Judging the debate: a point by point analysis

[Final-Fan]

Norris2k said:

Ecology was in your quote in previous post.

What you don't understand just because you got used step by step to it, because the media describe this as nearly normal is that the current politic is already utterly insane. Obama, Clinton, and even to some extent Bush Jr., they kind of have a good temperament, they speak normally, they are sharp, but it's just the apparence of sanity. We are best friend forever with Saudi Arabia that applies sharia, is lynching women, LGBT, finances terrorism, has racist laws, that does not recognize freedom of religion, corrupts worlwide politicians, buy everything everywhere, put money in Clinton's Foundation, and we are to believe it's normal. And that does not change whoever is elected. And we choose as a foe a country that in case of war can destroy the planet, and let's accuse them of a hacking without a proof to divert from Clinton gross negligeance. I tell you, on that Trump is much more sane, for me he's like basically sane.

Taking the oil (if not an hyperbole) is insane, I give you that. But so was Bush to invade Iraq based on lies, without UN approval, without after-war plan, that was insane, that was criminal, illegal, and so costly it changed USA economy for decades or even generations. And so was Obama to just leave it brutally as scheduled, let ISIS arise, and not fight it efficiently. See the consequences, not just terrorism, but migrations, and all the people that live there, destroyed and some of them enslaved. And Obama is still there, sharp in his speeches, clever and kind of likeable, talking about the responsibility of the voter. This is insanity.

I'm pretty sure you are confusing me with someone else.  If the word "ecology" appears in this thread before you mentioned it, please provide the quote because I can't find it. 

Trump's proposal to take the oil wasn't a hyperbolic exaggeration:  he meant it literally* and we know this because he described what the result would have been (in his mind).  "If we had taken the oil, ISIS wouldn't have been able to use it."  That means he literally was thinking of us taking ALL the oil from Iraq in a matter of a few years.  That's mind-boggling stupidity, and either also evil or just more stupidity.  Even if the current political system is full of maniacs and criminals as you suggest, whose policies are damaging this country, they are at least apparently rational enough to avoid policies that completely devastate the country.  I have no such faith in Trump.  If Trump gets in the White House and the economy doesn't go off a cliff, it'll be because everyone around him is thwarting his every move. 

And there is actually pretty strong evidence that Russia is behind the hacks AFAIK.  It's not just smokescreen.  If you have heard evidence discrediting the idea that Russia is behind it please let me know. 

If the house is full of rats, the solution isn't to set it on fire.

*He meant it literally, unless you admit that he didn't really mean it at all, he was just "completing the rhyme".  Perhaps he only meant to say that we should have taken some oil to help defray the costs of the war, but then he just kept on going to say "and then if we had taken it all ISIS wouldn't be able to take any", which is pure madness.  So the problem is that the more charitable interpretation of what Trump says is that he is such a pathological bullshit artist that he literally does it on autopilot and can't stop himself.  I would rather have a liar than a bullshitter as President because at least I know the liar knows what the truth is.