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

Who will win the election??


  • Total voters
    181
Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
May 1, 2013
Posts
9,218
Likes
5,946
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
ATV Irdning
**** me, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Are you still arguing with Power Raid? Are you still stalking pjcrows every time he says the Liberal Party will win the election? Oh wait, you can't do that, because they DID win the election. God that must be galling for a Labor party member, here banging on about how good they are and they're dead cat bouncing their way to their second lowest ever primary votes. Imagine what Kim Beazley Snr would say about the current dregs in the Labor Party, you being the living embodiment of what he was talking about.

Answer my question: do you understand what 'regime change' means?
There is zero worth to this post and once again your analysis is amiss. Were you just fishing for a like from PJ?
This is great. I can just re-use all my comments from last time and in the same order too. Same time in a fortnight?
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Posts
27,876
Likes
20,231
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fremantle, WA, Associates
Would you care to explain the no doubt brilliant tactic behind the attacks on the Khans? Because it appears that not only is he opening himself up to 'Trump claims people don't have the right to criticize him!' he is also putting millions of military minded conservatives way off side all at once! Steers the conversation back to Trump is a wannabe dictator who hasn't read the Constitution (not even the first bloody amendment, apparently) while attacking the military. Again.

Since Trump is some kind of genius who understands how people tick no doubt the cleverness of this plan has just eluded me so far. No way it could just be that what works on a plurality of GoP primary voters doesn't play quite so well to the general electorate.
trump's 'attack' on the clinton foundation and saudi linked lawyer khizr khan was designed to draw people's attention to women's place in islam

the talking head commentariat having yet another fit over trump matters not a dot
 
Joined
May 1, 2013
Posts
9,218
Likes
5,946
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
ATV Irdning
I look forward to people explaining away Trump's use of WMDs on ISIS as being 'brilliant trolling' of the lefty media...
Nothing of substance again.

In what way does Trump intend regime change?
So now I've said it's pointless trying to get anything out of you, you really want to chat... High School stuff.
 

Warsaw

Leviathan
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Posts
14,875
Likes
7,424
Location
Fight Club
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
76ers, Storm, Broad St.
Kind of remarkable how the absolute abhorrent comments he made about Ghazala Khan is what might signal the beginning of the end for this dumpster fire of a candidate.

He talks a lot about having a 'great temperament, the best temperament' and he can't even help himself from getting into an unthinkable war against the family of a fallen soldier.

His supporters seem to either not care, or relish in the fact that he has alienated and disenfranchised anyone who isn't a white male.

Instead they seem to point to the Trump tower, exclaim 'look tall tower, good at business, will vote' and select someone who is the most hopelessly unqualified candidate in US history.

Buffet on Trump

 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Posts
34,075
Likes
26,815
AFL Club
GWS
The Americans almost fetishise their military. Giving anything but absolute and unqualified praise for the military is political suicide. Yet it doesnt seem to have hurt Trump a huge amount.

The question of what is motivating their professed love of the military now has to be raised. Is it about sacrifice, honour rah rah rah freedom, or is it something more sinister?

A lot more seem to fit in the 2nd category than I thought at the start of the week.
 

awaremind

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Posts
3,403
Likes
2,056
AFL Club
Fremantle
Don't deflect. I asked why you thought Trump was different from other Republicans re: 'regime change'? He's backing Russia in Syria and saying they shouldn't 'regime change', yet he's also said (wrongly) that by pulling the US out of Saudi Arabia the place would collapse, and of course has made other brazen calls about how big, fast and great he would make the military.
Making the military stronger and better discourages the enemy, like in the sun tau classic art of war you should win without fighting, choosing your enemy and the place of battle carefully if you must fight and never spread yourself too thin or support an army you cannot control. Trump is an idiot but his geo-politics are more sound than what we know what we get with Hilary. She has pretty much stated her policies on Russia and China will be stiffer than they are already, which would mean brinkmanship at best and Nuclear annihilation for all of us at worst.
 

Happy Mastenator

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Posts
13,977
Likes
15,083
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
The Americans almost fetishise their military. Giving anything but absolute and unqualified praise for the military is political suicide. Yet it doesnt seem to have hurt Trump a huge amount.

The question of what is motivating their professed love of the military now has to be raised. Is it about sacrifice, honour rah rah rah freedom, or is it something more sinister?

A lot more seem to fit in the 2nd category than I thought at the start of the week.
Having said that if you're old enough you'll remember the respect that the GOP had for a genuine war hero in Kerry, with their purple band aid shit when he ran against a draft dodger in bush. Or adds they ran against an injured vet in max cleland when he ran for congress. The GOP has always been a bunch of hypocritical morons. Trump isn't a surprise he's just the natural progression.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
May 1, 2013
Posts
9,218
Likes
5,946
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
ATV Irdning
Making the military stronger and better discourages the enemy, like in the sun tau classic art of war you should win without fighting, choosing your enemy and the place of battle carefully if you must fight and never spread yourself too thin or support an army you cannot control. Trump is an idiot but his geo-politics are more sound than what we know what we get with Hilary. She has pretty much stated her policies on Russia and China will be stiffer than they are already, which would mean brinkmanship at best and Nuclear annihilation for all of us at worst.
But if he has apparently articulated that he isn't for 'regime change', then what threat would the US hold? Are you thinking "his geo-politics are more sound" because Russia and China would be scared he's crazy enough to use a Nuke? Given Islamic extremists are very keen to goad the west into a religious war, how would America having a 2% bigger military make a difference, when they're already 4000% greater than anything Da'esh could cobble together?

Clinton's policies would be a continuation of the current administration's, and they are winning the war in Syria and Iraq. Russia will continue to try and reinstate its power, but Trump's idea to weaken NATO is far more advantageous to them than anything a Democrat would do.

China is also trying to claim more sea territory and the US and its allies are flexing back. What has Trump proposed that would lessen the brinkmanship? Considering he's already called them 'cheats' and been extremely critical of their economic policy; given he wants to force American companies to make things in America (goodness knows how), and that means businesses like Apple taking work away from China, which would remove one of the deterrents to a hot war with America - that being the economic damage that would happen if business between the countries concluded. Of course in retaliation China may stop buying American bonds and move to strengthen the Euro as the preferred international currency...

And to return to Sun Tzu, in both these situations it would be China and Russia choosing where the war was, and against who, unless you think Trump might start something? Of course, such is the way of the world, if the US increased their military spend, so would potential opponents like Russia and China. And as for "an army you cannot control", how keen would US soldiers be going to fight for Trump when he has said that running a business has been his 'sacrifice' in response to the Khans' sacrifice of losing their son in the army?

Perhaps you could explain your thinking?
 

SexyBlueGirl

Premiership Player
Joined
May 9, 2011
Posts
3,666
Likes
417
Location
Out in the streets
AFL Club
Carlton
Do you genuinely believe calling Clinton "Hitlery" and Trump "Drumpf" is an equivalent insult?

One is Godwin's Law and related seemingly to the fact the first 2 letters are the same (their politics are obviously extremely different in many, many ways).

The other is a reference to Trump's ancestral family name made by John Oliver after a segment where he talked about how Trump is far more a brand that tries to sell success, rather than him actually being synonymous with business success. So he wondered aloud how Donald might be thought of if he had a different brand. And he specifically noted that Trump had tweeted that John Stewart should go by the name "Jon Leibovitz" because he should "Be proud of your heritage. Don’t run away from who you are.". Hence Oliver going back to what Trump's ancestors had switched names away from - Drumpf.

Maybe you think they're equivalent because both are German references???
No, I just like them.
 

coerced

Cancelled
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Posts
2,184
Likes
2,367
AFL Club
Hawthorn
But if he has apparently articulated that he isn't for 'regime change', then what threat would the US hold? Are you thinking "his geo-politics are more sound" because Russia and China would be scared he's crazy enough to use a Nuke? Given Islamic extremists are very keen to goad the west into a religious war, how would America having a 2% bigger military make a difference, when they're already 4000% greater than anything Da'esh could cobble together?

Clinton's policies would be a continuation of the current administration's, and they are winning the war in Syria and Iraq. Russia will continue to try and reinstate its power, but Trump's idea to weaken NATO is far more advantageous to them than anything a Democrat would do.

China is also trying to claim more sea territory and the US and its allies are flexing back. What has Trump proposed that would lessen the brinkmanship? Considering he's already called them 'cheats' and been extremely critical of their economic policy; given he wants to force American companies to make things in America (goodness knows how), and that means businesses like Apple taking work away from China, which would remove one of the deterrents to a hot war with America - that being the economic damage that would happen if business between the countries concluded. Of course in retaliation China may stop buying American bonds and move to strengthen the Euro as the preferred international currency...

And to return to Sun Tzu, in both these situations it would be China and Russia choosing where the war was, and against who, unless you think Trump might start something? Of course, such is the way of the world, if the US increased their military spend, so would potential opponents like Russia and China. And as for "an army you cannot control", how keen would US soldiers be going to fight for Trump when he has said that running a business has been his 'sacrifice' in response to the Khans' sacrifice of losing their son in the army?

Perhaps you could explain your thinking?
This is embarrassingly inaccurate and all over the place. Starting with Clinton's policies on Syria being the same as Obama's. And only getting worse from there.
 

Maggie5

Spec Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
35,124
Likes
31,789
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
Moderator #8,491
trump's 'attack' on the clinton foundation and saudi linked lawyer khizr khan was designed to draw people's attention to women's place in islam

the talking head commentariat having yet another fit over trump matters not a dot
You give him to much credit for 'thinking'.
 

coerced

Cancelled
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Posts
2,184
Likes
2,367
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Clinton never met a war she didn't like.... or vote for.
One of her own foreign policy advisers said the other day they would 'reset' the policy on Syria.

Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.

Jeremy Bash, who served as chief of staff for the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency, said Mrs Clinton would both escalate the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and work to get Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, "out of there".
"She sees the importance of American leadership as a first principle," he said. "Mrs Clinton believes that problems around the world can more easily be solved when America is involved and in each of those problems or crisis. We always try to work with coalitions of people and countries and leaders who are willing to tackle the problems in the same way we are."

Jamie Rubin, the former US diplomat and close Clinton ally, separately told The Telegraph that Mrs Clinton, who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, would not feel "constrained" as many in the Obama administration have been in the wake of its disastrous legacy.
But the key quote is this

"It is a murderous regime that violates human rights; that has violated international law; used chemical weapons against his own people; has killed hundreds of thousands of people, including tens of thousands of children."​

Sound familiar?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...l-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/
 

SexyBlueGirl

Premiership Player
Joined
May 9, 2011
Posts
3,666
Likes
417
Location
Out in the streets
AFL Club
Carlton
One of her own foreign policy advisers said the other day they would 'reset' the policy on Syria.





But the key quote is this

"It is a murderous regime that violates human rights; that has violated international law; used chemical weapons against his own people; has killed hundreds of thousands of people, including tens of thousands of children."​

Sound familiar?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...l-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/
Wow, fighting ISIS and Assad. Sounds logical. :drunk:

Trump has (or at least had, unless he flip flopped) more logical policy of leaving the dictator in place.... as the lessons of Gadaffi and Sadam should have taught them.
 

Barry_Badrinath

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Posts
18,026
Likes
55,417
Location
Bathing in Premiership Glory
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Home Finals at the MCG
I look forward to people explaining away Trump's use of WMDs on ISIS as being 'brilliant trolling' of the lefty media...
What are you talking about? The only quotes I've found by the Donald relating to using WMD's and ISIS is this (after presumably being asked about using nuclear weapons on ISIS):

“I’m never going to rule anything out—I wouldn’t want to say. Even if I wasn’t, I wouldn’t want to tell you that because at a minimum, I want them to think maybe we would use them,” he said.
 

coerced

Cancelled
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Posts
2,184
Likes
2,367
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What are you talking about? The only quotes I've found by the Donald relating to using WMD's and ISIS is this (after presumably being asked about using nuclear weapons on ISIS):
Bit like Hillary's threat to totally obliterate Iran.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422
 

awaremind

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Posts
3,403
Likes
2,056
AFL Club
Fremantle
But if he has apparently articulated that he isn't for 'regime change', then what threat would the US hold? Are you thinking "his geo-politics are more sound" because Russia and China would be scared he's crazy enough to use a Nuke? Given Islamic extremists are very keen to goad the west into a religious war, how would America having a 2% bigger military make a difference, when they're already 4000% greater than anything Da'esh could cobble together?

Clinton's policies would be a continuation of the current administration's, and they are winning the war in Syria and Iraq. Russia will continue to try and reinstate its power, but Trump's idea to weaken NATO is far more advantageous to them than anything a Democrat would do.

China is also trying to claim more sea territory and the US and its allies are flexing back. What has Trump proposed that would lessen the brinkmanship? Considering he's already called them 'cheats' and been extremely critical of their economic policy; given he wants to force American companies to make things in America (goodness knows how), and that means businesses like Apple taking work away from China, which would remove one of the deterrents to a hot war with America - that being the economic damage that would happen if business between the countries concluded. Of course in retaliation China may stop buying American bonds and move to strengthen the Euro as the preferred international currency...

And to return to Sun Tzu, in both these situations it would be China and Russia choosing where the war was, and against who, unless you think Trump might start something? Of course, such is the way of the world, if the US increased their military spend, so would potential opponents like Russia and China. And as for "an army you cannot control", how keen would US soldiers be going to fight for Trump when he has said that running a business has been his 'sacrifice' in response to the Khans' sacrifice of losing their son in the army?

Perhaps you could explain your thinking?
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 ****** 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom