So let's talk about how Trump was supposed to start less wars

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

CaitSeith:

Seanchaidh:
Stalin actually had plausible rationalizations for the necessity of his bloodletting and cruelty.

I kinda want to know what rationalization he came up with to decide to export food while millions of USSR citizens starved to death.

Probably using Mao's rational that he had millions more where that came from.

CaitSeith:

Seanchaidh:
Stalin actually had plausible rationalizations for the necessity of his bloodletting and cruelty.

I kinda want to know what rationalization he came up with to decide to export food while millions of USSR citizens starved to death.

According to some sources, western powers wouldn't trade for anything else. Whether that's true or not, the question is pretty easy to answer: Stalin expected the Ukraine to produce more food than it did.

WolvDragon:

erttheking:

WolvDragon:

He isn't Stalin or Hitler. Trump is a moron, but he hasn't achieved that level of horribleness these two men achieved.

People seem to be focusing on raw numbers when it comes to this, ignoring that many of the policies Trump has in place reflect early Nazi ones. We?ve even got to the point where he?s considering invading minor countries without provocation. People forget that Hitler was in power for 12 years, it didn?t all come at once.

And what are those policies? And please don't say seperating families because previous presidents have done it.

Did previous presidents lock children in cages by the thousands as a deterrent? No.

And number one. Trump is dehumanizing Mexicans. He's not saying all of them are bad, he's focusing on the criminals. Just like Hitler did. He's constantly spewing out propaganda about them (and in general) encouraging abuse against them and dissenters, even in authority. Then there's cronyism, rampant nationalism, militarization, hostility to the educated, emphasis on religion, hostility to free press, have I made my point?

erttheking:
He's not saying all of them are bad, he's focusing on the criminals. Just like Hitler did.

Uh, Ert, not sure how to break this to you, but Hitler didn't "focus on the criminals", he focused on Jews as a collective group and blamed all of them for Germany's problems. Not the criminals, not the bad ones, all of them.

Then there's cronyism, rampant nationalism, militarization, hostility to the educated, emphasis on religion, hostility to free press, have I made my point?

I'm legitimately having trouble thinking of one single example of a US president where this wasn't true. Hell outside of the socialist wing of the Democrats I'm having trouble thinking of a US politician where this is true, and even that that's only because of the religion part.

Zontar:

erttheking:
He's not saying all of them are bad, he's focusing on the criminals. Just like Hitler did.

Uh, Ert, not sure how to break this to you, but Hitler didn't "focus on the criminals", he focused on Jews as a collective group and blamed all of them for Germany's problems. Not the criminals, not the bad ones, all of them.

Then there's cronyism, rampant nationalism, militarization, hostility to the educated, emphasis on religion, hostility to free press, have I made my point?

I'm legitimately having trouble thinking of one single example of a US president where this wasn't true. Hell outside of the socialist wing of the Democrats I'm having trouble thinking of a US politician where this is true, and even that that's only because of the religion part.

Hey Zontar? I recall us having a chat last night where you left in the middle of and have't responded. I see no reason to start a fresh conversation when that one's unifinished. You have a bad tendency to drop conversations for good after bed, and I don't like being pushed aside like that. So this reply will be my last one to you in this thread for so long as that conversation in the ICE thread remains as it is.

erttheking:

Zontar:

erttheking:
He's not saying all of them are bad, he's focusing on the criminals. Just like Hitler did.

Uh, Ert, not sure how to break this to you, but Hitler didn't "focus on the criminals", he focused on Jews as a collective group and blamed all of them for Germany's problems. Not the criminals, not the bad ones, all of them.

Then there's cronyism, rampant nationalism, militarization, hostility to the educated, emphasis on religion, hostility to free press, have I made my point?

I'm legitimately having trouble thinking of one single example of a US president where this wasn't true. Hell outside of the socialist wing of the Democrats I'm having trouble thinking of a US politician where this is true, and even that that's only because of the religion part.

Hey Zontar? I recall us having a chat last night where you left in the middle of and have?t responded. I see no reason to start a fresh conversation when that one?s unifinished. You have a bad tendency to drop conversations for good after bed, and I don?t like being pushed aside like that. So this reply will be my last one to you in this thread for so long as that conversation in the ICE thread remains as it is.

Edit: Sorry I chose the wrong post, ignore this one.

erttheking:

WolvDragon:

erttheking:

People seem to be focusing on raw numbers when it comes to this, ignoring that many of the policies Trump has in place reflect early Nazi ones. We?ve even got to the point where he?s considering invading minor countries without provocation. People forget that Hitler was in power for 12 years, it didn?t all come at once.

And what are those policies? And please don't say seperating families because previous presidents have done it.

Did previous presidents lock children in cages by the thousands as a deterrent? No.

And number one. Trump is dehumanizing Mexicans. He?s not saying all of them are bad, he?s focusing on the criminals. Just like Hitler did. He?s constantly spewing out propaganda about them (and in general) encouraging abuse against them and dissenters, even in authority. Then there?s cronyism, rampant nationalism, militarization, hostility to the educated, emphasis on religion, hostility to free press, have I made my point?

Previous admins have done this in one form or another. Should we call Bush, Clinton and Obama Hitler as well. The right loved calling Obama for years, even though that was silly.

erttheking:

Zontar:

erttheking:
He's not saying all of them are bad, he's focusing on the criminals. Just like Hitler did.

Uh, Ert, not sure how to break this to you, but Hitler didn't "focus on the criminals", he focused on Jews as a collective group and blamed all of them for Germany's problems. Not the criminals, not the bad ones, all of them.

Then there's cronyism, rampant nationalism, militarization, hostility to the educated, emphasis on religion, hostility to free press, have I made my point?

I'm legitimately having trouble thinking of one single example of a US president where this wasn't true. Hell outside of the socialist wing of the Democrats I'm having trouble thinking of a US politician where this is true, and even that that's only because of the religion part.

Hey Zontar? I recall us having a chat last night where you left in the middle of and have?t responded. I see no reason to start a fresh conversation when that one?s unifinished. You have a bad tendency to drop conversations for good after bed, and I don?t like being pushed aside like that. So this reply will be my last one to you in this thread for so long as that conversation in the ICE thread remains as it is.

Well excuse me for going to sleep.

WolvDragon:

erttheking:

WolvDragon:

And what are those policies? And please don't say seperating families because previous presidents have done it.

Did previous presidents lock children in cages by the thousands as a deterrent? No.

And number one. Trump is dehumanizing Mexicans. He?s not saying all of them are bad, he?s focusing on the criminals. Just like Hitler did. He?s constantly spewing out propaganda about them (and in general) encouraging abuse against them and dissenters, even in authority. Then there?s cronyism, rampant nationalism, militarization, hostility to the educated, emphasis on religion, hostility to free press, have I made my point?

Previous admins have done this in one form or another. Should we call Bush, Clinton and Obama Hitler as well. The right loved calling Obama for years, even though that was silly.

Previous administrations have done all of this? I admit I was young during the Bush administration, but I don't recall open hostility to the free press and cronyism there, nor encouraging abuse.

erttheking:

WolvDragon:

erttheking:

Did previous presidents lock children in cages by the thousands as a deterrent? No.

And number one. Trump is dehumanizing Mexicans. He?s not saying all of them are bad, he?s focusing on the criminals. Just like Hitler did. He?s constantly spewing out propaganda about them (and in general) encouraging abuse against them and dissenters, even in authority. Then there?s cronyism, rampant nationalism, militarization, hostility to the educated, emphasis on religion, hostility to free press, have I made my point?

Previous admins have done this in one form or another. Should we call Bush, Clinton and Obama Hitler as well. The right loved calling Obama for years, even though that was silly.

Previous administrations have done all of this? I admit I was young during the Bush administration, but I don't recall open hostility to the free press and cronyism there, nor encouraging abuse.

Obama did attack the media, more specifically Fox News http://www.newsweek.com/when-obama-went-war-fox-news-632424

In the same article both Clinton and Bush had soured relations with the media as well.

Obama have also done crony captialism as well. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-rich-get-richer-obama-style-crony-capitalism

And I don't need to mention Bush as well. But here's a link.

http://observer.com/2005/09/bushs-crony-capitalism-shows-gops-true-face/

They're no different then Trump other then the mean tweets.

WolvDragon:
Snip

Well first of all when I was talking about cronyism, I was referring to the fact that Trump has loaded the White House with people who are yes men to him and have blatant conflict of interests with their positions and use it to their own benefit. I seriously can't remember a president doing it to the degree that Trump did. Not even Bush. And when it comes to your link on news, your source flat out says that Obama's anger at Fox News was justified, because it was frequently presenting mistruths. Not just airing dirty laundry the president didn't want out because it made him look bad. Your source flat out says "Unlike presidents before him, Trump doesn't criticize the press when he feels his policies have been misrepresented or maligned. Attacking the press is the central policy of his administration. In fact, it may the only one." So you'll forgive me if the source that you gave me to prove me wrong feels like it ends up proving my point.

I'm still waiting on which of these presidencies had thousands of kids in cages as a "deterrent," and encouraged abuse.

And while I'm at it, I don't recall any of those presidents shooting their mouths off about how they would "win" a nuclear war.

erttheking:

WolvDragon:
Snip

Well first of all when I was talking about cronyism, I was referring to the fact that Trump has loaded the White House with people who are yes men to him and have blatant conflict of interests with their positions and use it to their own benefit. I seriously can't remember a president doing it to the degree that Trump did. Not even Bush. And when it comes to your link on news, your source flat out says that Obama's anger at Fox News was justified, because it was frequently presenting mistruths. Not just airing dirty laundry the president didn't want out because it made him look bad. Your source flat out says "Unlike presidents before him, Trump doesn?t criticize the press when he feels his policies have been misrepresented or maligned. Attacking the press is the central policy of his administration. In fact, it may the only one." So you'll forgive me if the source that you gave me to prove me wrong feels like it ends up proving my point.

I'm still waiting on which of these presidencies had thousands of kids in cages as a "deterrent," and encouraged abuse.

And while I'm at it, I don't recall any of those presidents shooting their mouths off about how they would "win" a nuclear war.

Obama still called out the press, sure not in the way you're describing about Trump, but he still called out Fox News regardless.

Kids were being put in cages during obama's time as well.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trumps-immigration-policies-highlight-obamas-missteps.html

Point is, Trump is repeating actions done by previous presidents, his is only more extreme and in your face.

WolvDragon:

erttheking:

WolvDragon:
Snip

Well first of all when I was talking about cronyism, I was referring to the fact that Trump has loaded the White House with people who are yes men to him and have blatant conflict of interests with their positions and use it to their own benefit. I seriously can't remember a president doing it to the degree that Trump did. Not even Bush. And when it comes to your link on news, your source flat out says that Obama's anger at Fox News was justified, because it was frequently presenting mistruths. Not just airing dirty laundry the president didn't want out because it made him look bad. Your source flat out says "Unlike presidents before him, Trump doesn?t criticize the press when he feels his policies have been misrepresented or maligned. Attacking the press is the central policy of his administration. In fact, it may the only one." So you'll forgive me if the source that you gave me to prove me wrong feels like it ends up proving my point.

I'm still waiting on which of these presidencies had thousands of kids in cages as a "deterrent," and encouraged abuse.

And while I'm at it, I don't recall any of those presidents shooting their mouths off about how they would "win" a nuclear war.

Obama still called out the press, sure not in the way you're describing about Trump, but he still called out Fox News regardless.

Kids were being put in cages during obama's time as well.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trumps-immigration-policies-highlight-obamas-missteps.html

Point is, Trump is repeating actions done by previous presidents, his is only more extreme and in your face.

You seem to be confusing calling out a press outlet for being misleading and not for showing open disdain for the free press. On a surface level, they're the same thing, but only if you ignore any and all nuance. Also Obama showed disdain to one outlet that was objectively printing mis-truth. Trump shows disdain to any news outlet that doesn't actively suck him off.

And as for your article, it once again directly states that while Obama did fuck up, the two situations aren't comparable.

"To state the obvious, President Trump's immigration policy differs vastly from his predecessor's. Trump's approach is animated - sometimes entirely, it seems - by capricious cruelty. The Obama administration did not intentionally target longtime residents of the United States for removal; it did not separate parents from their children to extract concessions from the opposition party; it did not attempt to crack down on legal immigration to satisfy its base; it was not, in short, guided by the revanchist nativism that rules the day in the Trump White House."

Again. I don't recall any other recent presidents boasting about how they would win a nuclear war.

erttheking:

WolvDragon:

erttheking:

Well first of all when I was talking about cronyism, I was referring to the fact that Trump has loaded the White House with people who are yes men to him and have blatant conflict of interests with their positions and use it to their own benefit. I seriously can't remember a president doing it to the degree that Trump did. Not even Bush. And when it comes to your link on news, your source flat out says that Obama's anger at Fox News was justified, because it was frequently presenting mistruths. Not just airing dirty laundry the president didn't want out because it made him look bad. Your source flat out says "Unlike presidents before him, Trump doesn?t criticize the press when he feels his policies have been misrepresented or maligned. Attacking the press is the central policy of his administration. In fact, it may the only one." So you'll forgive me if the source that you gave me to prove me wrong feels like it ends up proving my point.

I'm still waiting on which of these presidencies had thousands of kids in cages as a "deterrent," and encouraged abuse.

And while I'm at it, I don't recall any of those presidents shooting their mouths off about how they would "win" a nuclear war.

Obama still called out the press, sure not in the way you're describing about Trump, but he still called out Fox News regardless.

Kids were being put in cages during obama's time as well.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/trumps-immigration-policies-highlight-obamas-missteps.html

Point is, Trump is repeating actions done by previous presidents, his is only more extreme and in your face.

You seem to be confusing calling out a press outlet for being misleading and not for showing open disdain for the free press. On a surface level, they're the same thing, but only if you ignore any and all nuance. Also Obama showed disdain to one outlet that was objectively printing mis-truth. Trump shows disdain to any news outlet that doesn't actively suck him off.

And as for your article, it once again directly states that while Obama did fuck up, the two situations aren't comparable.

"To state the obvious, President Trump?s immigration policy differs vastly from his predecessor?s. Trump?s approach is animated ? sometimes entirely, it seems ? by capricious cruelty. The Obama administration did not intentionally target longtime residents of the United States for removal; it did not separate parents from their children to extract concessions from the opposition party; it did not attempt to crack down on legal immigration to satisfy its base; it was not, in short, guided by the revanchist nativism that rules the day in the Trump White House."

Again. I don't recall any other recent presidents boasting about how they would win a nuclear war.

Since when was boasting about winning a nuclear war comparable to Hitler? We didn't have nukes during Hitler's time until the very end of WW2 when Hitler was already dead. Obama still put kids in cages and made attacks on the press, yet he gets a free pass cuz he's Obama.

Palindromemordnilap:

WolvDragon:

Saelune isn't acting on facts, she's letting her blind hatred for Trump get to her by calling him Hitler.

Yeah no I don't see the Hitler comparisons.

You don?t see how a man removing moderate influences from his government, blaming other races for all the problems of his nation, employing strong man tactics in his diplomacy towards other nations, apparently would quite like to invade surrounding nations, and who is now putting people ethnically different to him in camps might just be comparable to Hitler? Really? History not your strong suit?

Previous presidents have done what Trump has done, they're just not in your face about it. I guess we should call Obama, Bush and Clinton Hitler to?

WolvDragon:

Palindromemordnilap:

WolvDragon:

Saelune isn't acting on facts, she's letting her blind hatred for Trump get to her by calling him Hitler.

Yeah no I don't see the Hitler comparisons.

You don?t see how a man removing moderate influences from his government, blaming other races for all the problems of his nation, employing strong man tactics in his diplomacy towards other nations, apparently would quite like to invade surrounding nations, and who is now putting people ethnically different to him in camps might just be comparable to Hitler? Really? History not your strong suit?

Previous presidents have done what Trump has done, they're just not in your face about it. I guess we should call Obama, Bush and Clinton Hitler to?

It's certainly not out of the question to speak of the Fascist States of AmeriKKKa.

Seanchaidh:

WolvDragon:

Palindromemordnilap:

You don?t see how a man removing moderate influences from his government, blaming other races for all the problems of his nation, employing strong man tactics in his diplomacy towards other nations, apparently would quite like to invade surrounding nations, and who is now putting people ethnically different to him in camps might just be comparable to Hitler? Really? History not your strong suit?

Previous presidents have done what Trump has done, they're just not in your face about it. I guess we should call Obama, Bush and Clinton Hitler to?

It's certainly not out of the question to speak of the Fascist States of AmeriKKKa.

Just like how far-right parties are on the rise in Europe?

WolvDragon:
Snip

Ok, full disclosure, I'm starting to get a little insulted with how you're responding to only half of my post tops. I directly said Obama fucked up, and yet you said he gets a free pass. I beg your pardon? Did you just gloss over what I said? And you ignore the counter-point I pointed out that came from your own article. Did you believe what that article said or not? If you did, why are you ignoring a section from it that directly contradicts your point? If not, why did you bother sharing it with me in the first place?

Also, saying he would win a nuclear war fits into the rampant nationalism and militarism of the Third Reich. It's kind of a weak defense that you just say it's not comparable because Hitler didn't have nukes. Kind of missing that the general mindset behind it betrays that of a man who's desperate to flex the military muscle of his nation to hurt others. Oh, that and the whole wanting to invade Venezuela thing.

erttheking:

WolvDragon:
Snip

Ok, full disclosure, I'm starting to get a little insulted with how you're responding to only half of my post tops. I directly said Obama fucked up, and yet you said he gets a free pass. I beg your pardon? Did you just gloss over what I said? And you ignore the counter-point I pointed out that came from your own article. Did you believe what that article said or not? If you did, why are you ignoring a section from it that directly contradicts your point? If not, why did you bother sharing it with me in the first place?

Also, saying he would win a nuclear war fits into the rampant nationalism and militarism of the Third Reich. It's kind of a weak defense that you just say it's not comparable because Hitler didn't have nukes. Kind of missing that the general mindset behind it betrays that of a man who's desperate to flex the military muscle of his nation to hurt others. Oh, that and the whole wanting to invade Venezuela thing.

If you're feeling insulted cuz I'm not responding to every detail of your posts, then maybe...idk stop replying to me? You have that option. Not everyone responds to every bit of detail I post, and I don't take it personally. Ok so kudos to you for saying Obama fucked up. Boasting about nuclear war isn't the same as building up the military, he is just literally bragging about the nuclear might of the U.S.

WolvDragon:

erttheking:

WolvDragon:
Snip

Ok, full disclosure, I'm starting to get a little insulted with how you're responding to only half of my post tops. I directly said Obama fucked up, and yet you said he gets a free pass. I beg your pardon? Did you just gloss over what I said? And you ignore the counter-point I pointed out that came from your own article. Did you believe what that article said or not? If you did, why are you ignoring a section from it that directly contradicts your point? If not, why did you bother sharing it with me in the first place?

Also, saying he would win a nuclear war fits into the rampant nationalism and militarism of the Third Reich. It's kind of a weak defense that you just say it's not comparable because Hitler didn't have nukes. Kind of missing that the general mindset behind it betrays that of a man who's desperate to flex the military muscle of his nation to hurt others. Oh, that and the whole wanting to invade Venezuela thing.

If you're feeling insulted cuz I'm not responding to every detail of your posts, then maybe...idk stop replying to me? You have that option. Not everyone responds to every bit of detail I post, and I don't take it personally. Ok so kudos to you for saying Obama fucked up. Boasting about nuclear war isn't the same as building up the military, he is just literally bragging about the nuclear might of the U.S.

So I point out you're ignoring my points...and you say that I should just stop replying to you if it bothers me and say that other people do it to you. Do I need to point out the basic concept of two wrongs not making a right?

Well, fuck it, you more or less admitted you're debating in bad faith, guess it's a good sign of how badly the forum is going to shit.

I'm out of here now that I see I'm wasting my time.

erttheking:

WolvDragon:

erttheking:

Ok, full disclosure, I'm starting to get a little insulted with how you're responding to only half of my post tops. I directly said Obama fucked up, and yet you said he gets a free pass. I beg your pardon? Did you just gloss over what I said? And you ignore the counter-point I pointed out that came from your own article. Did you believe what that article said or not? If you did, why are you ignoring a section from it that directly contradicts your point? If not, why did you bother sharing it with me in the first place?

Also, saying he would win a nuclear war fits into the rampant nationalism and militarism of the Third Reich. It's kind of a weak defense that you just say it's not comparable because Hitler didn't have nukes. Kind of missing that the general mindset behind it betrays that of a man who's desperate to flex the military muscle of his nation to hurt others. Oh, that and the whole wanting to invade Venezuela thing.

If you're feeling insulted cuz I'm not responding to every detail of your posts, then maybe...idk stop replying to me? You have that option. Not everyone responds to every bit of detail I post, and I don't take it personally. Ok so kudos to you for saying Obama fucked up. Boasting about nuclear war isn't the same as building up the military, he is just literally bragging about the nuclear might of the U.S.

So I point out you're ignoring my points...and you say that I should just stop replying to you if it bothers me and say that other people do it to you. Do I need to point out the basic concept of two wrongs not making a right?

Well, fuck it, you more or less admitted you're debating in bad faith, guess it's a good sign of how badly the forum is going to shit.

I'm out of here now that I see I'm wasting my time.

Or maybe you should take it as a compliment? I mean, I'm not a good debator, if I don't respond directly to any of your points it means I don't know how to respond to it effectively, meaning that you won as a sign of admission on my end.

ObsidianJones:

RobertEHouse:
If Venezuela was invaded would there really be a difference?

People are already fleeing Venezuela to neighboring states. Food is already almost none existent;Death squads roam the streets and shoot people who speak out. Venezuela now is a narco state as Manduro's VP is part of a very large cartel. Which has lead to a economy being so trashed to a point that it has hyper inflation at WWI Germany levels. The government ban of vital medications form being brought in by NGOs. Hospitals that don't have supplies that a person with a heart attacks, diabetes and other serious issues have no choice but to die. Or the opposition government arrested and many disappearing with no one knowing what happened to them.

Yep , i am just glad letting people burn in a pit of hell is better than the current choice of the world of ignoring it.

Trump's war idea may not have been the perfect solution but it's a heck of a lot better than the world ignoring it completely. Although i don't agree war solves everything, i find inaction by the UN, South American Coalition pungent. That their inaction allowed for the US president to even bring Venezuela up like this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2018/03/22/venezuelas-economic-crisis-worsens-in-2018/#56b663b81f17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela)
http://www.independentsentinel.com/inevitable-democrat-socialists-venezuela-rule-lawless-death-squads-militarized-police/
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582469305/venezuelas-health-care-system-ready-to-collapse-amid-economic-crisis

For the record, the idea of "If a place was invaded, would it make any difference" is... outstanding to me.

But the point is, once again Trump breaks a promise and backtracks on what he says. The media barely calls him out on it, so those not in the know are unaware, his base doesn't care because everything he says is the truth from God Above, and all the rest of us are left with is "Imagine if Clinton or Obama did the same thing!"

We're living in a cult that excuses all the idiocy of a dangerous man. Ideas about if it's ok to invade a country (it isn't, we could do more... like actually getting people in the UN to sit down and address the issues instead of "Fuck it, I'll take it") aside, Trump needs to for once be held accountable for anything that would be actually damaging to any other person.

I would argue we are not living in a cult to an idiocy of a dangerous man. I would argue we are dealing with years of people taking politics so personal that they don't talk. That it's so ingrained into a person's DNA now that the moment a Dem or GOP person comes out in public they are called SJW, or NAZI. You can not have discussions the moment you start labeling people directly over their political beliefs. You can not find a solution which would benefit everyone because either side of the aisle will not talk. Look at our forums as an example of how people react to different way of thoughts.

As for the UN if it actually worked a lot of the dictatorships and human rights issues would end. The Achilles heel with the UN is the Red tape,Nations that have poor human right records and massive corruption. Talking does work if you have the ability to side step China and Russia over human rights and international laws. The problem is you "can't" get enough votes because of their " voting blocks" which would stop anything against Venezuela.

Zontar:

I don't think that would have been a realistic outcome if a serious effort had been attempted. Remember that Maduro is the one who initially cut off exports of oil to the US as a sanction against US policy/actions, and that's what turned what had been a slow decay under Chavez into the collapse we've seen, since while at the time 5% of US oil imports came from Venezuela, 50% of Venezuela's oil exports went to the US. Once that one act had been done, I don't think there was any stopping it since things snowballed from there into what we have now.

Maduro has not banned oil exports to the USA - that would be insane. Venezuela still sells as much oil as it can - the problem is that Venezuelan oil production has collapsed. That is a combination of underinvestment (no Western countries are likely to risk the money, and the economic collapse prevented internal investment) and the replacement of thousands of professionals who were part of an attempt to bring down Chavez by disrupting production.

Venezuela's collapse is manyfold; partly that Chavez/Maduro have simply not run the economy well, partly that the dominance of the oil industry in the 2000s caused the rest of Venezuela's industry to decline (high revenues increased the value of the Venezuelan currency, and exports of non-oil products declined heavily), and the drop in oil prices was then ruinous. That said, Chavez and Maduro's excesses represent a repressively heavy-handed approach to preventing their work being undone by the opposition (backed by external interests), under the context of my previous post of intense internal conflict.

I'd agree that Venezuela would be in a bad state under any circumstances, but I also think that it's gone south in significant part due to internal and external resistance inciting reaction (overreaction) from the Venezuelan leftist leaders. This resistance internally has been to restore the near-aristocratic privileges of the Venezuelan elites, and externally to ensure - bluntly - exploitation of Venezuelan resources by Western companies.

Marik2:

Pretty much what I expected him to say.

RobertEHouse:
I would argue we are not living in a cult to an idiocy of a dangerous man. I would argue we are dealing with years of people taking politics so personal that they don't talk. That it's so ingrained into a person's DNA now that the moment a Dem or GOP person comes out in public they are called SJW, or NAZI. You can not have discussions the moment you start labeling people directly over their political beliefs. You can not find a solution which would benefit everyone because either side of the aisle will not talk. Look at our forums as an example of how people react to different way of thoughts.

As for the UN if it actually worked a lot of the dictatorships and human rights issues would end. The Achilles heel with the UN is the Red tape,Nations that have poor human right records and massive corruption. Talking does work if you have the ability to side step China and Russia over human rights and international laws. The problem is you "can't" get enough votes because of their " voting blocks" which would stop anything against Venezuela.

While you're right about the taking politics personal front, I have to disagree with you about the cult part. Simply due to the fact that people don't want to hear facts any more. They don't want reason. They will look at anything documented and studied that is against their political views as 'fake news'.

Democrats and Republicans on the whole are not like this. But those in the cult of Trump are. Those who will look at facts and instead of using critical thinking, they will just parrot the asinine answers of a demagogue. Those are the people I'm talking about. That's the cult.

WolvDragon:

Palindromemordnilap:

WolvDragon:

Saelune isn't acting on facts, she's letting her blind hatred for Trump get to her by calling him Hitler.

Yeah no I don't see the Hitler comparisons.

You don?t see how a man removing moderate influences from his government, blaming other races for all the problems of his nation, employing strong man tactics in his diplomacy towards other nations, apparently would quite like to invade surrounding nations, and who is now putting people ethnically different to him in camps might just be comparable to Hitler? Really? History not your strong suit?

Previous presidents have done what Trump has done, they're just not in your face about it. I guess we should call Obama, Bush and Clinton Hitler to?

A) Citations needed
B) Have any of them done all of them all at once? I mean, for the first few months of Trump's run I thought comparing him to Hitler was massively overblowing it, but well, then we got putting kids in cages and thats when it starts getting concerning

WolvDragon:

Palindromemordnilap:

WolvDragon:

Saelune isn't acting on facts, she's letting her blind hatred for Trump get to her by calling him Hitler.

Yeah no I don't see the Hitler comparisons.

You don?t see how a man removing moderate influences from his government, blaming other races for all the problems of his nation, employing strong man tactics in his diplomacy towards other nations, apparently would quite like to invade surrounding nations, and who is now putting people ethnically different to him in camps might just be comparable to Hitler? Really? History not your strong suit?

Previous presidents have done what Trump has done, they're just not in your face about it. I guess we should call Obama, Bush and Clinton Hitler to?

Here's the thing about that. I'm a hundred percent on your side. I know Presidents before have done shady under dealings and the like, things that I've been dismayed with when I found out about it. Obama's presidency has been my favorite in my life time. Seconded by Clinton. And they both done things that made me squirm when I did finally find out about them.

But here's where it gets down to it: Government is like a Magic Show. There's a certain level of Obfuscation needed for a good performance. It's not only a magician's job to get the actual tricks correct, but they need to perform in a way that makes it seem like they are barely trying and have nothing to hide. That they truly have these powers.

If you pay your money to sit down and watch a magic show, and the magician barely speaks intelligibly, conflicts with his assistants, drops his 'Show stopping' tricks and says all his faults are from the previous magician that was on the stage or the Magical Guild that he's not apart so he downright insults them, even the simple tricks he gets right like pulling a quarter behind someone's ear, he takes 2 minutes after that trick to congratulate himself and say how wonderful he is... you're going to wonder how the hell did this magician get on stage.

And then you hear it. Applause. All around you, there are people whooping loudly for every time he pulls another quarter from someone's ear. For every given misdirection on why this trick failed, there's agreeance from said audience that it makes sense how it's all that other magician's fault or the other magical guild. Then, you notice it. The audience is filled with the terrible on-stage magician's guild mates. You finally had enough. You stand up and say that his performance is terrible, and some people in the audience agrees with you. Then the magician spends the rest of the performance mocking you and insulting you, as do his fellow guild members in the audience. And when you try to insult them back, they actually feign that the other side is being uncivil while they are being needlessly maligned, even if they were insulting the other magician and magical guild beforehand.

God, this was longer than what I meant it to be, but my mind just flooded with how horrible this presidency, political representation, his pundits, and the public opinion (a lot of 'P' sounds) has been. And to the point of the matter... while Clinton and Obama had their obvious faults and they weren't perfect... they maintained Order. There wasn't this divisiveness.

For the first time in a long time, probably since McCarthyism, do we all in two fractured Americas. And it seems like Trump lives for creating more of a divide. His Twitter feed is proof of it. In anyone's else, it would be written off as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. He's been wrong about most things, lied about others, and sowed deceit time and time again. Before it was "NO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, STOP LOOKING FOR IT! THIS IS A CRIMINAL WITCH HUNT!!!" to "Why didn't Obama do something about it?". Before Trump couldn't sleep unless he bashed the NFL players for being unamerican and called for them all to lose their jobs because they dared to protest, said "Maybe you shouldn't be in the country"... yet I haven't really seen one tweet about the now more than dozen cases of white US citizens impeding, haranguing, threatening, and using police as a weapon.

And I haven't even gone into the man's policies. He's literally staffed almost every governmental position with someone who's completely against that office from a moral standpoint. ICE. Dealing with our Allies. Dealing with the one man who considers himself our enemy. Given more power to companies and less in the hands of citizens. Intermittent Camps...

Long story short, yes, other presidents have done things that weren't great. But they haven't divided the country in reprehensible ways as Trump seems to delight in doing.

Zontar:

Regime change is going to happen, an invasion just has the US dictate how long it takes. It should be considered a last resort after an ultimatum but it also should remain on the table. If the US does nothing that it will become another Syria.

We don't have the money. The US already has $22 trillion in sovereign debt which everyone here is going to be spending the rest of their lives paying back. And we all know exactly what would happen if the US invaded Venezuela. "Regime change" will turn into "stabilizing the new government" which will turn into "bringing lasting peace to the region", and before long we'll end up spending tens of billions of dollars a year on an unwinnable, directionless war with no clear objective, just like we did in Afghanistan.

You're not the one who's going to be responsible for paying that bill, so hush.

renegade7:

Zontar:

Regime change is going to happen, an invasion just has the US dictate how long it takes. It should be considered a last resort after an ultimatum but it also should remain on the table. If the US does nothing that it will become another Syria.

We don't have the money. The US already has $22 trillion in sovereign debt which everyone here is going to be spending the rest of their lives paying back. And we all know exactly what would happen if the US invaded Venezuela. "Regime change" will turn into "stabilizing the new government" which will turn into "bringing lasting peace to the region", and before long we'll end up spending tens of billions of dollars a year on an unwinnable, directionless war with no clear objective, just like we did in Afghanistan.

You're not the one who's going to be responsible for paying that bill, so hush.

Unless America annex's Canada like he wants. Then our northeren neighbors can help pay for all our illegal wars to.

ObsidianJones:

WolvDragon:

Palindromemordnilap:

You don?t see how a man removing moderate influences from his government, blaming other races for all the problems of his nation, employing strong man tactics in his diplomacy towards other nations, apparently would quite like to invade surrounding nations, and who is now putting people ethnically different to him in camps might just be comparable to Hitler? Really? History not your strong suit?

Previous presidents have done what Trump has done, they're just not in your face about it. I guess we should call Obama, Bush and Clinton Hitler to?

Long story short, yes, other presidents have done things that weren't great. But they haven't divided the country in reprehensible ways as Trump seems to delight in doing.

The problem is people don't have memories and they don't read history. If they do it's such a abbreviated version that they only have Hitler to compare to. There is a better comparison once a person understand it, they can understand the Trump's presidency.

If you look at Trump's presidency there is a 'hint' on the oval office wall an "Easter egg" of sorts.

image

Andrew Jackson's painting is hanging in the Trump Oval office. That is very ,very important because each president picks one painting of a president they admire on the first day in the office. This person is who they wish to emulate and who represents their beliefs.

Andrew Jackson, who ran the US presidency very much exactly the way Trump is. Jackson ruled his presidency in chaos, he had business men and lobbyist made up his cabinet. Total infighting between staff and cabinet members was a hall mark of Jackson.Jackson didn't care what congress/senate/public said and forced things though.Thank him for our U.S federal banking system, as he threatened to beat the majority leader if it didn't pass. Jackson a man of his time also believed a difference between certain races and groups. Native Americans "really loved this guy" i mean they really hated this guy if you can not pick up on sarcasm. Jackson had created laws which isolated Indian communities and started the ball of forced re-education. very divisive president to say the least.

https://www.biography.com/people/andrew-jackson-9350991
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-cherokees-vs-andrew-jackson-277394/

If that is to far back, LBJ also ran ruff-shot similar to Jackson over congress/senate. Blackmailing members of both the congress and the senate even the media . With their personal lives/ finances known to LBJ he would use manipulation and pressure to make them do what he wanted.Just because he was only sanctified because of the Civil rights he was far from a "good guy". He Blackmailed his way up in government, blackmailed a girl to go on a date with him in college. He double crossed and divided our nation not just because of Civil rights but because of War,imagination laws , Tax laws and CIA operations against US citizens.

https://www.historyonthenet.com/lbj-personality/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/10/lyndon-b-johnson-robert-caro-biography

Just because we are living it, does not mean it's worst in history. Cults have formed around Jackson and people stood up for LBJ what is new. Trump is screwing around with government like Jackson did and how LBJ did. In the end our country is stronger than one person it always has been. It's Red Tape is vast and it's bureaucracy enormous and any changes are undone by pork spending and greed.

WolvDragon:

renegade7:

Zontar:

Regime change is going to happen, an invasion just has the US dictate how long it takes. It should be considered a last resort after an ultimatum but it also should remain on the table. If the US does nothing that it will become another Syria.

We don't have the money. The US already has $22 trillion in sovereign debt which everyone here is going to be spending the rest of their lives paying back. And we all know exactly what would happen if the US invaded Venezuela. "Regime change" will turn into "stabilizing the new government" which will turn into "bringing lasting peace to the region", and before long we'll end up spending tens of billions of dollars a year on an unwinnable, directionless war with no clear objective, just like we did in Afghanistan.

You're not the one who's going to be responsible for paying that bill, so hush.

Unless America annex's Canada like he wants. Then our northeren neighbors can help pay for all our illegal wars to.

The US can nationalize all debt,so in essence the US can wipe out all the debt it has. The US is also a major seat at the World Bank, so there is power. Diplomatically the US could do all this while harming relations with those that it owes. Yet, no Dem/Rep government will every balance the budget to every pay it off. Then again no country in the world is completely in the black unless you are talking the Vatican City.

Also Canada is just asking for it , with all that maple syrup surplus and Tim Horton shops. They are always rubbing it at their neighbors to the south.

CaitSeith:

RobertEHouse:
snip

1. USA has lots of internal issues that need fixing before wasting millions in more military actions on foreign lands (and maintaining the peace on occupied territory afterwards)

2. USA is awful at cleaning their mess after the dust has settled.

3. The anti-American attitude from the Venezuelan regime will make the conflict much bloodier, and increase the chances of USA losing the war (again).

4. USA's military isn't what it used to be...

It reminds me how the USSR made huge shitty projects that were cost inefficient and sometimes even subpar in security and efficiency, but were broadcasted by their government as the best things ever achieved by mankind.

That plane has AESA radar, BVR missiles, and the best stealth in the world. It can also act as a command post for drones. It has the most advanced helmet and can fire missiles behind the plane.

No other foreign plane can match it, not the SU-57, not the J-20, other than another F-35 or F-22.

On the liberal side, it's a multinational project in a world-wide push to go away from large world war 2 style battles, and to push militaries like Germany into more specialized roles, and or to be first boots on the ground to an international invasion until the US military shows up.

The above means fewer wars and less violence as a whole, but unless we accept unilateral surrender or unilateralism, far-left, and far-right groups will continue to be funded by Russia to spread disinformation, and chaos in the US.

The information you got on the plane were from the same Russians that stated in defense forums that the older PESA radar<AESA radar because Russia at the time couldn't get AESA radars right to the point where their "4.5 gen" Su-35 used PESA. I would take that information with a grain of salt.

Gergar12:

That plane has AESA radar, BVR missiles, and the best stealth in the world. It can also act as a command post for drones. It has the most advanced helmet and can fire missiles behind the plane.

No other foreign plane can match it, not the SU-57, not the J-20, other than another F-35 or F-22.

Well that's neat and all, but looking at >$1 trillion price tag of the whole program, one can't help but wonder if we're actually getting our money's worth. So no one will be able to beat American planes in dogfights for a little while (until anyone else develops a competing plane), but is a risk of losing dogfights to enemy pilots in hypothetical fighters that don't exist yet and probably won't exist for decades really the most serious threat to American safety and security?

The above means fewer wars and less violence as a whole, but unless we accept unilateral surrender or unilateralism, far-left, and far-right groups will continue to be funded by Russia to spread disinformation, and chaos in the US.

Far-left groups funded by the notoriously progressive and egalitarian Russia, right, sure. Leftists aren't exactly known for their sympathy towards repressive oligarchies. But even taking this for granted, how is a trillion dollar jet fighter supposed to protect us from that?

RobertEHouse:
The problem is people don't have memories and they don't read history. If they do it's such a abbreviated version that they only have Hitler to compare to. There is a better comparison once a person understand it, they can understand the Trump's presidency.

If you look at Trump's presidency there is a 'hint' on the oval office wall an "Easter egg" of sorts.

image

Andrew Jackson's painting is hanging in the Trump Oval office. That is very ,very important because each president picks one painting of a president they admire on the first day in the office. This person is who they wish to emulate and who represents their beliefs.

Andrew Jackson, who ran the US presidency very much exactly the way Trump is. Jackson ruled his presidency in chaos, he had business men and lobbyist made up his cabinet. Total infighting between staff and cabinet members was a hall mark of Jackson.Jackson didn't care what congress/senate/public said and forced things though.Thank him for our U.S federal banking system, as he threatened to beat the majority leader if it didn't pass. Jackson a man of his time also believed a difference between certain races and groups. Native Americans "really loved this guy" i mean they really hated this guy if you can not pick up on sarcasm. Jackson had created laws which isolated Indian communities and started the ball of forced re-education. very divisive president to say the least.

https://www.biography.com/people/andrew-jackson-9350991
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-cherokees-vs-andrew-jackson-277394/

If that is to far back, LBJ also ran ruff-shot similar to Jackson over congress/senate. Blackmailing members of both the congress and the senate even the media . With their personal lives/ finances known to LBJ he would use manipulation and pressure to make them do what he wanted.Just because he was only sanctified because of the Civil rights he was far from a "good guy". He Blackmailed his way up in government, blackmailed a girl to go on a date with him in college. He double crossed and divided our nation not just because of Civil rights but because of War,imagination laws , Tax laws and CIA operations against US citizens.

https://www.historyonthenet.com/lbj-personality/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/10/lyndon-b-johnson-robert-caro-biography

Just because we are living it, does not mean it's worst in history. Cults have formed around Jackson and people stood up for LBJ what is new. Trump is screwing around with government like Jackson did and how LBJ did. In the end our country is stronger than one person it always has been. It's Red Tape is vast and it's bureaucracy enormous and any changes are undone by pork spending and greed.

That doesn't address the issue of people yelling to other citizens that they need to get out because Trump is the president.

I've yet to find a change in government that I've agreed with Trump about, but I realize the issues of America outweigh what I think is right. A republican president could be sitting and have done similiar slashes to the EPA. A regrettable and horrible decision given all the warning signs from constant freak weather conditions all across the globe to the ice caps... disappearing. But that is something that I can even live with.

Trump seems to be backing bigoted, out dated views. He wants to decriminalize White nationalists while trying to get the FBI to consider Black Identity Groups as the new terrorist threat. Similarly has he cut funding to protect the civil rights of women, minorities, and the LBGT community.

And there are people in his cult who considers the lessening of protection to their fellow citizens as 'winning'.

My point is simply that he isn't just playing with government to shake things up and 'rule with chaos'. He's bringing active harm to American Citizens lives. And other citizens, feeling emboldened by his actions, have taken to meting their own justice in his name.

LBJ might have been a bad person while being the President, and I accept that. I accept all Presidents have demons, dark closets, and things we would never want to know about them. But Trump being a bad person is affecting whole sections of the American Population. That doesn't excuse LBJ of his transgessions, but it makes them pale in comparison due to Trump actively trying to make the lives of a portion of the citizens he swore to protect worse.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here