Who'll win the 2020 rematch?

[Takhisis]

Who said anything about hostility towards the US? I would just like to see Japan become less reliant on the US for protection. That does not require them to become hostile towards the US.

What I mean is, given that the only way to carry out long-term opposition to the US seems to be to become a nuclear regime (perhaps it's a self-fulfilling prediction) then you are giving governments a reason to have the bomb. See below:

And I would say nuclear powers, overall, really aren't that dangerous. At least not when it comes to the specific issue of the use of nuclear weapons.

No, the real problem is proliferation. If Japan has the bomb then why not the Philippines and Viet Nam, on whose territory China is encroaching? Why not South Korea, to balance out Best Korea's own nuclear arsenal?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Give nukes to Iceland, they need them to defend against Greenlandic Aggression.

 

[onejayhawk]

Iceland uses Chess as its preferred weapon of mass instruction.

You did? OK I'll take your word for it... but what about the other part that Trump has actually tried to follow through on some and successfully followed through on some of the other hysteria inducing promises?

See the EPA thread.

J

 

[Commodore]

What I mean is, given that the only way to carry out long-term opposition to the US seems to be to become a nuclear regime (perhaps it's a self-fulfilling prediction) then you are giving governments a reason to have the bomb. See below:

No, the real problem is proliferation. If Japan has the bomb then why not the Philippines and Viet Nam, on whose territory China is encroaching? Why not South Korea, to balance out Best Korea's own nuclear arsenal?

Well, I'd say if any nation at all is qualified to have nukes, it would be Japan. Being the only nation to have nukes used against it would, in theory, mean they would be the least likely to actually use them since they are more aware than anyone what those weapons can do.

And I would say the case against the Philippines and Vietnam having nukes would be their governments are unstable or prone to irrational actions. This being the case with the Philippines moreso than Vietnam. I wouldn't have too much of an issue with South Korea having nukes, but they certainly don't need them to balance themselves out with North Korea. It's likely that North Korea's nuclear arsenal (if they even really have one) numbers in the single digits, possibly low double-digits. Those warheads, if their tests are to be believed, are also extremely weak with most modern nations having conventional bombs that are more powerful than North Korean nukes.

Of course arguing which nations should or should not have nukes isn't really something I like to do since I believe it is the sovereign right of any nation to defend itself in any way it sees fit. If a nation feels acquiring nuclear weapons is the best way to defend themselves, then so be it.

 

[Commodore]

but what about the other part that Trump has actually tried to follow through on some and successfully followed through on some of the other hysteria inducing promises?

What has he succeeded with? Yeah, he's tried to do some of those things, but none of his attempts have been successful. Roe v. Wade still hasn't been overturned, Mexicans still aren't being mass-deported, construction on "the wall" still hasn't started, his "repeal and replace" healthcare bill is stalled in the Senate, and his travel ban has been slapped down once and is likely to be slapped down again soon. Like I said, Trump may really, really want to do all these things but the realities of life and politics in the US will keep him from being successful.

So while it may be worrying that we have a president that would even attempt to do these things, the hysteria that he will turn his promises into policy is unfounded.

You did? OK I'll take your word for it...

It was in a different conversation where the topic somehow came up. But yeah, I admitted I got a little too swept up in the hysteria.

 

[demiurgenext]

What has he succeeded with? Yeah, he's tried to do some of those things, but none of his attempts have been successful. Roe v. Wade still hasn't been overturned, Mexicans still aren't being mass-deported, construction on "the wall" still hasn't started, his "repeal and replace" healthcare bill is stalled in the Senate, and his travel ban has been slapped down once and is likely to be slapped down again soon. Like I said, Trump may really, really want to do all these things but the realities of life and politics in the US will keep him from being successful.

So while it may be worrying that we have a president that would even attempt to do these things, the hysteria that he will turn his promises into policy is unfounded.



It was in a different conversation where the topic somehow came up. But yeah, I admitted I got a little too swept up in the hysteria.

Yes, but you give an equivalency to made up comments intended as lies about one candidate to slander him (Obama) versus stated objectives that another candidate is attempting to achieve, but is woefully ineffective.

These two things are not the same. Not by a long shot.

You are saying the lie is the same as the reality.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Well, I'd say if any nation at all is qualified to have nukes, it would be Japan. Being the only nation to have nukes used against it would, in theory, mean they would be the least likely to actually use them since they are more aware than anyone what those weapons can do.

Japan, Germany and Italy will probably get nukes once the ww2 generation passes aways from living memory and war guilt fades away

 

[Lexicus]

Of course arguing which nations should or should not have nukes isn't really something I like to do since I believe it is the sovereign right of any nation to defend itself in any way it sees fit. If a nation feels acquiring nuclear weapons is the best way to defend themselves, then so be it.

Throw the world onto the fire for the sake of maintaining intellectually consistent nationalism? Sounds like a bad trade to me.

Mexicans still aren't being mass-deported,

I suppose this depends on your definition of "mass"-deporting but certainly people are being deported in larger numbers than under Obama, and many of the stories have been heartbreaking. It's not something I would expect you to care about though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oprah, obviously.

 

[demiurgenext]

The big winner of the Obama presidency? Hate groups, conservative pundits, the NRA, the poor, the uninsured, and the LGBT community.

The big winner of the Trump presidency, so far - traditional media (NY Times, WaPo, LA Times), late night comedians, liberal pundits, and Putin. I expect soon to add the Rich, as that's obviously the agenda, with the new tax code and removing insurance for millions for tax breaks for the 10%.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What has he succeeded with? Yeah, he's tried to do some of those things, but none of his attempts have been successful. Roe v. Wade still hasn't been overturned, Mexicans still aren't being mass-deported, construction on "the wall" still hasn't started, his "repeal and replace" healthcare bill is stalled in the Senate, and his travel ban has been slapped down once and is likely to be slapped down again soon. Like I said, Trump may really, really want to do all these things but the realities of life and politics in the US will keep him from being successful.So while it may be worrying that we have a president that would even attempt to do these things, the hysteria that he will turn his promises into policy is unfounded.

You got me there, but how successful does he need to be before people have the right to start wailing and crying about it? I mean he literally already appointed one anti-abortion Justice, does he need to appoint 2 more before people can start the hysteria? Or do folks need to keep quiet until Roe v. Wade actually is overturned? Same for the Muslim ban and the Wall/deportations... I mean he has issued two or three different travel bans at this point. The man is clearly not giving up and serious about pushing this thing through, so do people need to wait until its actually in place before they can rant and rave against it? We talk a lot about the "safeguards" in place but you have to be reasonable about how much faith you expect folks to put in the safeguards when boiled down, its basically the Republican controlled Congress. I don't know about you, but they haven't exactly bowled me over with their willingness to check/balance him or hold him accountable. The House resisted on healthcare but then caved... other than that, they just cosign and excuse his antics. Again you may be seeing differently than me.

It was in a different conversation where the topic somehow came up. But yeah, I admitted I got a little too swept up in the hysteria.

I want to press a little on this, because then what you seem to be saying is that since you got swept up, but then came to your senses... now its not OK for other people to get swept up too? Like you got your turn to ride the crazy-train, but now that you've had your fill the ride is shut down for everybody else? Also, there is a twinge of tension between this point and the position you take on nukes... As in we (the US) got to have our nukes cause nobody is the boss of us and that's what we want... so everyone else should be able to make that call for themselves, fine. But then why doesn't that reasoning extend to the hyperbole over Trump? You got to rail over gun-grabbing, cause that's how you felt at the time, now you feel differently, fine. But why should you get to tell others to "pipe down, you're being hysterical", anymore than the US should get to tell DPRK or Iran or Japan to "pipe down you guys are being hysterical, you don't need nukes..."? I realize that this isn't exactly the same, but do you see my point?

 

[onejayhawk]

We have a relevant article today from the Boston Herald:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/co...ow_can_we_move_on_together_if_hillary_clinton

Despite the BH source, this is far from a friendly article.

J

 

[mrt144]

Hillary just needs retire and enjoy life.

 

[onejayhawk]

Hillary just needs retire and enjoy life.

How is she supposed to enjoy life when she is not in charge of everything?

J

 

[mrt144]

How is she supposed to enjoy life when she is not in charge of everything?

J

She can find a way. Good riddance.

 

[Ryika]

From what I know about her, Hillary is that sort of person who only gets real enjoyment from the pursuit of power.

So retirement seems to be out of the question, but maybe people can get her to pursue some other form of power that is not as destructive to the american left as trying to be president.

 

[mrt144]

From what I know about her, Hillary is that sort of person who only gets real enjoyment from the pursuit of power.

So retirement seems to be out of the question, but maybe people can get her to pursue some other form of power that is not as destructive to the american left as trying to be president.

Maybe set up a philanthropic foundation that distributes aid to people with AIDS or something...I don't know, has anyone ever tried this in a post political life?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Maybe set up a philanthropic foundation that distributes aid to people with AIDS or something...I don't know, has anyone ever tried this in a post political life?

LOLs... You mean like The Clinton Foundation?

Obviously that's what you meant... nicely done.

 

[metalhead]

The moment the Clintons decided to trade on their political legacy for enormous personal financial gain is the moment they should have ridden off into the sunset and never looked back. It's hard to make the case that you're a "public servant" when you've grown extraordinarily wealthy. Unless you are willing to convince anxious white racists you are one of them, I guess.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If it is a rematch, I at least know who the loser will be:

Spoiler :

The American people