Jump to content

US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Most parts of Asia and the Middle East wouldn't need American intervention if America had kept its oar out of it in the first place.

Very True, they need to mind their own business, instead of helping, they fuck it up more. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    4198

  • Dazey

    1556

  • soon

    1548

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1531

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, downzy said:

Most South-East Asian nations would disagree.  

America, along with Australia, China and the USSR, caused the Vietnam war by splitting the nation into two after the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, thus creating the backdrop of the war. If you want to look at Asia in a wider sense then the Korean issue was created after the US refused democratic elections in Korea after WWII because it feared that the candidates were too left-leaning, and thus the country was split in two, again leading to war. As for the Middle East, the less said about America's meddling there the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

America, along with Australia, China and the USSR, caused the Vietnam war by splitting the nation into two after the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, thus creating the backdrop of the war. If you want to look at Asia in a wider sense then the Korean issue was created after the US refused democratic elections in Korea after WWII because it feared that the candidates were too left-leaning, and thus the country was split in two, again leading to war. As for the Middle East, the less said about America's meddling there the better.

I don't disagree, particularly about the middle-east, but your history review speaks nothing to the preferences of most Asian nations (including Vietnam) who covet the American military presence through the Seventh Fleet to counter-balance China's interests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, downzy said:

She voted for the Iraq War and initially supported it for the same reasons that most Americans supported it: the Bush administration sold it under false pretences.  Outside of that, I don't see much evidence that she's "in love with spreading democracies."  

 

She heavily supported our roles in Libya and Syria, all of which has led to nothing but destabilization 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Slash787 said:

She heavily supported our roles in Libya and Syria, all of which has led to nothing but destabilization 

Both were heavily destabilized humanitarian crises long before the U.S. became involved.  U.S. involvement in Libya prevented Gaddafi from killing thousands of his own subjects.  Syria had long suffered from civil war before American involvement became significant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, downzy said:

Both were heavily destabilized humanitarian crises long before the U.S. became involved.  U.S. involvement in Libya prevented Gaddafi from killing thousands of his own subjects.  Syria had long suffered from civil war before American involvement became significant.  

Western intervention without a plan for what comes next (specifically Libya) really hastened the descent into chaos that our respective medias now utterly ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, downzy said:

I don't disagree, particularly about the middle-east, but your history review speaks nothing to the preferences of most Asian nations (including Vietnam) who covet the American military presence through the Seventh Fleet to counter-balance China's interests.

True, but being the lesser of two evils does not make the lesser being good, and coveting the protection of one bully against another bully is not much to write home about.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

True, but being the lesser of two evils does not make the lesser being good, and coveting the protection of one bully against another bully is not much to write home about.

But that's how international relations has worked largely since 1648.  Perhaps we're past power-politics, but for me at least, not sure it's a bet I'd be willing to take were I President.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So whoose looking likely, have they got a running tally going, whats the score?

Polls in Indiana and Kentucky have closed. I believe it was a always Trump lock in on both of those states.

Things wont get juicy for another hour and thirty minutes, which is when Ohio and North Carolina close, two key battleground states.

The majority of polls have Hillary winning. 538 is the major outlier, which still has Hillary winning but gives Trump a workable high 30% chance. Most other polls have his chances much lower. The betting market has Hillary likely winning at 3:1 odds last time I checked.

Edited by Dan H.
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So whoose looking likely, have they got a running tally going, whats the score?

First state polls close in 22 minutes.  Will likely be 7:30pm when we'll have some sort of indication.  Could very well be not until 11:00pm until we have a projected winner.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Slash787 said:

Western intervention without a plan for what comes next (specifically Libya) really hastened the descent into chaos that our respective medias now utterly ignore.

So your calculation is that it was better to let thousands slaughter at the hands of Gaddafi than risk possible destabilization?  I don't deny that there should have been more effort and support provided to established a functioning government once Gaddafi lost the civil war, but that's a different consideration than the notion that the West should have done nothing at that given time and place.  Also consider that Libya was largely a EU mission.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downzy said:

So your calculation is that it was better to let thousands slaughter at the hands of Gaddafi than risk possible destabilization?  I don't deny that there should have been more effort and support provided to established a functioning government once Gaddafi lost the civil war, but that's a different consideration than the notion that the West should have done nothing at that given time and place.  Also consider that Libya was largely a EU mission.  

 Something had to be done. That much is said. A lot more people would have died if nothing was done. Syria was a bigger problem because of Russia and its Naval Base at Tartus. That and the Syrian Rebels had to be vetted.

6 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

Polls in Indiana and Kentucky have closed. I believe it was a always Trump lock in on both of those states.

Things wont get juicy for another hour and thirty minutes, which is when Ohio and North Carolina close, two key battleground states

 

We can go ahead and call Indiana and Kentucky. Obama's won for Indiana in 2008 was a fluke. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, downzy said:

So your calculation is that it was better to let thousands slaughter at the hands of Gaddafi than risk possible destabilization?  I don't deny that there should have been more effort and support provided to established a functioning government once Gaddafi lost the civil war, but that's a different consideration than the notion that the West should have done nothing at that given time and place.  Also consider that Libya was largely a EU mission.  

No. I'm not passing judgement, I'm merely stating that intervention made the collapse happen faster. 

I've no doubt that more people have died as a result of the removal of his regime than would have had it remained. The his removal just ensured that the deaths have been more indiscriminate, rather than just his enemies. But that is conjecture and utterly impossible to know. Regardless: the lesson of Iraq was do not intervene without a plan for repairing the damage. America failed utterly in that. The EU failed utterly in that. Libya may have been largely en EU mission, but the US was the single largest contributor of resources and manpower to it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Record turnouts being reported in Florida...and a huge surge in the Hispanic vote as well....which doesn't bode well for Trump, he really pissed them off....lol.

 

Turn out sure, but will they get to the polls in time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, downzy said:

But that's how international relations has worked largely since 1648.  Perhaps we're past power-politics, but for me at least, not sure it's a bet I'd be willing to take were I President.  

Oh, I don't disagree with that being how the world works, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • downzy locked this topic
  • downzy unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...