Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
LOL...looking to cooperate with Russia in establishing a no fly zone over Syria isn't exactly a declaration of war, but whatever blows yer skirt up.
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.
Yes, that Al-Jazeera article is not compelling enough.
I quite agree.If you had said "at all" I'd be in full agreement.
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.
Ajidica said:I was willing to give him a handful of racist and boorish comments to make a splash in a crowded field
Tim, you forgot to clarify whether the hotline will make Merikuh grate again.
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.
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.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?
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.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?
Ted Cruz is an idiot who shouldn't have ever run.
Actually, this is just making the GOP look even worse, isn't 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.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.
This. I was really really hoping for a Cruz win this whole cycle. It would have been a cakewalk.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