. Give ME people 20 years of peace and they will be like Europe today. But to give them that first you must leave them alone, which world powers are not ready to do yet.

And btw, people are enver asked for opinion, their leaders and ruling cast decide their fate

When the oil runs out, the world powers will have no real use of the region and will find a reason to justify letting it rot (Israel or no), and leave it to its own devices since there will be nothing of value there to fight over for anyone that isn't local. Locals might still fight over fertile land and water though.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

When the oil runs out, the world powers will have no real use of the region and will find a reason to justify letting it rot (Israel or no), and leave it to its own devices since there will be nothing of value there to fight over for anyone that isn't local. Locals might still fight over fertile land and water though.

There will still be the Suez canal but even that might not be enough.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Calling it as far as predicting 9/11 is a bit much; basically he said than bin Laden's organisation would do a bigger attentat than what they did in 1993. Such loose prediction was really easy to make; terrorist organisations do try to do bigger attentat ( to get more attention) and bin Laden was already well know. One could argue than his prediction could ''fit'' with the bombing of the USS Cole as much as 9/11.

I don't mean only the 9/11 part, but also the one about US go bombing Afghanistan, having Bin Laden hole up in a cave somewhere. Meanwhile, US will go for another enemy over a new crisis.

That's, not only predict the fact that Bush will reject Taliban's offer to hand Bin Laden over. But also the fact that he will escape and go hiding somewhere (instead of being caught and face trial), while US move in Iraq (new enemy) over the WMD (new crisis).

Damn... this is slightly creepy.

[AnimeFan188]

Videos Show Clinton Fainting During "Medical Episode"
At 9/11 Ceremony:

"For those who missed it, earlier today, Hillary Clinton collapsed and
appeared to faint on her way to her campaign van on Sunday as she
became "overheated" and had to leave early from a September 11
memorial ceremony in New York City. Clinton, 68, was taken to her
daughter Chelsea's home in Manhattan, and emerged a few hours later
wearing sunglasses and telling reporters that she was "feeling great.""

See:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...-zero-fox-news

[ganbaru]

risingstar3110 , Creepy, maybe. It's more surprising coming from a foreign policy idiot like Trump otherwise not that much. Tomahank and airstrike on terrorists camp (or others target) were pretty much standart response to much terrorist attack prior to 9/11, with little result. As the move towarn a new target because of a new crisis, it can be compared to the situation in the 90"s.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

risingstar3110 , Creepy, maybe. It's more surprising coming from a foreign policy idiot like Trump otherwise not that much. Tomahank and airstrike on terrorists camp (or others target) were pretty much standart response to much terrorist attack prior to 9/11, with little result. As the move towarn a new target because of a new crisis, it can be compared to the situation in the 90"s.

Then you need to give me another name, who on record stated similar things:

• a huge terrorist was incoming that make earlier WTC explosion feel like firecracker
• done by Bin Laden
• make him US No 1 enemy (means he has to be the one and only ring leader)
• US fail to capture the guy before starting a conflict elsewhere

I will be honest, I think you are extremely biased toward Trump right now and couldn't even acknowledge the basic fact of Trump's accurate prediction. In fact, if you think that "it was just a standard response", you can try make a prediction right now. About the target and the scale of the next global terrorist plot. Being perpetrated by a less famous radical suspect, who belonged to a non-agressive actor toward the US (atm). And how the results and US response will be. See how hard it is

You simply can't even with the help of google. Just like now you will be occupied by radical religious group, and end up naming someone from a more well-known organisation: ISIS, AL Quaeda, Taliban. The 2000 has too many bigger state foreign threat (Lybia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Latin America) for standard person to think that the next terrorist plot will come from radical religious group. The same one that supposed to be US ally, and was funded by Western world up until just 2 decades ago.

[SeijiSensei]

Hillary Clinton has pneumonia, not Parkinson's or some other invented disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/us...pneumonia.html

"Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies. On Friday, during follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia,” said Dr. Lisa R. Bardack, who examined Mrs. Clinton at her house in Chappaqua on Sunday. “She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule. While at this morning’s event, she became overheated and dehydrated. I have just examined her and she is now re-hydrated and recovering nicely.”

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Where did I mention whether I support dictatorship on those quotes?
And the same outcome? Are you kidding me? Couple hundred of arrests is the same with hundred thousands of deaths?


I'm sorry. But are you trolling? Because if you did, you really got me

It's quite funny that you're accusing others of trolling

The first quote reads that you see installing a dictator as 'the way to deal with dictators.' Obviously that is going to be interpreted as supportive. If that's contrary to your opinion I apologize but it's hard to guess what you're trying to say if you leave it vague like that.

Also the outcome as in uprising against the regime.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

It's quite funny that you're accusing others of trolling

The first quote reads that you see installing a dictator as 'the way to deal with dictators.' Obviously that is going to be interpreted as supportive. If that's contrary to your opinion I apologize but it's hard to guess what you're trying to say if you leave it vague like that.

Also the outcome as in uprising against the regime.

I'm surprised that now it's my fault when you interpreted a.k.a made things up yourself and couldn't provide quote for it.

In fact, "the only way to end ISIS within next 10 minutes is destroying Middle East with nuclear bombs". There you go, that can be interpreted as I supported the use of nuclear bombs to kill innocent civillians. Right?

On second point, oh right I guess the uprising against the regime part is the outcome that you cared about. Whether it costed hundreds thousand lives or does not cost a life of anyone but the dictator himself.... does not make the difference, right?

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I'm surprised that now it's my fault when you interpret something out of nothing.

That's why it's important to clearly state your position, which alas you didn't.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

On second point, oh right I guess the uprising against the regime part is the outcome that you cared about. Whether it costed hundreds thousand lives or does not cost a life of anyone but the dictator himself.... does not make the difference, right?

You're arguing about a different point. You can continue to do so but it barely touches my argument that a dictatorship will inevitably lead in an uprising in some form.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

That's why it's important to clearly state your position, which alas you didn't.

You're arguing about a different point. You can continue to do so but it barely touches my argument that a dictatorship will inevitably lead in an uprising in some form.

Oh I need to clearly state ALL my positions beforehand then? Which one? Religious? Politics? Education? Favourite drinks?

Can't you just have some decency and just admit that you misread. Make false accusation regard on my position over an issue. Despite I have never stated it beforehand? This is frankly getting pathetic


Ok, I'm tired of this. If the only thing you worried about is "a dictatorship will inevitably lead in an uprising in some form". Then OF COURSE you will likely support HILLARY's regime change. Hey, we can wait 20-30 years till Syria got more dominated by Western liberal cultures, carried out peaceful protest, out the dictator through a more peaceful mean like South Korea, Indonesia, Portugal, Tunisia, etc... Or we can just start aiming the rebels to fight against the government, get hundred thousand deaths, spawn a couple of radical groups, millions displaced, some kids got sold as sex slaves. Aren't gonna be any difference, since both are "an uprising in some form".

So did I get YOUR point correct? YES or NO?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I'm surprised that now it's my fault when you interpreted a.k.a made things up yourself and couldn't provide quote for it.

He provided two quotes of you claiming a dictator was the solution to guerilla problems. The only assumption is that you'd think guerillas are a problem, which you have to admit is pretty natural, if apparently erroneous.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

He provided two quotes of you claiming a dictator was the solution to guerilla problems. The only assumption is that you'd think guerillas are a problem, which you have to admit is pretty natural, if apparently erroneous.

Which is a pretty erroneous assumption as the example "the only way to kill ISIS in next 10 minutes is destroying Middle East with nuclear bombs"

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Hillary Clinton has pneumonia, not Parkinson's or some other invented disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/us...pneumonia.html

Does pneumonia caused collapse like that? And shouldn't dehydrated best cured by drinking water first?

Either way, it was a huge blown on her. You will need a pretty high trustworthy to give late explanation on something you were hiding, and hers is pretty low

[Newhope]

I am calling it now it's Parkinson's disease, my Grandad suffered from it and he showed the same sort of symtoms as Hillary.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Either way, it was a huge blown on her. You will need a pretty high trustworthy to give late explanation on something you were hiding, and hers is pretty low

I don't think it'll really be that big a blow. Sure, the media may (who am I kidding, they will and probably already are) run with it for a good amount of time, and Trump supporters will point to it as a reason why she's unfit for Presidency, but it actually doesn't matter. Simply because worst case scenario, Kaine would take over her duties. And both of them are more favorable than either Trump or Pence.

The only "real" blow from this is from Sanders supporters who will point to this as further evidence that the DNC shouldn't have stacked the primaries. But they'd either be voting for her anyway to keep out Trump or they were voting third party regardless.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I will be honest, I think you are extremely biased toward Trump right now and couldn't even acknowledge the basic fact of Trump's accurate prediction. In fact, if you think that "it was just a standard response", you can try make a prediction right now. About the target and the scale of the next global terrorist plot. Being perpetrated by a less famous radical suspect, who belonged to a non-agressive actor toward the US (atm). And how the results and US response will be. See how hard it is.

I won't deny me being bias toward Trump but even without that saying than he predicted 9/11 is a bit overbloated given the ''clue'' of his prediction, close on some point and very loose on others. How do I explain him attributing the attack to bin Laden, he was already the bigger name related to terrorism and one of the most wanted man in the world at that time and Trump might even had know someone of his family before the even.

As for prediction the next big attack, you are asking much more ( or odd) details than he did give;
- the target and the scale of the next global terrorist plot: saying bigger than 93 WTC bombing leave a lot of room and do't even provide a target.
- Being perpetrated by a less famous radical suspect who belonged to a non-agressive actor toward the US (atm) : Al Qaida was one of most know terrorist group at the moment of the ''prediction'' and very aggressive againt the US already.
- And how the results and US response will be: they did try before 9/11 to bomb him and Trump did mention only bombing, nothing about invasion or even ground operation so his accuracy on the response if a tad off.

[AnimeFan188]

Time To Take a Silicon Valley Hammer To the
Two-Party Duopoly:

"This year settles it: The two-party system in American politics is ripe
for radical, burn-it-down, Internet-fueled disruption.

The two parties might have been the towering sequoias of the U.S.
political system, but they now stand dead and hollow. The 2016
presidential nominating process has been like one of those disastrous
alpine blowdowns—a freak storm that leaves millions of trees worth of
tinder-dry kindling wood on the forest floor, just waiting for a hot, dry
wind and a spark.

As we watch these two horribly flawed and widely reviled candidates
bumble down the final 90 days of their scandal- and gaffe-strewn
runways, millions of us are asking each other two questions.

“Is this the best America can do?” and “Who’s got a match?”"

See:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...itics-2-0.html

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Oh I need to clearly state ALL my positions beforehand then? Which one? Religious? Politics? Education? Favourite drinks?

No, only the ones you're publicly arguing about.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Can't you just have some decency and just admit that you misread. Make false accusation regard on my position over an issue. Despite I have never stated it beforehand? This is frankly getting pathetic

Take a deep breath. Inhale, exhale. Relax. Sit comfortably on your chair. Write a non-aggressive response about your stance in this matter and watch as the whole issue gets easily resolved.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Ok, I'm tired of this. If the only thing you worried about is "a dictatorship will inevitably lead in an uprising in some form". Then OF COURSE you will likely support HILLARY's regime change. Hey, we can wait 20-30 years till Syria got more dominated by Western liberal cultures, carried out peaceful protest, out the dictator through a more peaceful mean like South Korea, Indonesia, Portugal, Tunisia, etc... Or we can just start aiming the rebels to fight against the government, get hundred thousand deaths, spawn a couple of radical groups, millions displaced, some kids got sold as sex slaves. Aren't gonna be any difference, since both are "an uprising in some form".

This doesn't really have much relevance to what I argued about but it sure is quite some narrative you came up with.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

So did I get YOUR point correct? YES or NO?

No.

[Brother Coa]

I agree wit hpretty much everything you wrote, except this part:

Originally Posted by Semblance_of_Power

I do disagree with your implied idea that authoritarianism can somehow be equated to actual rule of the law, it's actually quite the opposite, since in an authoritarian society the official law can and will often be openly subverted or outright violated simply at the will of those in power. Otherwise it would not be autocratic and much less authoritarian.

And in democracy is the other way around?

Just look at Hilary Clinton, we all know she is guilty, the state knows it, the secret service agency knows it and yet if you have enough money and political power you can openly violate law in democratic society and get away with it. Not to say that she is the only one...

Violation of laws and abuse of power is pretty much the same in every society, the only difference between autocratic society and democracy is that autocratic society does everything publicly ( because they have no reason to hide anything ) while democratic society do everything in secret to keep up their good image in the eyes of their public. That's pretty much how politics work.

And I am sorry if I sound annoying but I am a type of person who would rather have one king/president/emperor the entire life to rule me than to swap leaders each 6 or 8 or 10 years and pray that the new one is least incompetent than the last one.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Semblance_of_Power

You know what's funny? the ME is in extreme upheaval yet oil prices have remained fairly low for a couple of years.

And the US lifted its ban on crude exports for the first time in 40 years.

It's rarely discussed but increased oil production in certain countries from methods like hydraulic fracturing or shale oils really had a significant impact on the geopolitics of oil, right now the Saudis insist on keeping over production, which in turn keeps prices low, because they're desperately trying to bankrupt those industries and recoup their "investment" over the long run.

I think interest of external powers in the ME goes far beyond just economic interest from oil and therefore will continue even when oil is less of factor globally.

This is an excellent video that talks about the dynamics of oil prices, as explained by Milton Friedman.

Basically, the reason why Saudi Arabia wants higher production is because they serve the function of "manager" of the cartel since other countries are less able/willing to change their output quickly. They are the final adjuster of the cartel - when the cartel needs to lower their supply, it's mostly the Saudis who lower their output, and vice-versa. As such, it is in their interest to advocate for higher OPEC output since it allows them to sell more oil.

Friedman also discussed a number of issues about the US response to the oil crisis in the 70's, many of which are still applicable today. For example, the US government imposed oil import quotas when the world price of oil was cheap in the 50s, and then subsidised oil imports when world prices spiked in the 70s (sell low and buy high). Similarly, the government prevented the export of oil in the early 2000s when it was profitable to do so, yet released the export restraints now when it's no longer as profitable.

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

I agree wit hpretty much everything you wrote, except this part:



And in democracy is the other way around?

Just look at Hilary Clinton, we all know she is guilty, the state knows it, the secret service agency knows it and yet if you have enough money and political power you can openly violate law in democratic society and get away with it. Not to say that she is the only one...

Violation of laws and abuse of power is pretty much the same in every society, the only difference between autocratic society and democracy is that autocratic society does everything publicly ( because they have no reason to hide anything ) while democratic society do everything in secret to keep up their good image in the eyes of their public. That's pretty much how politics work.

And I am sorry if I sound annoying but I am a type of person who would rather have one king/president/emperor the entire life to rule me than to swap leaders each 6 or 8 or 10 years and pray that the new one is least incompetent than the last one.

I agree with this somewhat, having grown up in Singapore, which has been ruled by the same party for over 50 years. Until a year and a half ago, the party was headed by the same man even though he stepped down as prime minister over 20 years ago. Today, the party is led by his son.

Democracy is ultimately a wrapper for the political system. It represents the form of the political system being applied in the country, but it does not represent the substance of the system. The true substance of the system goes deep into the heart of the nation, and is made up of a complex mosaic of social customs, cultural norms, religious beliefs, institutions, etc.

The substance of the US political system lies not in democracy itself - though democracy is a big part of it - but in the values set out in the Constitution: small government, personal responsibility, and recognition of private property. Singapore, on the other hand, while also a democracy, is built on a culture of obedience and deference to authority, while also placing high importance on non-corruption in the public sector. In the same way, there are many kinds of monarchies/dictators as well. In Indian history, for example, the Mauryan and Gupta empires had centralised and decentralised governments respectively.

Democracy is not a one-size-fits-all solution because it changes the form of the system but not the substance. Instead of trying to force other countries to change the form of governance, what's actually necessary is to change the substance of government, after which the problems can be solved regardless of the form of governance in place.