2016 US Presidential Election - Trump vs Clinton? - Part 1

[Juddism]

and China

this from Trump himself.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform

The Trump Plan Will Achieve The Following Goals:

1. Bring China to the bargaining table by immediately declaring it a currency manipulator.

going down well, yeah? you reckon Xi would be off to the bargaining table for talks? and he wants to better communications.

 

[Elroo]

Monica sucks dick, hillary can't

Do you?

 

[Elroo]

 

[coerced]

this from Trump himself.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform



going down well, yeah? you reckon Xi would be off to the bargaining table for talks? and he wants to better communications.

Probably not, but Trump isn't incorrect in calling China a currency manipulator. More correctly it is a mercantilist.

 

[Mofra]

When combatting Daesh Trumps strategy seems to make infinately more sense, in that he appears ready to sacrifice the Saudi/Qatar alliance for cooperation with Russia and possibly even Iran. This alone is a geopolitical earthquake and one the establishment will not accept and would probably kill him before he could implement, even if he did win the election. Daesh are stuffed without state backing, someone is backing them, end this and the war will end very fast.

Perhaps not just someone.
Turkey pretending to enter the Syrian war then spending most of their efforts in bombing the PKK (you know, the only ground forces that beat the Daesh consistently) and the Saud's deep pockets and affinity for wahabbism/sharia law/fundamentalism means they are likely to be getting support on both sides of Iraq.
It's not like the Saudis aren't shelling and bombing the crap out of whoever they like anyway (Yemen).

 

[coerced]

Perhaps not just someone.
Turkey pretending to enter the Syrian war then spending most of their efforts in bombing the PKK (you know, the only ground forces that beat the Daesh consistently) and the Saud's deep pockets and affinity for wahabbism/sharia law/fundamentalism means they are likely to be getting support on both sides of Iraq.
It's not like the Saudis aren't shelling and bombing the crap out of whoever they like anyway (Yemen).

I think that's where awaremind was going with 'someone'.

The real question is whether US foreign policy really cares about stopping the likes of Daesh because keeping the ME in a state of disorder suits their current alliances.

 

[Mofra]

I think that's where awaremind was going with 'someone'.

The real question is whether US foreign policy really cares about stopping the likes of Daesh because keeping the ME in a state of disorder suits their current alliances.

Quite possibly, although the US is rapidly moving towards being a net oil exporter for the first time in decades so that could mean the next US presidential term coincides with a rapid shift in the importance of old alliances.

Playing up the Islamic Terrorism bogeyman does help their largest industries (and let's not forget France's arms industry is vital to their economy so ongoing ME strife is likely to be in NATOs interests too).

China's saber-rattling in the South China sea is likely to cause huge headaches for Asian alliances too given China's raw minerals (REMs) are vital to the Japanese economy and China haven't been afraid in the past to use trade embargoes to get what they want.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...the-chinese-rare-earths-embargo/#2622f7f8314b

 

[JackNah_8]

Obama really dislikes Trump lol Now wait for Trump to blast Obama on twitter


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-different-a7168681.html?cmpid=facebook-post

President Obama calls Trump unfit to serve as president. It's not about policies. 'This is different'

While Obama has had policy disagreements with other Republican nominees, the problems with Trump on a different level

President Barack Obama has issued a powerful repudiation of the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, suggesting in the clearest terms yet that he does not consider him fit to be president.

He had been asked to comment on Mr Trump in the light of attacks he had launched since last week’s Democratic convention on the family of a Muslim-American soldier slain in Iraq and foreign policy remarks at the weekend which betrayed a lack of knowledge about the circumstances of Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

 

[coerced]

Quite possibly, although the US is rapidly moving towards being a net oil exporter for the first time in decades so that could mean the next US presidential term coincides with a rapid shift in the importance of old alliances.

Possibly but the US was intervening in global affairs and the ME before they became a net importer of oil. Many in the foreign policy establishment see US projection of power as a force for good. I think the rationale I once read, may have been from Cheney, is why have an empire and not use it?

Playing up the Islamic Terrorism bogeyman does help their largest industries (and let's not forget France's arms industry is vital to their economy so ongoing ME strife is likely to be in NATOs interests too).

Eh. Selling heavy ordnance to states would be more profitable than what can be gained from stirring up Islamic terrorism.

 

[SexyBlueGirl]

you think we won't pay if Trump gets in? get your head out of the sand...it's not about paying, it's about how high a price you're willing to pay.

I'm talking about campaign financing. Are you still on the same page?

 

[Mofra]

Possibly but the US was intervening in global affairs and the ME before they became a net importer of oil. Many in the foreign policy establishment see US projection of power as a force for good. I think the rationale I once read, may have been from Cheney, is why have an empire and not use it?

Eh. Selling heavy ordnance to states would be more profitable than what can be gained from stirring up Islamic terrorism.

The Daesh becoming a defacto state and destablising others requires states to purchase more arms for "border protection".
As just one example:

https://news.vice.com/article/if-the-us-wont-sell-you-weapons-france-might-still-hook-you-up

In 2014, France secured $9.1 billion in arms exports — its highest level since 2009. This year, it has signed $12 billion in contracts with Saudi Arabia alone. This follows a 2014 deal with Riyadh for $3 billion worth of arms and equipment for the Lebanese army to bolster its defenses against the destabilizing conflict in neighboring Syria.

The achievements of French defense companies over recent years have been celebrated domestically. The successful sale by Dassault Aviation of 24 Rafale fighter jets to Egypt earlier this year was hailed in France as an export achievement of the highest order. Officials claim that arms sales so far for 2015 have created around 30,000 jobs in France.

Criticism of the sale of two dozen Rafale fighter jets to Egypt, which also included a frigate and missiles, was rebuffed by talk of the shared battle against terrorism and the need for security. Hollande announced solidarity with an Egypt threatened by the Islamic State and the fragmentation of neighboring Libya

The five biggest arms buyers in the region are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Algeria, Egypt, and Iraq. This year, their purchases have grown bigger and bolder, having climbed from $12 billion last year to more than $18 billion.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE are central to the battle against the Islamic State, and this makes them valuable long-term allies to countries like France, which has itself been struggling with vulnerability to terrorism.

As the saying goes, "follow the money"

 

[coerced]

The Daesh becoming a defacto state and destablising others requires states to purchase more arms for "border protection".
As just one example:

https://news.vice.com/article/if-the-us-wont-sell-you-weapons-france-might-still-hook-you-up


As the saying goes, "follow the money"

Hmm yeah. The point of that article is that France has stepped in where the US has left a market gap, not that the arms market has become bigger as a result of Islamic terrorism

The better play is hoodwinking states into buying into expensive projects like the JSF.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Well he has stated that he wants to improve communication with Russia and China,( if he isn't already a "siberian candidate"), stating that he thinks he could work with Putin, who is actually (while tyrannical in some ways) quite reasonable. Indeed Putin's stategy has been to strengthen his army rather than to spread it thin- his campaign in Syria is very streamlined. Trump's unpredictability is a military advantage, but his curent loss of military respect is definately poor form.

When combatting Daesh Trumps strategy seems to make infinately more sense, in that he appears ready to sacrifice the Saudi/Qatar alliance for cooperation with Russia and possibly even Iran. This alone is a geopolitical earthquake and one the establishment will not accept and would probably kill him before he could implement, even if he did win the election. Daesh are stuffed without state backing, someone is backing them, end this and the war will end very fast.

Assad will stay in Syria barring major war, the turks don't seem to be certain any more of whose side they are on and that hesitation is allowing the regime and its alliance to gain massively. Even if they go back to supporting the assorted jihadists its looking nearly too late for our moderate headchopper friends. (The ones who the US sponsered to chop childrens heads - this is her army she cannot control) A continuation of this regime change via al-qaeda policy is truly disasterous for the Obama regimes prestige, and will be even worse for Hillary, as she is known for her bloodthirstyness already, whereas Obama is clearly a limp wristed puppet when it comes to Foreign policy.

On Sun Tzu I repeat his utterance is too win without fighting, by being strong, unified and wise. Trump appears unlikely to be this... but if Hillary wins, in November I guarantee she is going too add so much fuel to the Alt right fire, if they have a decent candidate - (an american equivalent of Putin or Orban ie. alt right but not a moron), they will romp home in 2020, if Hillary hasn't led the world into direct superpower conflict or some kind of worldwide populist uprising . You may think the latter sounds nutty, well who expected brexit, against all the propaganda for remain. You think the former is paranoid, it may be but... The russian stance is definately to prepare for war, and the Chinese are pretty much saying **** off out of the scs. The world is at that 1915, dominoes are ready to fall stage.

I guess it depends how much you buy into the use of a globalised economy as a peace-making tool. The reliance between China and the US is very strong and so neither side would go beyond brinkmanship. China would have to write off mountains of $ owed to them if they started a hot war, as well as huge swathes of the marketplace they like to trade in. It would be disastrous for them and to gain what? The fact Trump is so relentlessly provoking them, both casually (like when he defended Russia and said we didn't know who did the DNC hack, but then twice suggested China, before also adding "Or someone sitting in his bed") and with massive ramifications (on their trade relationship) is based on his desire for more jobs in America, apparently. If he adds a lot of heat to the relationship and potentially undoes of lot of that economic dependency then I could imagine a more aggressive China in Asia, and I can easily imagine a China way, way more likely to try and hurt the US economically in retaliation. The US would already be on shaky ground with a Trump Presidency, and a weaker US would struggle to improve their military substantially over even the medium-term:

• if China wasn't buying bonds;
  
• if the US's source of cheap labour had been severely reduced by Trump's immigration policies
• if the people were unhappy that Trump's interventionist ideas to bring jobs back to America were actually harming their economy
• if there was no direct reason to be increasing the military - your only claiming he would do so in order to increase bargaining power, right? Da'esh is already losing, so there isn't a medium-term foe there. Trump seems keen to go after the Saudis, no doubt due to their support of terrorist elements, but there is no reason to increase the already-massive US military in order to threaten Saudi Arabia. (as an aside, the policy of achieving energy independence has finally started to kick-in, but if the US was to go hard at electric vehicles and renewables, they could weaken the oil trade massively within a decade)

Russia is a different kettle of fish as they're economically struggling. Putin's not so different to Trump in terms of trying to use a hard-line personality and the desire to make their country 'great' again to be a political boon. It distract from the major problems they're having. The fact Putin is actively helping Trump obviously suggests there would be less conflict in relations there, but not less conflict in the world. If Trump weakens NATO, then Putin would go at Ukraine much harder and if he was getting away with it, would be more likely to consider the other NATO states on his borders. Whether he would actually do anything on those is obviously just speculation, but given how much he has tied himself politically to shows of strength and how much Russia needs to flex its muscles to try and get more control of revenue, I'm struggling to see how Russia calms down under either Presidency? Happy to hear otherwise, of course. We all know how much propaganda runs both the pro and anti Putin stories.

 

[Todman]

So Trump got a bounce from the Republician convention the Hillary got a bounce from the Democrats convention. so who's bounce was higher and did the bounces cancel each other out?

 

[RW]

So Trump got a bounce from the Republician convention the Hillary got a bounce from the Democrats convention. so who's bounce was higher and did the bounces cancel each other out?

Trump got the bigger bounce if you look at the RCP poll averages and actually edged in front of Clinton for the first time in the campaign, but he promptly handed the Democrats a free kick by attacking the Khan family after they spoke at the DNC, which was utterly stupid.

 

[Gough]

Trump got the bigger bounce if you look at the RCP poll averages and actually edged in front of Clinton for the first time in the campaign, but he promptly handed the Democrats a free kick by attacking the Khan family after they spoke at the DNC, which was utterly stupid.

I think this is the first time that going in all guns blazing at anyone who criticised him has genuinely hurt Trump. Previously those critics were mainly politicians, and sections of the media, so going after them in that aggressive manner that he does could be rationalised somehow, the Khans represent a different sort of critic to ones that he's faced before, and he hasn't dealt with it well.

 

[JackNah_8]

Trump shouldve remained quiet about the Khan family,there was no reason for him to attack them.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

So Trump got a bounce from the Republician convention the Hillary got a bounce from the Democrats convention. so who's bounce was higher and did the bounces cancel each other out?

Trump got the bigger bounce if you look at the RCP poll averages and actually edged in front of Clinton for the first time in the campaign, but he promptly handed the Democrats a free kick by attacking the Khan family after they spoke at the DNC, which was utterly stupid.

Not true.

This is a very good read on the state of the bounces and what to look for going forward. Nate has Hillary getting double the bounce of Trump. Fivethirtyeight has a liberal bias in their opinion stuff, but they are very very good on their data staff and keep that strictly evidence based.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-clintons-lead-a-bounce-or-a-new-equilibrium/

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Media now condemning Trump for "banning" a crying baby from his rally. They depths they will sink to to discredit Trump are limitless.

 

[RW]

Not true.

This is a very good read on the state of the bounces and what to look for going forward. Nate has Hillary getting double the bounce of Trump. Fivethirtyeight has a liberal bias in their opinion stuff, but they are very very good on their data staff and keep that strictly evidence based.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-clintons-lead-a-bounce-or-a-new-equilibrium/

To be fair, I haven't quantified the size of the bounce, I was just looking at the graph on the RCP site and it looks like Trump got a bigger spike when you average all the polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Anyway it is probably academic now since any bounce he did get has been all but wiped out since the Khan thing.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Trump on election night

 

[RW]

Media now condemning Trump for "banning" a crying baby from his rally. They depths they will sink to to discredit Trump are limitless.

Agree, but he is still an idiot for playing into their hands.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Media now condemning Trump for "banning" a crying baby from his rally. They depths they will sink to to discredit Trump are limitless.

I've seen the footage, he was being a real dick, deserves to be criticised for it.

 

[Pessimistic]

I don't have comedy channel in my foxtel package, but I recon the election channel is far funnier

 

[JackNah_8]

Trump reacts to criticism too quickly and doesn't see the difference between being a business person and politician. His whole career is based on getting attention and pursuing what he wants. This is one way to define Trump:

If Trump is crazy, then he's crazy like a fox ... or perhaps a wolf. Trump is more wolf than fox. Foxes live in small family groups or on their own. Wolves are generally considered to be more social and hierarchical. Alpha wolves use displays of strength to dominate and command in an environment of considerable stress and struggle. Trump, who marks his territory -- buildings, products, aircraft, etc. -- with his name in giant letters, is a dominant male who demands absolute loyalty and considers success the proof of superiority.
For him, like the alpha wolf, any show of weakness, such as an apology or a public admission of a mistake, could signal his fall and the loss of everything that matters to him.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/02/opinions/trump-isnt-crazy-opinion-dantonio/