[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

Status
Not open for further replies.

That's silly. Here's the reality - a no-fly zone would be by UNSC resolution. I don't know if you are aware, but Russia is a permanent UNSC member with veto power over any resolution, so any no-fly zone so imposed would require their assent. The only purpose of imposing it would be to get the Russians to stop bombing the Syrian rebels. This has become less urgent in the wake of the Russians (mostly) pulling out of Syria, but at the time it made sense to get the Russians either out of Syria, or on the record as vetoing any such resolution.

Not insane at all, and in no way intended to precipitate war with Russia - or with Syria given their lack of an air force. The analysis misses the reality of how this policy would actually work.
 
That's silly. Here's the reality - a no-fly zone would be by UNSC resolution. I don't know if you are aware, but Russia is a permanent UNSC member with veto power over any resolution, so any no-fly zone so imposed would require their assent. The only purpose of imposing it would be to get the Russians to stop bombing the Syrian rebels. This has become less urgent in the wake of the Russians (mostly) pulling out of Syria, but at the time it made sense to get the Russians either out of Syria, or on the record as vetoing any such resolution.

Not insane at all, and in no way intended to precipitate war with Russia - or with Syria given their lack of an air force. The analysis misses the reality of how this policy would actually work.

Syria does have an an force. And "no fly zones" have already been declared (effectively a dow) without any nicety of "UN authorization", itself a violation of national sovereign. The UNSC has no authority to declare "no fly zones". It serves only the purposes of allowing politicians to justify wars to their populations, and of signaling that the country targeted for aggression has no powerful ally. Every country that has been targeted with "no fly zones" has subsequently been bombed and attacked.
 
Yes, that Al-Jazeera article is not compelling enough.
 
Park, I tried to buy your interpretation of Trump back when he first oozed his way into the election but after a year of it I don't think it holds up to Trump's actions. I was willing to give him a handful of racist and boorish comments to make a splash in a crowded field - but he keeps on making those comments. Watching his convention speech didn't give me a sense of "he opposes the no-fly zone because it is pointless and might cause a fight with Russia/Syria". Any sense of a "new path" for American foreign policy was replaced by fearmongering and a desire to bomb the few parts of the Middle East that haven't been bombed over the last decade. I don't believe he mentioned opposition to a Syrian no-fly zone - largely because he was too busy talking about how much of a threat Iran was and perpetuating the lie that the deal gave Iran a nuclear bomb. We have 2 options:
1) Trump allowed his few decent and novel ideas to get subsumed beneath incoherent rage and bombing fever
2) He never really believed in those ideas in the first place

No coherent policy proposal has come out of his mouth since he declared his candidacy. The most coherent proposal is building a wall; which is saying something.
 
No coherent policy proposal has come out of his mouth since he declared his candidacy. The most coherent proposal is building a wall; which is saying something.

He was very coherent this morning with his plan for fixing the VA. It was a direct rehash of every proposal to fix the VA, ever (more funding with no hint where it comes from, fire bad people with no hint how to identify them, eliminate waste fraud and abuse with no hint how to identify it) plus the one very specific Trump plan item that will make it all work.

A hotline so dissatisfied vets can CALL THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY AND TRUMP WILL PERSONALLY SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM.

It was very coherent. Ridiculously, beyond absurdly, and totally unbelievable pie that is actually in orbit and not even visible in the sky, but coherent.
 
Tim, you forgot to clarify whether the hotline will make Merikuh grate again.
 
Tim, you forgot to clarify whether the hotline will make Merikuh grate again.

That was part of what made this a specific policy solution. Drumpf says repeatedly that it is going to make the VA great again, not America in general.
 
OUCH!!!

Congressman talking about the aftermath of 9/11 points out that Senator Clinton fought for funds for survivors, fought again for funds for treatment when the first responders started showing symptoms from the poisonous air they worked in, and fought for emergency aid for small businesses that were impacted by the event.

Then he moves on to Drumpf, who said "my business wasn't affected" with a basic shrug (actual truth is that the loss of four million square feet of commercial space was good for him)...but then somehow passed himself off as a "small business" and cashed in for $150K when the opportunity presented itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OUCH!!!!

Howard Dean points out that we shouldn't be surprised that Mike Pence is still arguing social issues that have been settled in court and trying to reverse decades of progress for women and LGBT...because Mike Pence in 1997 (!!!) was still arguing against women in the workplace.
 
Do you guys accept that there is no point using valid arguments about the absence or stupidity of Trump's policies to prevent him to get elected?

You are approaching the issue completely off. He merely works on feelings, isn't that pretty clear by now. And he works well with the wave of Clinton-hate. Clinton is so hated around the country, it might just get him elected.

Why on earth can't the DNC see this? HRC is the worst possible candidate. I get it, they don't like Sanders and his progressive ideas. It seems, the Clintons have more or less undermined the whole party with their cronies. Good luck to the world. I think, the rest of us non US citizens watches this election disaster unfold in horror.

Maybe, we get away without major wars for the next few years and the world can finally emancipate itself from the US influence. Looking at what sort of dangerous clowns come up for election of notably the most important job in the world, it's just breathtakingly horrific.
 
Do you guys accept that there is no point using valid arguments about the absence or stupidity of Trump's policies to prevent him to get elected?

You are approaching the issue completely off. He merely works on feelings, isn't that pretty clear by now. And he works well with the wave of Clinton-hate. Clinton is so hated around the country, it might just get him elected.

Why on earth can't the DNC see this? HRC is the worst possible candidate. I get it, they don't like Sanders and his progressive ideas. It seems, the Clintons have more or less undermined the whole party with their cronies. Good luck to the world. I think, the rest of us non US citizens watches this election disaster unfold in horror.

Maybe, we get away without major wars for the next few years and the world can finally emancipate itself from the US influence. Looking at what sort of dangerous clowns come up for election of notably the most important job in the world, it's just breathtakingly horrific.

I could have told you that in 2004. I did tell lots of people that in 2004. Heck, the obvious unreliability of the American people to provide quality commanders in chief was why I got out of the military in 1988.
 
Do you guys accept that there is no point using valid arguments about the absence or stupidity of Trump's policies to prevent him to get elected?
If he's just allowed to get away with it, he will. Every voter or supporter that can be convinced to peel off his nauseous fangroup is one saved. Given the numbers and the weird political relic of an electoral college the US has, the road can't be left free for Drumpf to rampage.
 
How is voting for the candidate that's in favor of shooting at Russian aircraft the safe option? Why would someone who has a history of involvement in wars of unprovoked aggression that have had disastrous negative consequences, and continues to call for them, the safe option?
The question you are asking me is not related to the point I was making in the sentence you quoted. "be on the safe side and assume the worst about Trump" is an admonition against voting for Trump. Full stop.
 
Ted Cruz is an idiot who shouldn't have ever run.

Actually, this is just making the GOP look even worse, isn't it?

Ted Cruz could be the 46th President. He would likely be the best odds in the field.

I do not see how any of this makes the GOP look bad, much less worse.

J
 
Cruz would be far easier for a Dem to defeat 8 years from now than Trump, Cruz doesn't command a cult of personality like Trump does and demographics will continually get worse. Cruz can't draw the crowds of angry whites like Trump can either, his nomination would have been far less worrying
 
So at most Trump could initiate a 90 day military action and then have to abandon it if Congress doesn't want to go along with it.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki took 3 days. I'll pass on giving Trump 90 days to see how much damage he can do treating the world like a game of Civ.

Cruz would be far easier for a Dem to defeat 8 years from now than Trump, Cruz doesn't command a cult of personality like Trump does and demographics will continually get worse. Cruz can't draw the crowds of angry whites like Trump can either, his nomination would have been far less worrying
This. I was really really hoping for a Cruz win this whole cycle. It would have been a cakewalk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom