Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

jason1637 said:
CuCabeludo said:

Trump is officially a warmonger just like Bush and Obama(Obama by the way, outbombed Bush on Middle East during his terms, he also destroyed Lybia which now it has become a hellhole on earth, invaded Syria ilegally, etc). Trump in campaign promissed no more wars/US military spending/expansion around the world, as a libertarian myself, I believed that. Now he is on the brink of a new war against Iran, he promissed he would leave Afghanistan and Syria, which Bush and Obama ilegally invaded, now he is permanently in those two countries... He is also ramping up military spending.

A complete 180 from his campaign promisses.

Bush really did mess up in the middle east but Bush's fuck up in the middle east should not be compared to Obama's. Obama did what he had to do and at the end of his presidency the situation int he middle east was way better than it was when he entered.

A war with Iran wont happen. Trump has been pulling troops out of the middle east but unfortunately he is also increased military spending.

Look at Lybia, today is much, much worse than before Obama bombed it to nothing and killed Gadaffi. No country US invaded since its "war on terror" began is better than it was before.

God bless Putin in Syria, if it wan't Russia defending the secular regime of Assad, it would have been replaced by a barbaric islamic caliphate by the US.



Around the Network
CuCabeludo said:
jason1637 said:

Bush really did mess up in the middle east but Bush's fuck up in the middle east should not be compared to Obama's. Obama did what he had to do and at the end of his presidency the situation int he middle east was way better than it was when he entered.

A war with Iran wont happen. Trump has been pulling troops out of the middle east but unfortunately he is also increased military spending.

Look at Lybia, today is much, much worse than before Obama bombed it to nothing and killed Gadaffi. No country US invaded since its "war on terror" began is better than it was before.

God bless Putin in Syria, if it wan't Russia defending the secular regime of Assad, it would have been replaced by a barbaric islamic caliphate by the US.

I mean for the US things are better. Libya may have got worst but the people are better off now since their last leader killed his own people. If Obama did not do what he did Libya would have been worse today.



jason1637 said:
Machiavellian said:

I still do not understand your logic.  Are you saying that you are ok that another nation is willing to influence our elections to help themselves instead of the people who live in that country.  So now you have multiple nations doing things that benefit them instead of us and you see nothing wrong with that.  I really do not know what to say that you see nothing wrong with this because the implications are pretty huge.  Even if you take American history as an example you would know how bad this can get.  Hopping an investigation will root this out when the people in power can also influence the investigation is really being naive.

I'm trying to say that if a country offers dirt to somebody and does not make an agreement saying the candidate must do this if they win then I don't think that should be illegal. This is dirt that the people deserve to hear if the person is really that bad. I don't think other nations should intervene in other countries elections though. It's like i dont think drugs should be illegal but I dont think people should be taking them.



How would you know the other country did not make an agreement.  How would you be able to determine that there isn't something under the table.  If its dirt that the people deserve to hear then the other nation does not have to make any agreement with a candidate or give it to them to publicize, instead they could just easily release it to any news agency. 

Why do you believe that if they give it to a candidate instead of just releasing it to a news agency what would be their goal.  Even then, who is to say the dirt is 100% accurate.  It's even easier to just have 50% accurate and fill in the rest to influence an election. The thing is information and the manipulation of it is just as powerful then the actual truth. I really do believe you have given this subject a lot of thought.



Machiavellian said:
jason1637 said:

I'm trying to say that if a country offers dirt to somebody and does not make an agreement saying the candidate must do this if they win then I don't think that should be illegal. This is dirt that the people deserve to hear if the person is really that bad. I don't think other nations should intervene in other countries elections though. It's like i dont think drugs should be illegal but I dont think people should be taking them.



How would you know the other country did not make an agreement.  How would you be able to determine that there isn't something under the table.  If its dirt that the people deserve to hear then the other nation does not have to make any agreement with a candidate or give it to them to publicize, instead they could just easily release it to any news agency. 

Why do you believe that if they give it to a candidate instead of just releasing it to a news agency what would be their goal.  Even then, who is to say the dirt is 100% accurate.  It's even easier to just have 50% accurate and fill in the rest to influence an election. The thing is information and the manipulation of it is just as powerful then the actual truth. I really do believe you have given this subject a lot of thought.

You can always investigate them to determine if there was a deal or not even if it were under the table. If the information is released through a news agency or an opponent I really dont care as long as the information is out to the public. If it's not accurate then that's just misleading or fake news and should not be released but thats hard to avoid. There are lots of fake news stories being shared on social media during elections anyway.



CaptainExplosion said:

These Arizona cops held a black family at gunpoint, just because their 4-year old child walked out of a store with a Barbie doll without them noticing.

They threatened to shoot over something so minor. This is why they need police reform in America. -_-

Woooow. That's so gross I need to take a shower.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

Around the Network
CuCabeludo said:
jason1637 said:

Bush really did mess up in the middle east but Bush's fuck up in the middle east should not be compared to Obama's. Obama did what he had to do and at the end of his presidency the situation int he middle east was way better than it was when he entered.

A war with Iran wont happen. Trump has been pulling troops out of the middle east but unfortunately he is also increased military spending.

Look at Lybia, today is much, much worse than before Obama bombed it to nothing and killed Gadaffi. No country US invaded since its "war on terror" began is better than it was before.

God bless Putin in Syria, if it wan't Russia defending the secular regime of Assad, it would have been replaced by a barbaric islamic caliphate by the US.

How would that be any different than Assad's regime?

Also, I thought American cops were recruited to prevent murders, not commit murder themselves.



Some days I just blow up.

CuCabeludo said:
jason1637 said:

Bush really did mess up in the middle east but Bush's fuck up in the middle east should not be compared to Obama's. Obama did what he had to do and at the end of his presidency the situation int he middle east was way better than it was when he entered.

A war with Iran wont happen. Trump has been pulling troops out of the middle east but unfortunately he is also increased military spending.

Look at Lybia, today is much, much worse than before Obama bombed it to nothing and killed Gadaffi. No country US invaded since its "war on terror" began is better than it was before.

God bless Putin in Syria, if it wan't Russia defending the secular regime of Assad, it would have been replaced by a barbaric islamic caliphate by the US.

Gadaffi didn't get killed by Obama, but by a mob of Lybians who finally saw a chance to get rid of him.

As for Syria, not so sure. The US (among others) were supporting the more secular and moderate rebels to fight both Assad and ISIL. And that worked pretty well until the Russians started bombing them instead of ISIL.

Also, while ISIL would have been absolutely barbaric, Assad ain't that much better. He's a secular barbarian compared to ISILs fundamentistic barbarism. Why do you think so many people in Syria were and are willing to fight against Assad? Certainly not because he's a good guy! ISIL is defeated, but the fighting is still going strong because Assad just ain't much better than ISIL would have been.

While we're at it, you criticise Obama for outbombing Bush in the middle east. You know who outbombs Obama several times over? Putin!

But again, comparing Bush to Obama here is very misplaced. Without Bush critically destabilizing the whole region by invading Irak, it wouldn't have come to this in the first place.



jason1637 said:
Machiavellian said:

How would you know the other country did not make an agreement.  How would you be able to determine that there isn't something under the table.  If its dirt that the people deserve to hear then the other nation does not have to make any agreement with a candidate or give it to them to publicize, instead they could just easily release it to any news agency. 

Why do you believe that if they give it to a candidate instead of just releasing it to a news agency what would be their goal.  Even then, who is to say the dirt is 100% accurate.  It's even easier to just have 50% accurate and fill in the rest to influence an election. The thing is information and the manipulation of it is just as powerful then the actual truth. I really do believe you have given this subject a lot of thought.

You can always investigate them to determine if there was a deal or not even if it were under the table. If the information is released through a news agency or an opponent I really dont care as long as the information is out to the public. If it's not accurate then that's just misleading or fake news and should not be released but thats hard to avoid. There are lots of fake news stories being shared on social media during elections anyway.

Since this started with the law, doesn't American law state you're to be considered innocent until proven guilty? How is guilt proven?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
jason1637 said:

You can always investigate them to determine if there was a deal or not even if it were under the table. If the information is released through a news agency or an opponent I really dont care as long as the information is out to the public. If it's not accurate then that's just misleading or fake news and should not be released but thats hard to avoid. There are lots of fake news stories being shared on social media during elections anyway.

Since this started with the law, doesn't American law state you're to be considered innocent until proven guilty? How is guilt proven?

Well the current law is that a campaign can't take anything of value from a foreign national or a foreign country. So like money and dirt and probably other stuff too. I'm pretty sure that there are laws that make it so that campaigns have to record where the money is coming from so officials can always look into those records. Also ian investigation can be used to find evidence to prove someone guilty.



jason1637 said:
EricHiggin said:

Since this started with the law, doesn't American law state you're to be considered innocent until proven guilty? How is guilt proven?

Well the current law is that a campaign can't take anything of value from a foreign national or a foreign country. So like money and dirt and probably other stuff too. I'm pretty sure that there are laws that make it so that campaigns have to record where the money is coming from so officials can always look into those records. Also ian investigation can be used to find evidence to prove someone guilty.

The other question to ask is, what exactly constitutes value in terms of info in this case? What if a campaign uses a tonne of foreign info that they deem as valuable against their opponent, only to end up losing to their opponent anyway? How valuable is dirt that is supposed to damage your opponent bad enough for yourself to secure victory, if you don't end up victorious? How do you quantify the value? Use the changes in polls, because they're so reliable?

So if you win and used foreign dirt you should pay for it because it must have helped you, but if you lose, the dirt obviously wasn't very valuable so it doesn't matter? If you lose and still have to pay for it, then obviously foreign dirt must be seen as extremely useful, so why does the law want to hide this?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.