Politics & Stuff

[CHOULO19 24,332]

8 hours ago, johnnythefirst said:

How exactly is she a war criminal, (unless you're talking about US foreign policies in general which would make every modern President technically a war criminal)? Not that I'm a fan, but she's obviously better than any of the current republican candidates running. That party has been on the wrong side of history since the Reagan days...
Hillary is plastic, but any of those guys except maybe Kasich are very very scary, whether it's a ruthless but dangerously insecure business man like Trump who will say literally anything, or a ultraconservative Christian lunatic like Ted Cruz.
Don't forget which party was in power when they lied to the UN about the reasons to invade Iraq, one of the main reasons for the current unsolvable fuck-up we've got with ISIS and the likes. If GW Bush ran today, he'd actually be one of the more progressive Republican candidates...

Yeah, obviously I mean foreign policies when she was secretary of state. 'Masterminding' the Libya catastrophe, cosigning on the global drone assassinations, helping to fund and arm neonazis in Ukraine and groups on the US' own terror list in Syria...etc. and that's just getting started though it suffices to just mention Libya for why she should be jail. So it makes for a change, if/when she gets elected, that the president of the USA is a war criminal even BEFORE taking office...

When it comes to foreign policy in the US, parties matter little. As you rightly pointed out, every single US president since WW2, democrat or republican, is a war criminal. And that's not even an exaggeration:

 

Take Obama, for example. There hasn't been as much attention to Libya as was for Iraq, but the results are arguably as devastating if on a smaller scale (Libya only has about 6 million citizens). As country and as a state, Libya is now in a much worse shape than Iraq. The state is just completely gone and there is no possible way for it to get better in the near future that the US is now talking about another war there this time to fight those they put in power with their first war! 

And in the whole region, apart from fueling the islamization and militarization of the uprisings in neighboring countries, the weapons thrown into Libya are now being use all over Africa by groups like Boko Haram and Al Shaba that have grown immensely due to the Libyan war and are now terrorizing half of Africa.

And you mentioned the lies about Iraq, I was just reading this article last week and it points out that contrary to what was being reported in Western (as well as Arabic) media about tens of thousands (even reached hundreds of thousands by some 'estimates) being murdered by Gaddafi, Human Rights Watch now estimates that a total of about 350 protesters were killed. Obviously still an awful tragedy, but it exposes the shameless propaganda that was used to justify the war. So democrats lie and wage horrendous wars just as much as republicans do.

That's because US wars are not done for any principle (you can argue that for the vast majority of wars in history) but for the benefit of corporations like weapons manufacturers, defensive contractors, oil companies...etc. On that basis, Hillary is by far the most likely to cause the most damage as president because her position as part of the establishment and her ties to those corporations and willingness to do their bidding by far surpasses any of the other running candidates (with Rubio probably in second place).

So it's not that I by any means think that Trump would do good or not kill a whole lot of people, I just can't see him being as destructive on foreign policy as Hillary. 

[johnnythefirst 1,076]

I'm no expert on Libya, but the question is what you should do when a president starts to shoot his own people and a major part of the country rises up against him. I don't believe the whole Arab spring was orchestrated by the US. Ghadaffi for example had been in power unchallenged for decades, and was minding his own business. Let's pick a more clear example: Assad is obviously a mass murderer. The largest number of civilian casualties are still made by the Syrian army, not by ISIS. What should be done about him? Nothing? Invasion? The half-hearted stuff we are doing now? It's not an easy decision. The country is going to be in ruins whatever option you choose. 

The difference with Iraq is that it was a dictatorship too, but a stable one, posing no threat at all to its neighbors and certainly not to the US or any NATO Members. Bush and his cronies decided to pull a massive invasion anyway. Costing thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and essentially creating a breeding ground for terrorists. It's proving to be one of the absolute worst decisions of the century and it was made because no one in the republican party seems to understand foreign politics.

Trump is an insecure buffoon who puts his golden lettered name on penis shaped skyscrapers just to make himself feel better. Hillary might be establishment and working for "wall street in stead of main street" but Trump IS Wall Street. He's a billionaire who probably washes his hands after touching any of his blue collared fans. He doesn't want to make America great, he wants to make himself great and earn himself a statue. He doesn't know a flying fuck about the world outside of the US, doesn't have any political experience whatsoever, inherited all of his wealth and get endorsed by the KKK and doesn't mind.

If I take a look at these candidates I'll gladly pick or Sanders or four more years of Obama. With all his faults, he's still a more qualified and more gracious leader than the lot of them. You're always going to have blood on your hands as the US president, the question is how much. 

[Fernando 6,585]

Looking the Republican primaries more and more and to me it seems like this will go down to Convention. 

Once it goes to Convention more then likely Trump will lose out. 

See that possibility higher and more higher. 

And Cruz at the convention will get the nod. 

[iseah100 5,612]

I know I'm 'foreign' to US politics, but I just can't understand how Trump is unanimously viewed as worse than Hillary. Even if you want to take his rhetoric at face value, he's still come out on the left of Hillary on several issues particularly foreign policy. I mean the woman is a war criminal even before she sets foot in office which makes for a change from the usual procedure. As someone who lives in the middle east, I'm wishing for ANYONE except Hillary Clinton, Trump included! 

As for Cruz, the obvious issue is that if he somehow does get elected and then even more unlikely actually does very well, would anyone really want to see that wax face of his on money everywhere?! Would probably complete devalue the dollar and send the world into a financial crisis.... 

Trump is far, far worse than Clinton. Trump is a fascist and would try to strong arm other nations to agree to deals. People like him because he "speaks his mind". Tbh if Bernie doesn't win the primary nomination I won't vote. Hiliary is sketchy; Benghazi, emails, Libya. He voting record is gray and she flip flops according to public demand. Trump would be worse because he has no plans. I know he goes against the establishment but i dont want a racist bigot to lead my country.

Also, I'd be shocked if Hiliary did anything major, because the House will be Republican and the GOP hate Hiliary more than they hate Obama or anyone else. Like...a ton. I agree wars are waged largely to promote business and unfortunately I do think Hiliary will continue that trend.

[iseah100 5,612]

Looking the Republican primaries more and more and to me it seems like this will go down to Convention. 

Once it goes to Convention more then likely Trump will lose out. 

See that possibility higher and more higher. 

And Cruz at the convention will get the nod. 

Been hearing rumors that Trump may not get the nominations, despite what he's doing in the caucuses. As much as I hate Trump i dont support this. The people elected him to represent them and the GOP should honor that.

[Fernando 6,585]

4 minutes ago, iseah100 said:

Been hearing rumors that Trump may not get the nominations, despite what he's doing in the caucuses. As much as I hate Trump i dont support this. The people elected him to represent them and the GOP should honor that.

Well it's not rumors, it's a reality. 

It's called getting enough delegates to get the nomination. He doesn't have enough and Ted Cruz is taking a lot of delegates from him. 

The rules have changed, as in the past winner took all. Now it's giving out proportional. And because of that is more then likely that Trump won't have enough points ie delegate to get the nomination itself. 

So because no one can get the nomination by the delegates this will go to convention. 

[iseah100 5,612]

4 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Well it's not rumors, it's a reality. 

It's called getting enough delegates to get the nomination. He doesn't have enough and Ted Cruz is taking a lot of delegates from him. 

The rules have changed, as in the past winner took all. Now it's giving out proportional. And because of that is more then likely that Drumpf won't have enough points ie delegate to get the nomination itself. 

So because no one can get the nomination by the delegates this will go to convention. 

Umm, he has far more delegates than Cruz. Drumpf has 329 and Cruz has 231. As of right now he doesn't have enough but he is on track to become the nominee. 

[Fernando 6,585]

8 minutes ago, iseah100 said:

Umm, he has far more delegates than Cruz. Drumpf has 329 and Cruz has 231. As of right now he doesn't have enough but he is on track to become the nominee. 

Yes and you need 1,237 for nomination. 

There's only 1,762 left.....

Meaning if by the end he has not gotten the enough vote he won't get it. 

 

[kellzfresh 7,229]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

Yes and you need 1,237 for nomination. 

There's only 1,762 left.....

Meaning if by the end he has not gotten the enough vote he won't get it. 

 

That means he needs 60% of the remaining delegates to win without the convention. Lol, it'll be comedy watching the party deny the will of the people. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

8 hours ago, johnnythefirst said:

I'm no expert on Libya, but the question is what you should do when a president starts to shoot his own people and a major part of the country rises up against him.

Why, though? Why is that even a question for governments that have absolutely nothing with the country of the uprising? 

The answer is very simple: provide medical and humanitarian aid and take in and help refugees. In the worst cases use diplomacy and the UN for non-violent interventions. That's it. 

If he is a dictator whom the people of his country want gone then they will find a way to do so. That's what history teaches us. Don't intervene militarily and increase the violence because that never ends. That's what history teaches us as well. 

The very fact that that is THE question comes from the belief that the US owns the world having inherited it from western European countries. Why else would a government feel that an uprising against a dictator literally thousands of miles away from you be of any concern to it and worse one needing a military intervention?! 

It's even more absurd that this is largely accepted as a necessary question when anyone who knows anything about previous interventions would know that these interventions are about economic and geopolitical gains and NEVER have anything to do with any moral obligations towards civilians.

Simply put, you CANNOT pretend to care about Gaddafi killing 350 Libyan protesters when you support the Saudi government dictatorship over its own people and sending troops to crush the uprising of the people Bahrain against their own dictator and then sell them weapons to bomb and murder thousands of Yemeni civilians and schools and hospitals. And that's just one of endless examples.

 

Regarding Syria, it's WAY too late now to talk about not intervening when everyone and their uncle has already played major roles there. Of course there are countless various reasons for the uprising, the biggest one of course is that the Baathist regime is a bloody dictatorship, but the uprising was doomed before it even started because the US and its regional allies were planing for intervention in Syria through manufacturing sectarian conflicts from at least 2006:

Quote

PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE:  There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis.  Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business. Both the local Egyptian and Saudi missions here, (as well as prominent Syrian Sunni religious leaders), are giving increasing attention to the matter and we should coordinate more closely with their governments on ways to better publicize and focus regional attention on the issue. 

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/06DAMASCUS5399_a.html

I genuinely believe that without Saudi-Qatari-Turkish-US intervention to gain political leverage and ensure that the next regime does their bidding (and shares their religious beliefs in the case of KSA) that Assad would have been overthrown within a few months because without the islamization of the revolution, minorities and forces from neighboring countries would not have rallied behind the only remaining secular force: The Assad regime. 

But now the best we can hope for is Russia and the US agreeing on some sort of settlement that would give all the 'involved' countries some political power in Syria so that they would allow for the creation on a semi-operational state in a part of Syria while everyone goes into a decade of 'war on terror' in the other part. 

[robsblubot 3,595]

On 3/4/2016 at 2:08 PM, CHOULO19 said:

I know I'm 'foreign' to US politics, but I just can't understand how Trump is unanimously viewed as worse than Hillary. Even if you want to take his rhetoric at face value, he's still come out on the left of Hillary on several issues particularly foreign policy. I mean the woman is a war criminal even before she sets foot in office which makes for a change from the usual procedure. As someone who lives in the middle east, I'm wishing for ANYONE except Hillary Clinton, Trump included! 

As for Cruz, the obvious issue is that if he somehow does get elected and then even more unlikely actually does very well, would anyone really want to see that wax face of his on money everywhere?! Would probably complete devalue the dollar and send the world into a financial crisis.... 

BTW, I suspect you haven't really read and heard everything Trump said.

Because, IMO, while Hilary is part of establishment, and also part of the problem especially according to the right wingers who hate government *, Trump is the problem according to the left wingers and pretty much anyone who can add and divide.

* without the government the power goes (exclusively) to who controls the capital.

The distribution of wealth is skewed and Trump is the face of the useless wealthy, who inherit everything, produce very little and have little success. It's very hard to lose wealth once you have it: money begets money.

Like Mitt said recently, Trump is really not that great a businessman, but he sure likes to make people believe that. You can really say the most absurd things as long as you do so confidently.

Capitalism only works if all players have chips to play. Think about this a bit: a poor guy will spend 100% of all the money he makes or is given, but it's still not much money (not much moves). Middle class will spend a very high percentage of what they acquire and it is a meaningful chunk. The wealthy will spend very small percentage of what they have parked. So, from an economic POV, you really want a large middle class and if you can follow any prosperous times, even here in the US, you will see a very large middle class with a lot of purchasing power. That's really not what republicans want.

In the end none of this really matters that much as money casts a much stronger vote than the actual electoral votes.

Do you want to understand politics in the US? It's really easy: follow the money. Now, the actual following demands a bit of an effort, because money exerts so much influence that laws are created to help who have it and don't want to be tracked - btw corporations are people too!  NPR's marketplace addressed this a bunch times (good show).

BTW, once you do (follow the money) both parties become somewhat similar. As a independent who usually votes democrat, I find that the republicans usually lose me, ironically, when they offer fewer freedoms: when they try to force religious ideas down my throat, their prejudices, gun craziness (I am not against ownership), and their ideas on the trickle down economics: how they work more for the wealthy and in consequence against the majority.

And if you don't mind being depressed, read Republic Lost by Lessig: http://republic.lessig.org/ (free pdf download) While some of his ideas, especially on the solutions part, may seem controversial, the parts (2/3 of the book) about the influence of money and how congress works are spot on - hard to disagree with any of that. If money had no influence in politics, why there is so much money, and increasingly so, in politics? 

 

[iseah100 5,612]

Bernie wins Nebraska and Kansas. Clinton wins Louisiana. Maine is voting tomorrow, Michigan on Tuesday.

[Fernando 6,585]

10 hours ago, iseah100 said:

Bernie wins Nebraska and Kansas. Clinton wins Louisiana. Maine is voting tomorrow, Michigan on Tuesday.

You saw the Republican? 

Trump is not blowing Cruz out. 

At this pace we will go to convention. 

And then will not be surprised to see Trump not get the nomination at the convention. 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

42 minutes ago, Fernando said:

You saw the Republican? 

Trump is not blowing Cruz out. 

At this pace we will go to convention. 

And then will not be surprised to see Trump not get the nomination at the convention. 

 

The bigger question is if that happens will Trump run third party, out of spite, and fracture the GOP.

[Fernando 6,585]

1 hour ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

 

The bigger question is if that happens will Trump run third party, out of spite, and fracture the GOP.

That's a possibility but I doubt he will do it, we shall see. 

But now how things stand I can say that I'm confident this will go to convention and at convention Ted Cruz will get the nomination. 

Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee for me (which I wanted because he is Christian...now doesn't mean he might be a true Christian as there's many phony out there but still I would vote for him as it can't be any worse then Bush and Obama...). 

Now weather Ted can beat Hillary at the general elections is a whole another thing. That would be much harder but we shall see.