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

The geopolitical shift is underway, but by no means does it have to mean the decline of western civilization, the rise of dictatorial powers, or the kissing up of western countries to said dictatorial powers.

Trump needs to be removed from power to keep that from happening, even if we have to remove him by means of violence.

Please consider what you're saying. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear for him if he died, but any American attempt to do so would either fail and discredit the opposition, leading to him further consolidating power, or if it succeeded, likely would cause a civil war that would make the previous one look tame. If other countries consider his administration that much of a threat to the democratic world order, they sure as hell had better be ready for a war if they want to take him out. Either a world war if they try to go through the American military to do so, or if they tried to ensure a more friendly government took his place with a quick coup, even if it were a Democrat, the new administration would either have to attack the countries that attacked our leader, or there would definitely be a civil war. Either way, a very horrifically bloody war would result.



Around the Network
CaptainExplosion said:
HylianSwordsman said:

Please consider what you're saying. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear for him if he died, but any American attempt to do so would either fail and discredit the opposition, leading to him further consolidating power, or if it succeeded, likely would cause a civil war that would make the previous one look tame. If other countries consider his administration that much of a threat to the democratic world order, they sure as hell had better be ready for a war if they want to take him out. Either a world war if they try to go through the American military to do so, or if they tried to ensure a more friendly government took his place with a quick coup, even if it were a Democrat, the new administration would either have to attack the countries that attacked our leader, or there would definitely be a civil war. Either way, a very horrifically bloody war would result.

So we just have to sit here and accept that he'll get away with every bullshit move he does? Are you saying democracy in the United States is a lie?

Oh for crying out loud, I'm saying it isn't a lie, therefore violence isn't called for! I know you're Canadian, but surely you know we only have elections every two years over here? We haven't even had our first election since he took power! Eight years from now, if he somehow changes the constitution to allow himself to run for a third term, and seems to mysteriously win every time even though he has minority support, then you can question if our democracy is a lie or not. Until then, give our system a chance. If you hate him that much, petition your elected officials to support doing something that will be detrimental to his voters, so they can see that what he's doing is pissing off our allies. Calling for violence at this stage just makes you look unstable.



CaptainExplosion said:

If you knew how eerily similar America has become to George Orwell's 1984 then you wouldn't think of me as unstable.

You are overreacting and look very silly. I don't know what else to tell you.



To Captain Explosion: IF ONE OF THE DEADLIEST WARS IN HUMAN HISTORY WAS TO COME OUT FROM A CHILDISH AND MEAN POST ON TWITTER, I'D QUIT FROM HUMANITY.



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

SpokenTruth said:
Jon-Erich said:

She called roughly half of the voting population deplorable. You know, the people she needed votes from.

She called Trump supporters deplorable.  You know, the people that were already going to vote for Trump.  Unless you truly believe that while those people heavily supported Trump were secretly going to vote Clinton but then changed their mind when she called them deplorable.

Actually, I do believe that. Do you have any idea who many of these voters were? A lot of them were blue collar pro-union democrats from the rustbelt who don't strictly vote democrat or republican. They might have voted for Reagan in the 80s but then voted for Bill Clinton in the 90s. They typically vote for whoever caters to them and throughout the election cycle, Trump focused a lot more of his time on these people while Hillary Clinton spent most of her time campaigning to elitist democrats. There is a reason why Donald Trump ended up winning a bunch of states that Obama had won in 2012. Hillary Clinton openly insulted these people which is one of the most idiotic things I've seen a major presidential candidate do in my lifetime. Not only is it a stupid idea to insult half of the voting population, but it also made her look bad in eyes of many independent voters who hand't decided who they wanted to vote for. I guess getting caught cheating also didn't win her a lot of support either.

HylianSwordsman said:
Jon-Erich said:

No, Trump is many things but he is no Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un does what he wants and has those assassinated who don't back him. Government bureaucracy isn't that big of an issue in North Korea since one guy is in charge and he appoints everybody else to all the high positions and the Workers' Party of Korea isn't going to dispute Kim because they know better. Donald Trump on the other hand has enough trouble getting legislation passed even though his own party controls both the house and senate. I think he still hasn't filled all the positions in his cabinet. A lot of people have quit or have been fired from the White House over the last 18 months. Donald Trump quickly learned that running a bureaucratic government is not the same as running a business. In that sense, what's going on with Trump isn't really all that different than other modern US Presidents. However, one big difference is there is a geopolitical shift going on in the world right now, though it would have happened wether Trump was President or not.

The geopolitical shift is underway, but by no means does it have to mean the decline of western civilization, the rise of dictatorial powers, or the kissing up of western countries to said dictatorial powers.

In this geopolitical shift, we're going to see the US starting to back away from Europe and the Middle East while developing closer relations East Asia and probably Central and South America. Also, one of two things are going to happen. Either the US will improve relations with Russia while relations with China get worse or they're going to improve relations with China while relations with Russia get worse. I have a feeling that Trump may be gambling on Russia, which makes sense. If you don't have a problem with Russia, there would be no need to spends billions of dollars building up a NATO military presence along Russian borders. That would allow the US to use more of their resources in East Asia to counter China. With everything that has been going on over the last few years with both Obama and Trump being critical of NATO and with the sudden shift in US-North Korean relations, I think we're in the beginning of the biggest geopolitical shift since the end of the Second World War.



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

Around the Network

You just went full caps. Never go full caps. Seriously though Iran are not ready to pull the nuclear trigger at the United States. Its the equivalent of every Iranian shooting themselves in the head because they'd be wiped off the map.

I'm not fan of the American foreign policy but let's call a spade a spade here. Even if America fired just 1 nuke at Iran just to provoke them I doubt Iran would even respond because they'd know they would be all dead in minutes.

BTW I meant many Iranians and seen about 20,000 of them at their world cup match in St Petersburg and I have to say they are lovely people. Very sophisticated, modern and good looking people. So I hope they can make friends with the west again.



CaptainExplosion said:
EricHiggin said:
A digital poke is like letting one rip and hoping the jerk across the ocean get's a whiff, which they won't. It's nothing but hot air after that.

It might not seem that way to Iran.



'MERICA POWA!!!

Seriously though, can't we all just get along? :)



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

SpokenTruth said:
Jon-Erich said:

Actually, I do believe that. Do you have any idea who many of these voters were? A lot of them were blue collar pro-union democrats from the rustbelt who don't strictly vote democrat or republican. They might have voted for Reagan in the 80s but then voted for Bill Clinton in the 90s. They typically vote for whoever caters to them and throughout the election cycle, Trump focused a lot more of his time on these people while Hillary Clinton spent most of her time campaigning to elitist democrats. There is a reason why Donald Trump ended up winning a bunch of states that Obama had won in 2012. Hillary Clinton openly insulted these people which is one of the most idiotic things I've seen a major presidential candidate do in my lifetime. Not only is it a stupid idea to insult half of the voting population, but it also made her look bad in eyes of many independent voters who hand't decided who they wanted to vote for. I guess getting caught cheating also didn't win her a lot of support either.

Let me make sure I got this straight.

Clinton said, "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?”

So these swing voters somehow felt that "half of Trump's supporters" meant them?  If they aren't a Trump supporter, how can it mean them?  If they are a Trump supporter, why assume they are the half that is deplorable?  And how would a Trump supporter suddenly no longer want to vote for Clinton if they were already a Trump supporter?

Further, Trump supporters love to call Democrats and SJWs, etc...snowflakes.  Yet deciding your presidential support for the next 4 years because someone called half of a candidate's voters deplorable is the most snowflake thing ever.

Did she fail to campaign strongly in rural America?  Yes, she did.  Did calling half of Trump's supporters deplorable cause those who would have voted for her to vote for Trump?  No.

Maybe she should have pulled a Trump and said, "What I meant to say was basket of 'adorables'.

You can deny all you want, but the deplorables comment was her Romney comment about those who don't pay taxes. It hurt her.

Comments she also did about shutting down the coal industry and so on also did not win her any votes.

Snowflakes is also not an exclusive term for the right to call the left. The left use it just as much as the right.



CaptainExplosion said:
Immersiveunreality said:

If that was a good comparison you would be on your way to a workcamp for making that comment.

The people in USA have freedom and laws protecting them.

Sure, as long as they're white Christian males.

No, laws exist for every human being and i sense you're belief in that is nihilistic but the extreme form of political hysteria you show is not factual.