American Politics

[Philia]

We dont know how would it go down but the odds of hillary starting ww3 as president were super high especially with obama's presidency.

I guess the odds are super high with Trump starting a ww3 with China


A war like this is unrealistic. Both party might cause a bit of tension but none would go on a stupid war like this be it Russia-US with Hillary or China-US with Trump.

And you skipped my refugee portion of that post

 

[Aonori]

I guess the odds are super high with Trump starting a ww3 with China


A war like this is unrealistic. Both party might cause a bit of tension but none would go on a stupid war like this be it Russia-US with Hillary or China-US with Trump.

And you skipped my refugee portion of that post

I went to check on the links you provided me the guardian seems legit but the telegraph seems quite controversial after watching other news in it, also worth noticing there are no details on those talks so I cant grasp if it was either good or bad, like does trump suddently going along with the one china policy keeps the military supply deal with Taiwan ok? Or doesnt it? I will wait for some stuff regarding deals between america and taiwan or/with china after this.

I dont see how the trump looks weak in any of these cases without any details going on to prove it, he's backing down on some stuff but we dont know whats behind that besides possibly keeping good trade deals with china and Australia going, eitherway I liked how china had to go in and get trump's attention on the taiwan issue themselves, and if anything it shows some strength and for all we know trump got what he wanted out of china by going on Taiwan and not the otherway around.

 

[xi0]

We dont know how would it go down but the odds of hillary starting ww3 as president were super high especially with obama's presidency.

This statement makes no sense...

If Obama's presidency didn't result in WW3, how would the next administration be able to scapegoat his admin for WW3 actually happening? This isn't a failure of older economic policy, this is war. And if the chances were "super high" with Hillary (which is laughable really), how is Trump's presidency less likely to cause it? Whose presidency would have been able to stop it? We're talking about war on a multinational level, deserving of being called a World War.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

US Taxpayer money was already being wasted before any of trump's wall building plans so I'm I ok to assume all of that taxpayer money being wasted on failures like Obamacare wasnt idiotic but that trump's wall building is?

For one thing, ACA is the first step to achieving a decent healthcare in the country, which isn't idiotic if you ask me (not saying it's perfect, which isn't remotely close to that). Building a Wall, on the other hand, is idiotic because not only will it prove to be ineffective in stopping Illegal Immigrants, but the plan wasn't even thought-out well. You'd have to build a Wall that runs through mountain regions, residential areas, and even a River.
Can't seem to find the Interview about it (since it was shown at a local news), but there's a Trump Advocate in Texas who even admits that the Wall wasn't thoughtfully planned.

 

[Aonori]

This statement makes no sense...

If Obama's presidency didn't result in WW3, how would the next administration be able to scapegoat his admin for WW3 actually happening? This isn't a failure of older economic policy, this is war. And if the chances were "super high" with Hillary (which is laughable really), how is Trump's presidency less likely to cause it? Whose presidency would have been able to stop it? We're talking about war on a multinational level, deserving of being called a World War.

I dont see how people dont realize the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency, but then again it's not like globalism wasnt getting out of hand for a while or anything.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 12, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 12, 2017 ---

For one thing, ACA is the first step to achieving a decent healthcare in the country, which isn't idiotic if you ask me (not saying it's perfect, which isn't remotely close to that). Building a Wall, on the other hand, is idiotic because not only will it prove to be ineffective in stopping Illegal Immigrants, but the plan wasn't even thought-out well. You'd have to build a Wall that runs through mountain regions, residential areas, and even a River.
Can't seem to find the Interview about it (since it was shown at a local news), but there's a Trump Advocate in Texas who even admits that the Wall wasn't thoughtfully planned.

It's not like a wall over the entire US Mexico border is gonna be raised if anything there will be more focus on open areas you dont really think trump would manage to build much of a big wall for the entire border in question in just 4 years do you? And how would such wall be built economically speaking in the first place? Expect better secured and reinforced borders not anything like the wall of America from trump

 

[xi0]

I dont see how people dont realize the dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency, but then again it's not like globalism wasnt getting out of hand for a while or anything.

Yes of course, globalism. I guess we should call up Alex Jones to talk about Psychic Vampire pedophiles. Or maybe David Icke to talk about the Repitlian Illuminati next?

Talking about World War 3 is as nebulous as any possible topic really. You know what WW3 is? Mutually-assured destruction. Who would be the players in it? US and Russia? How does full-blown war in 2017 benefit either side? That's why we've had nothing but proxy wars since the 50s, we know the stakes are way too high.

And I am not a Clinton fan, but saying she wanted WW3 with Russia is nonsense.

 

[Philia]

I went to check on the links you provided me the guardian seems legit but the telegraph seems quite controversial after watching other news in it, also worth noticing there are no details on those talks so I cant grasp if it was either good or bad, like does trump suddently going along with the one china policy keeps the military supply deal with Taiwan ok? Or doesnt it? I will wait for some stuff regarding deals between america and taiwan or/with china after this.

I dont see how the trump looks weak in any of these cases without any details going on to prove it, he's backing down on some stuff but we dont know whats behind that besides possibly keeping good trade deals with china and Australia going, eitherway I liked how china had to go in and get trump's attention on the taiwan issue themselves, and if anything it shows some strength and for all we know trump got what he wanted out of china by going on Taiwan and not the otherway around.

I want to know why do you think a war with Russia under Hillary is more likely than a war with China under Trump?

And Trump looks weak because he says he is not bound to follow one China policy and will stop China's currency manipulation and buildings in south China sea. He sees that China doesn't care and then he phones Xi and says he wants constructive relationship.


And you still can't show me how refugees are more dangerous than home-grown population.

 

[xi0]

I want to know why do you think a war with Russia under Hillary is more likely than a war with China under Trump?

Wait....could it be Russian connections??????? :z0mg

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 12, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 12, 2017 ---

Wait a minute, what if conflict with Russia can be completely avoided if we elect someone who is soft on them?

 

[Aonori]

Yes of course, globalism. I guess we should call up Alex Jones to talk about Psychic Vampire pedophiles. Or maybe David Icke to talk about the Repitlian Illuminati next?

Talking about World War 3 is as nebulous as any possible topic really. You know what WW3 is? Mutually-assured destruction. Who would be the players in it? US and Russia? How does full-blown war in 2017 benefit either side? That's why we've had nothing but proxy wars since the 50s, we know the stakes are way too high.

And I am not a Clinton fan, but saying she wanted WW3 with Russia is nonsense.

Who is David Icke? Never heard of the guy.

On Alex Jones, I took the liberty to watch some vids on bombard's body language to see more about the guy and so far he's just a "conservative who uses liberal tactics against liberals and interrupts a lot of people while they are talking but is trying to fix that".

So having warmonger generals threating ww3 with russia and Obama expelling russian diplomats over fake news material are good? Because it sounds to me like a raise in tensions that could've resulted in ww3.

Also how do you think the first world wars started? It was due to nonsense and idiots as part of the trigger, denying the risk of world war and allow for tension rising is really stupid if you ask me, but again I will say we dont know how the context of it would be but a ww3 scenario is very possible under a hillary presidency with the proper trigger and conditions any ww scenario is possible.

 

[xi0]

So having warmonger generals threating ww3 with russia and Obama expelling russian diplomats over fake news material are good? Because it sounds to me like a raise in tensions that could've resulted in ww3.

Also how do you think the first world wars started? It was due to nonsense and idiots as part of the trigger, denying the risk of world war and allow for tension rising is really stupid if you ask me, but again I will say we dont know how the context of it would be but a ww3 scenario is very possible under a hillary presidency.

I'm not necessarily anti-Mattis, but how is he not considered a "warmonger" by today's standards? Obama expelling Russian diplomats seemed like a "fuck you" to the incoming administration more than anything.

And yet it isn't under a Trump presidency? And why is that exactly?

 

[Philia]

Also how do you think the first world wars started? It was due to nonsense and idiots as part of the trigger.

Aye. In that case a it seems a Trump presidency might very well result in a ww3.

 

[Aonori]

I'm not necessarily anti-Mattis, but how is he not considered a "warmonger" by today's standards? Obama expelling Russian diplomats seemed like a "fuck you" to the incoming administration more than anything.

And yet it isn't under a Trump presidency? And why is that exactly?

Mattis still needs to give evidence of stupid warmongering, so he's fine for now if he starts doing BS he deserves to be exposed of course.

Obama's sabotage is a bad example nonethless and deserves to be called upon.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 12, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 12, 2017 ---

Aye. In that case a it seems a Trump presidency might very well result in a ww3.

But by your own links you prove he wants better relations with china by conceding to their one china policy.

 

[Philia]

But by your own links you prove he wants better relations with china by conceding to their one china policy.

Better relationship with China doesn't rule out the possibility of a WW3. There are many other countries in the world

Actually he wanting better relationship with China shows that he is a weak president and can't back his words.

And then why you don't show me how refugees are more prone to terrorism than other groups?

 

[Aonori]

Better relationship with China doesn't rule out the possibility of a WW3. There are many other countries in the world

Actually he wanting better relationship with China shows that he is a weak president and can't back his words.

And then why you don't show me how refugees are more prone to terrorism than other groups?

It would be easier to show that if the police could identify the refugee terrorists and criminals more easily, but the Sweden police seem to know a lot on this and started speaking.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

It's not like a wall over the entire US Mexico border is gonna be raised if anything there will be more focus on open areas you dont really think trump would manage to build much of a big wall for the entire border in question in just 4 years do you? And how would such wall be built economically speaking in the first place? Expect better secured and reinforced borders not anything like the wall of America from trump

So then what exactly is the point of building a Wall if it's not going to be on the entire border? Illegals will find another way to go through the border.

It would make more sense if he were to invest in a stronger border patrol (it would be costly, but at least possible and more efficient than building a wall).

 

[Aonori]

So then what exactly is the point of building a Wall if it's not going to be on the entire border?

It would make more sense if he were to invest in a stronger border patrol (it would be costly, but at least possible and more efficient than building a wall).

Who's to say there wont be a investment to the border patrol coming up though?

And the wall is clearly being overhyped lol just look at those america's wall vids.

 

[Philia]

It would be easier to show that if the police could identify the refugee terrorists and criminals more easily, but the Sweden police seem to know a lot on this and started speaking.

So you can't show that the refugees are more of a threat than home grown population. Then why you are so against accepting them? You do know that they are refugees because they were forced to leave their place due to wars? You have high moral standards, eh?

 

[Aonori]

So you can't show that the refugees are more of a threat than home grown population. Then why you are so against accepting them? You do know that they are refugees because they were forced to leave their place due to wars? You have high moral standards, eh?

Someone seems to be undermining the Sweden police warnings, I dont know how would this refugee case go for America but you can have some selective evidence on problems on another countries and get your own conclusions just like trump did after looking at what refugees did first on Europe.

Eitherway I like the way trump's handling the refugee matter now he seems to be getting smarter on this now.

 

[xi0]

Mattis still needs to give evidence of stupid warmongering, so he's fine for now if he starts doing BS he deserves to be exposed of course.

Obama's sabotage is a bad example nonethless and deserves to be called upon.

And yet you still aren't bothering to explain yourself on why WW3 under a Clinton presidency would have a "super high" chance of happening and why it won't happen under a Trump presidency. Clinton giving the appearance of being more outwardly hawkish compared to Obama still isn't a legitimate reason for why WW3 would realistically happen.

 

[Philia]

Someone seems to be undermining the Sweden police warnings, I dont know how would this refugee case go for America but you can have some selective evidence on problems on another countries and get your own conclusions just like trump did after looking at what refugees did first on Europe.

Eitherway I like the way trump's handling the refugee matter now he seems to be getting smarter on this now.

And what warning Sweden police is giving, based on what? And also since much more people in USA dies due to gun violence than terrorism, isn't it better to concentrate how to reduce gun violence? But not like the Orange guy cares.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 12, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 12, 2017 ---

And also you said Trump isn't weak, he is very strong and he will stop China's currency manipulation and construction in south China sea. Afaik, China didn't stop construction in South China sea neither they changed their currency policy. Yet he now wants constructive relation with them. How strong do you think it makes him look?