By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Trump Says U.S. Should Shoot Russian Planes If Diplomacy Fails

mornelithe said:
Goatseye said:

US wants war but not with Russia. I didn't prove your point yet buddy, you already undressed and on the bed. Put your breaks on.

No one wages more wars and proxy wars than the US.

This thread is about the US, Russia and Trump.  Please stop derailing, it's against forum rules, ya know :)

But, just to address that historically speaking the last time the US declared war was during WW2.  For people who so want 'war', we sure don't declare it often.

No need to rustle your jimmies for real. I didn't lie. 

War has changed, so has the way it is waged. 

There ain't no need to be smartass and hide behind semantics. 



Around the Network

OMG naive people, have you ever heard of rethorics?!! Do you take everything literal?

Trump would be very toned down and calm once he becomes president and the world needs him, unless you are a leftist who support mass immigration, the downfall of Western culture, perversion of moral values and the corruption of justice.



You guys got it all wrong, the pilot was just a huge fan of 'Top Gun' and wanted to relive that moment.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCTJmXrgsFg



Goatseye said:
mornelithe said:

This thread is about the US, Russia and Trump.  Please stop derailing, it's against forum rules, ya know :)

But, just to address that historically speaking the last time the US declared war was during WW2.  For people who so want 'war', we sure don't declare it often.

No need to rustle your jimmies for real. I didn't lie. 

War has changed, so has the way it is waged. 

There ain't no need to be smartass and hide behind semantics. 

Actually no, war is still waged the same way, we just haven't seen one in quite some time.   Just because we haven't seen a fullblown war (that the US has taken part in/waged), doesn't mean they're fought differently.  There are plenty of examples throughout the world where this proves true.

Again, you're the one who posited that the US wants War more than Russia, then you moved the goalposts and said you didn't mean a war with Russia.  Please.  You got pounded by facts, and then sought to reframe your position.



Trump is a blowhard that blows hard



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:

OMG naive people, have you ever heard of rethorics?!! Do you take everything literal?

Trump would be very toned down and calm once he becomes president and the world needs him, unless you are a leftist who support mass immigration, the downfall of Western culture, perversion of moral values and the corruption of justice.

I support the perversion of moral values. Because "moral value" thumpers are usually a bunch of blow hards. Boobs and dicks for all who want them.

Like Trump hasn't fucked like 500 Eastern European "models", lol, he coyly brags about it in his books.



The Donald "vows" a lot of silly things. Assuming he does get elected, he will not be able to fulfill almost ANY of them.



Soundwave said:
AAA300 said:

You can't give Clinton's credit for the birth of the Internet! Literally jobs appeared out of thin air with the internet in the 90s , so of course jobs were plentiful. And if you look back thank God the house was controlled by Republicans other wise Clinton would have spent that extra cash fast! If Hillary is elected don't expect a job rush like that of the 90s internet boom.

Yeah Republicans are so great at balancing the budget they haven't balanced one in like 100 years. Jobs rates were still solid for Clinton prior to '96 too before the internet boom took off like crazy. 

Clinton's economic policies are actually more in line with a centrist/center right common sense approach. "Hardcore" Republicians from Reagan onwards always go full retard because the first thing they do is enact massive tax cuts for their ultra-rich buddies thus making it virtually impossible to not run a monster deficet.

And Trump is sadly the same ol. His tax plan is insane, it will incur trillions of dollars of debt just like Bernie Sanders, the only big difference is millionaires/billionaires get huge tax savings under Trump's plan, at least under Bernie average people would get things like free college tuition (mind you I think both of their tax plans are irresponsible).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/07/politifacts-guide-2016-candidates-tax-plans/

Hilary's is the only tax plan that doesn't run the country into monumental debt.

100 years?!?!? You do realise the Republicans were in control of the house during the balance and surplus of budget during the Clinton years. And the house is what passes the budgets so your wrong about 100 years. And Bush 41 lost to Clinton because he raised taxes. They used his first campaign slogan of " read my lips no new taxes " against him to win.



AAA300 said:
Soundwave said:

Yeah Republicans are so great at balancing the budget they haven't balanced one in like 100 years. Jobs rates were still solid for Clinton prior to '96 too before the internet boom took off like crazy. 

Clinton's economic policies are actually more in line with a centrist/center right common sense approach. "Hardcore" Republicians from Reagan onwards always go full retard because the first thing they do is enact massive tax cuts for their ultra-rich buddies thus making it virtually impossible to not run a monster deficet.

And Trump is sadly the same ol. His tax plan is insane, it will incur trillions of dollars of debt just like Bernie Sanders, the only big difference is millionaires/billionaires get huge tax savings under Trump's plan, at least under Bernie average people would get things like free college tuition (mind you I think both of their tax plans are irresponsible).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/07/politifacts-guide-2016-candidates-tax-plans/

Hilary's is the only tax plan that doesn't run the country into monumental debt.

100 years?!?!? You do realise the Republicans were in control of the house during the balance and surplus of budget during the Clinton years. And the house is what passes the budgets so your wrong about 100 years. And Bush 41 lost to Clinton because he raised taxes. They used his first campaign slogan of " read my lips no new taxes " against him to win.

All Republican presidents have run monster deficets when given the presidency, it really traces back primarily to Reagan though who popularized the concept of massive tax cuts to millionaires/billionaires as if those people would then magically give a shit about opening an ice cream stand and employing peon middle-class Americans. Since then basically every Republican tax strategy is do the same, which is basically a gaurunteed to balloon debt.

Bill Clinton at least bumped the tax rate up to millionaires/billionaires to 36% or so (Reagan dropped it to 20%, lol).

You cannot cut Social Security or Medicaid, even Republican consituents (read: old people) will lose their damn minds if you do. You can't cut military spending too much or you're a weak leader even though the only wars we fight are against guys wearing pajamas in caves.

So if you're cutting incoming tax revenue you're basically cutting yourself off at the knees.

Hilary Clinton may not be perfect, she may not bring the "oohs" and "ahhhs" that make people feel good like Bernie, she may not be bombastic like a WWE Wrestler like Trump is ... but her tax plan is the only one that has lick of sanity within it. It keeps taxes the same on average/above average income citizens, collects a modest raise on people who make a ton of money, but nothing crazy even there, it's not complete anti-business hostility like Sanders' tax plans are.



mornelithe said:
Goatseye said:

No need to rustle your jimmies for real. I didn't lie. 

War has changed, so has the way it is waged. 

There ain't no need to be smartass and hide behind semantics. 

Actually no, war is still waged the same way, we just haven't seen one in quite some time.   Just because we haven't seen a fullblown war (that the US has taken part in/waged), doesn't mean they're fought differently.  There are plenty of examples throughout the world where this proves true.

Again, you're the one who posited that the US wants War more than Russia, then you moved the goalposts and said you didn't mean a war with Russia.  Please.  You got pounded by facts, and then sought to reframe your position.

Sure, facts; I mean huge facts.

Just because some US agressions did not conform to UN stipulation of war, doesn't mean we didn't have armed conflicts against states and groups.

Who cares about fullblown conflict or not, we're talking the use of military and its implications. Nowadays fullblown conflict are a thing of the past. Just ask the Pakistini in the mountains how they had a warzone like environment, where every year hundreds of civilians lost their lives since Bush was in power.

War is always changing and technology has been making that happen faster since the introduction of drones. Now we send "advisors" and air power instead of battalions.