If you think you'll get a fair deal with Trump as president, I have a bridge to sell you.
What if I want the bridge to blow up on my players when we're playing Pathfinder, Captain?
I still wonder if we would have invaded Syria had Obama lost the election.
I don't wonder at all — I'm quite certain it would've happened.
Thunder,
Before or after the uprising?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Newsweek article on Trump Organization's foreign ties.
I'll summarize for those who don't like clicking links.
Donald Trump used to build buildings. The last one was the Trump-SoHo Hotel completed in 2007. That same year marks the start of Trump's time on NBC on The Apprentice. Since then, Trump Organization has changed their focus from building things, to licensing the Trump name to other developers to put on buildings.
The business practice started earlier than this, with the first licensing deal to a foreign business being in South Korea in 1999, selling the name for $8 million a year. The company he made the deal with is Daewoo, which the Trump Organization continues to do business with to this day.
Daewoo is also an energy company in South Korea. Specifically, they make nuclear energy. If South Korea were to begin manufacturing nuclear weapons, their nuclear power plants would play a vital role and make the owners a lot of money. Trump has advocated South Korea building their own nuclear weapons.
In 2008, the Trump Organization struck a deal with the Dogan Group, developers in Turkey. The Dogan Group is run by the Dogan family, who were highly influential in Turkish politics. They were so influential, that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Trump and officiated the ribbon cutting for the building's opening.
The Dogan's have since fallen out of favor with the government though. President Erdogan has also used Trump's comments to justify going after the Dogan family and is calling for Trump's name to be removed from buildings in Turkey. Turkey is a vital ally in the Middle-East and the Air Force is currently using a Turkish air base in their bombing campaign against ISIS.
Trump is currently engaged in business with Garant Holding, which is led by Anar Mammadov. The State Department and CIA have significant evidence that Mammadov has been laundering money for the Iranian army.
There are other countries with which the Trump Organization has significant ties:
- China
- Brazil
- Bulgaria
- Argentina
- Russia
- Canada
- France
- Germany
- Saudi Arabia
- United Arab Emirates
- India
These financial connections often lead to political figures in those countries. It's unknown exactly how these connections will play out, but Trump has already admitted (many times) that he is willing to exploit a political connection to support his business.
And there is nothing new-fangled, innovative, or seismic in HRC's candidacy. So, not only are we doomed to repeat history, we're doomed to be bored with the process.
Posit, if the Arab spring had been handled better, there may not have been a Syria problem, maybe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posit, if the Arab spring had been handled better, there may not have been a Syria problem, maybe?
Which part of the Syria problem? That the inhumanity of feudal tribalism is still part and parcel of that world? Or that the powers-that-be have decreed that Syria/ISIS is a "problem" deserving of our overwhelming attention?
The Syrian Civil War would still be a problem.
ISIS would have been a less-embarrassing problem if the US had not invaded Iraq the second time (and then left behind war materiel). It would still be a problem, though. For somebody.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone please tell me we aren't actually this stupid.
Okay, I won't tell you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone please tell me we aren't actually this stupid.
Heh. Ha ha-hah. Eeehheheheheheheeeeeee. Hoo. haHAAAhahahahahahahahahahaaaaa.
Convulsions, dude. Quit making me laugh.
Posit, if the Arab spring had been handled better, there may not have been a Syria problem, maybe?
No.
Assad was in too strong of a position to leave peacefully or be ousted quickly by unorganized rebels. Assad's starting position and choices meant Syrian civil war.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone please tell me we aren't actually this stupid.
Well from all of the candidates available to the Repubs/Dems, look who we ended up with. Clearly we really are this stupid.
Someone please tell me we aren't actually this stupid.Well from all of the candidates available to the Repubs/Dems, look who we ended up with. Clearly we really are this stupid.
Its not that bad.
I mean, sure, on one side we have the most hated woman in America, and on the other we have a man who has a real possibility of turning out to be this century's Adolf Hitler*...
Oh god, what happened?
- massive racism, but more importantly he uses racism as a scapegoat
- no moral problems with monstrous acts, including torture
- has his own "brand" of charisma, which has allowed him to turn off the brains of a large fraction of America
- is so aggressive and insane that he appears to have no problem risking world war 3.
- a significant fraction of his support is from a bunch of bigoted, terrible people
Continuing this list is left as an exercise to the reader.
Someone please tell me we aren't actually this stupid.
Only when we're angry Dr. Banner
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a an extra pair of Horse Blinders of Willful Intellectual dishonesty +5 for sale, only 500gp. It does appear that most of you already have a pair and wear them daily, if this discussion is any indication.
If your head slot is already taken I have a Brooch of Circular Logic that I might be willing to part with.
My display of Potions of Echo Chamber is empty. They've been flying off the shelf, but I can look in my backroom stock.
...
I'd love some "boring". Peace and prosperity are boring. Wars and economic disasters are interesting.
At this stage, peace and prosperity would be new-fangled, innovative and seismic.
Trump is just the wrong sort of innovative.
I personally don't go anywhere without my body double.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone please tell me we aren't actually this stupid.
I really can't speak to Florida, but I can say that people in the Rust Belt are justifiably raging pissed-off that they lost their jobs to outsourcing, and watched their towns and cities slide into Mad Max times. If given the choice between a person who pushed to remove their jobs and factories, and someone telling them they are going to bring the factories back, who do you think they will pick? Is anyone really surprised?
As for the questions of "would we do this or that, if This Guy had beaten That Guy"? The answers are there if you really want to know. US politicians of BOTH parties have for decades followed the advice of the Council On Foreign Relations. Look at who they are, and what they push for, and compare it to what really happens in US foreign policy.
What is the next President going to do? What the Council tells them to do. Same as every other President.
ISIS wouldn't have existed without US invasion of Iraq. There would still be Al Qaeda and Islamic Terrorism, though they may have evolved in different directions in such a completely different environment, but Daesh as we know it wouldn't exist without the power vacuum in Iraq.
I highly recommend this documentary for understanding what produced the current situation in Iraq. It is by The Guardian, and gives a perspective that I have not seen in any US media.
[Initiate hand wave and smile]
See! Looks just like me. ^-^
...Oddly enough we also chose the most admired woman in America.
...
Huh, well count me surprised by that...
...hold on...
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans again name Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama the woman and man living anywhere in the world they admire most. Both win by wide margins over the next-closest finishers, Malala Yousafzai for women and Pope Francis and Donald Trump for men.
..........
...what...
...the....
...*$#k...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember when Obama first got elected... people were celebrating in the streets, walking roung saying 'Change' to anything with a pulse, convinced that he was the man to unite a racially divided country and bring back hope for the population...
What has he ACTUALLY done.... nada, zip, zilch... ZERO
If anyone actually thinks that HC is going to do anything of note, you are in for a severe disappointment.
Bring on Trump.... risky?...absolutely.
But you have no chance of doing anything of substantial worth in life if you arent prepared to break eggs. History shows this emphatically.
HC brings nothing but mediocrity, just like Obama.
This is horrifying in both ignorance and in desire. People who believe this need to be consistently and staunchly opposed, and prevented from getting their way. We cannot allow the sort of person who believes that Obama has done nothing worthwhile to decide the direction this country takes. We are better than that. We are smarter than that.
This is horrifying in both ignorance and in desire.I remember when Obama first got elected... people were celebrating in the streets, walking roung saying 'Change' to anything with a pulse, convinced that he was the man to unite a racially divided country and bring back hope for the population...
What has he ACTUALLY done.... nada, zip, zilch... ZERO
If anyone actually thinks that HC is going to do anything of note, you are in for a severe disappointment.
Bring on Trump.... risky?...absolutely.
But you have no chance of doing anything of substantial worth in life if you arent prepared to break eggs. History shows this emphatically.
HC brings nothing but mediocrity, just like Obama.
Its true to an extent. Japan and Germany broke a few eggs, and they turned out OK eventually, right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If given the choice between a person who pushed to remove their jobs and factories, and someone telling them they are going to bring the factories back, who do you think they will pick? Is anyone really surprised?
Since Trump is a poster boy for the lassiez-faire capitalist class -- you know, the people who actually shipped the jobs away -- yes, I'm surprised. Anyone paying any attention at should know that Trump is part of the problem, not the solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone please tell me we aren't actually this stupid.Okay, I won't tell you.
Hooray! Rysky saves the internet! :D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Surprised I haven't seen this posted yet
For the last few elections, candidates have been sent a list of 20 questions dealing with key issues relating to science and health that the presidential candidates will have to deal with. This year the questions were also sent to libertarian and green party candidates in addition to the two main party candidates.
Reading there answers leaves no doubt in my mind that Hillary is the one I want to win, and who will be a solid president.
Overall breakdown of answers:
Hillary: pro-Science, environment, and health. On the point summary of the question asked alongside specific policies she will use to address the issue in question, goals, and how she will get the funding.
Stein: Pro environment but vague on many science issues. A couple of good replies but also a lot of cutting and pasting of the same reply to very different questions. Goals established but many of them unrealistic and not really a clear policy.
Trump: zero support for science or the environment. Vague rambling replies that don't actually remotely answer the question, or even imply no factual understanding of what the question is about. No statements of policy other than the occasional "This will be a priority". Some of the replies can basically be put down as "$%@% the environment.
Johnson: "crickets". Didn't even bother replying
If given the choice between a person who pushed to remove their jobs and factories, and someone telling them they are going to bring the factories back, who do you think they will pick? Is anyone really surprised?Since Trump is a poster boy for the lassiez-faire capitalist class -- you know, the people who actually shipped the jobs away -- yes, I'm surprised. Anyone paying any attention at should know that Trump is part of the problem, not the solution.
To misquote Jay-z, he's not a businessman, he's a business, man.
MMC,
I think what seems unrealistic is often better than what is often accepted. That being said, Hillary is probably the better choice of candidates that will get more than 10% of the vote.
Imagine picking an auto-mechanic. Your choice is:
1) an experienced mechanic who has worked on a variety of cars. They've got a lot of bad reviews on Yelp, but they have some good reviews too. Plus they've been in business for decades. There's a guy in the neighborhood that won't stop yelling about how awful this mechanic is, but that guy is kind of an a$*#%&~ to everyone. They fixed your muffler once, didn't overcharge and it's worked fine since.
2) a person who owns a garage, but no car. Has posters of cars on the wall, but has never driven a car, let alone fixed one. They rode in a couple though. They seem really nice and talk a lot about how they have a strategy for fixing your car.
Jill Stein might sound like she has some nice ideas, but she doesn't know how to lead.
Surprised I haven't seen this posted yet
I just saw that myself last night but didn't have a chance to bring it up. Your assessment is roughly the same as mine; I see no need to repeat it.
I thought Trump's answer to #3 was particularly interesting. Lots of "Perhaps" and "We should think about it", whereas Clinton set specific goals and listed the methods she would use to accomplish them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought Trump's answer to #3 was particularly interesting. Lots of "Perhaps" and "We should think about it", whereas Clinton set specific goals and listed the methods she would use to accomplish them.
This sums up pretty much every speech either of them have given thus far.
I think what seems unrealistic is often better than what is often accepted.
That's a common misunderstanding, yes.
One thing that scientists do on a routine basis is evaluate research proposals for realism. That's part of the basic NSF review criteria, for example : "How likely is this line of thought to pan out?" "How well does the author understand the likely obstacles to success?" "Does this particular team have the skills necessary to achieve success?" DARPA -- itself no stranger to high-risk, high-reward research -- has even formalized and published a similar set of questions under the name "the Heilmeier Catechism," named after a very influential director.
So I don't have any problem looking at a proposal and saying "nope, too unrealistic."
The 20 questions are not a grant proposal, of course, but even simply compared to Clinton's answers, Stein doesn't give good answers to the catechism.
Jill Stein's answer to number 15 was excellent. While I found many of her answers exceptionally vague I do appreciate that one in particular, and feel it addresses some of the concerns about her raised in this thread.
Donald Trump's reply to number 16 was oddly inspired/inspiring. Of course it's the only one he did well on but still a good answer. His answer to number 17 though shows a massive ignorance to what the problem of opioid abuse in the US looks like, which implies his actions will have little to no positive impact on the problem. The fact he only cares about dollars and cents is plain in every answer and his lack of care is shown every time he goes with a "limited resources defer to congress for our priorities".
Hillary's answers are on point, on target and well stated. I doubt she answered them on her own, but I wouldn't expect her to and that's actually a fine thing to me. IF she did wow, because damn those are some fine answers. As statements of policy I'll take them, as they are confident, competent and well put.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Donald Trump teams up with a frog.Some how I knew Tsathogga would show up in this...
Do not slander slaadi! Pepe is a boggard that later picked up a half-fiend template. Trump is a froghemoth.
Edit: Eric Trump is Tyrell Wellick with froghemoth racial traits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hillary's answers are on point, on target and well stated. I doubt she answered them on her own, but I wouldn't expect her to and that's actually a fine thing to me. IF she did wow, because damn those are some fine answers. As statements of policy I'll take them, as they are confident, competent and well put.
Whether you agree with her policies or not, whether you agree with the resources and advisors she uses to build those policies or not, she is deeply and thoroughly wonky.
Hillary's answers are on point, on target and well stated. I doubt she answered them on her own, but I wouldn't expect her to and that's actually a fine thing to me. IF she did wow, because damn those are some fine answers. As statements of policy I'll take them, as they are confident, competent and well put.Whether you agree with her policies or not, whether you agree with the resources and advisors she uses to build those policies or not, she is deeply and thoroughly wonky.
AAbsolutely, and I like that about her. What I meant and should have said is if she developed those answers on her own then that is evidence of a masterful policy wonk that has spent time and energy actually thinking on the subjects involved.
Heck even if she didn't do it all herself it still stands as well designed and serious, with time and effort spent on it.
Whether you agree with her policies or not, whether you agree with the resources and advisors she uses to build those policies or not, she is deeply and thoroughly wonky.AAbsolutely, and I like that about her. What I meant and should have said is if she developed those answers on her own then that is evidence of a masterful policy wonk that has spent time and energy actually thinking on the subjects involved.
And if she didn't develop those answers on her own, then she clearly knows how to pick and work with very good people to develop policy, which is arguably a more important skill in a potential president. She's not going to run the NSF herself if she wins, but she obviously has a good working relationship with people who can and will do it under her supervision. If the same is true of Treasury, State, Energy, Defense, &c., that speaks to a very policy-focused and effective administration.
Unlike Donald "“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things" Trump. "[M]y primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff." Yeah, good luck preventing the Russians from invading Ukraine, Mr. Trump. You might want to talk to an actual diplomat about that one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If given the choice between a person who pushed to remove their jobs and factories, and someone telling them they are going to bring the factories back, who do you think they will pick? Is anyone really surprised?Since Trump is a poster boy for the lassiez-faire capitalist class -- you know, the people who actually shipped the jobs away -- yes, I'm surprised. Anyone paying any attention at should know that Trump is part of the problem, not the solution.
Actually, I would say that Trump is the poster-boy for the Crony Capitalist class. (I think the lassiez-faire stuff doesn't really exist.) The problem is, Hillary is even more so. NAFTA and similar trade arrangements are the Clinton's legacy, and the people who were negatively affected know this. Despite your bolded statement, Trump isn't the guy responsible for factories closing, but the Clintons are responsible. (Trumps main misdeeds are related to racism and real estate, mostly in the Northeast.)
I don't believe for a moment that either Trump or Hillary have the interests of the poor/middle class in mind, but Trump acknowledges a problem, and says he is going to fix it. That is going to appeal to many people. The Dems just heap scorn on those economically left behind. I'm not asking anyone to buy into either candidate, just trying to give you a window into the thinking of people who are often derided as stupid here and in the media, for not picking the candidate who screwed them over economically.