Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[littlebabyjesus]

Especially as there are some who correctly point out that the Clinton type of 'liberals' don't have benign foreign policies but then go on to bleat about it in sinister ways. e.g. by being inclined to take the opposing right-wingers who spout isolationist rhetoric at their word, even when in reality that side of the political spectrum commits plenty of bloody overseas adventures. Yes there is something particularly disgusting about those who wring their hands with 'concern' whilst still bombing families from afar, but there is something disgusting about the economic and social policies that the right will inflict on people if given power. I suspect there is a strong overlap between people who are really grubby little social conservatives with backwards ideas about human rights and those who bash Clinton with a special degree of relish on matters of foreign policy.

I think there's a need to distinguish between a US person and the rest of us. For a US person, I don't doubt that a Trump presidency would be worse - pity the poor under Trump, and the very modest things Obama has done would all be under attack.

But that is not of direct concern to the rest of us, if we're honest. It doesn't directly affect us if abortion rights are under attack in the US, for instance.

The main direct concern for us is the military action, both covert and overt, both direct and indirect, that the US empire will engage in over the coming years. Which governments will they seek to undermine? Who might they target next with their drones? How will they dictate NATO policy? What disgusting wars might they start, and will they drag others into them? Specifically, will they continue to provoke and encircle Russia, what might their relations be with Iran, might they try to undermine democracy once again in South America.

It's far from obvious to me who presents the greater threat to the rest of us here.

 

[Casually Red]

I think there's a need to distinguish between a US person and the rest of us. For a US person, I don't doubt that a Trump presidency would be worse - pity the poor under Trump, and the very modest things Obama has done would all be under attack.

But that is not of direct concern to the rest of us, if we're honest. It doesn't directly affect us if abortion rights are under attack in the US, for instance.

The main direct concern for us is the military action, both covert and overt, both direct and indirect, that the US empire will engage in over the coming years. Which governments will they seek to undermine? Who might they target next with their drones? How will they dictate NATO policy? What disgusting wars might they start, and will they drag others into them? Specifically, will they continue to provoke and encircle Russia, what might their relations be with Iran, might they try to undermine democracy once again in South America.

It's far from obvious to me who presents the greater threat to the rest of us here.

Spot on . Something so obvious shouldn't have to be pointed out but sadly .

 

[Vintage Paw]

I think there's a need to distinguish between a US person and the rest of us. For a US person, I don't doubt that a Trump presidency would be worse - pity the poor under Trump, and the very modest things Obama has done would all be under attack.

But that is not of direct concern to the rest of us, if we're honest. It doesn't directly affect us if abortion rights are under attack in the US, for instance.

The main direct concern for us is the military action, both covert and overt, both direct and indirect, that the US empire will engage in over the coming years. Which governments will they seek to undermine? Who might they target next with their drones? How will they dictate NATO policy? What disgusting wars might they start, and will they drag others into them? Specifically, will they continue to provoke and encircle Russia, what might their relations be with Iran, might they try to undermine democracy once again in South America.

It's far from obvious to me who presents the greater threat to the rest of us here.

Since the rest of us don't have a vote, it's hardly surprising so many who do will vote in terms of what will affect them most directly. Just as the majority who vote here will vote based on national policy rather than international.

 

[elbows]

You can take your arbitrary decisions about what is of direct concern to us and stick them. Because the separation is false in my opinion, and pays no meaningful attention to the concept of solidarity.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You can take your arbitrary decisions about what is of direct concern to us and stick them. Because the separation is false in my opinion, and pays no meaningful attention to the concept of solidarity.

Solidarity to say we'll back Clinton over Trump whatever Clinton's designs might be on the rest of the world? Nah, that doesn't work. And I don't think the separation between certain kinds of US domestic and foreign policies is a false one at all.

 

[Vintage Paw]

When your own security is at risk, and you have the opportunity to vote, and the choice is between someone who will put you at risk and someone who won't in the same way, how on earth would you expect those people to put the security of others across the world before their own? It's just not how people work. The relative amounts of risk involved aren't important when it comes to the choice put before a single voter when they are the ones living their life, not living the life of someone a world away.

Let's say we had 2 politicians over here. One was going to preserve your ESA, make sure legislation was in place to prevent discrimination against you, and would roll back privatization of the NHS, which you rely on, but they want to bomb the shit out of various places around the world. The other doesn't really say much about those other places around the world, other than to say we're better than them, and we'll continue to be great, but they do say that people who claim ESA are cockroaches and it should be stripped from them, they should be sent to workhouses, and this politician also gives time and credibility to people who go as far as to say people who claim ESA should be shot, and indeed in the run up to the election people who claim ESA are targets for increased violence.

Who should people who claim ESA vote for?

High minded ideals are one thing, but when they ignore the realities of regular people just trying to survive their crappy state of affairs they mean fuck all.

 

[petee]

I think there's a need to distinguish between a US person and the rest of us. For a US person, I don't doubt that a Trump presidency would be worse - pity the poor under Trump, and the very modest things Obama has done would all be under attack.

But that is not of direct concern to the rest of us, if we're honest. It doesn't directly affect us if abortion rights are under attack in the US, for instance.

The main direct concern for us is the military action, both covert and overt, both direct and indirect, that the US empire will engage in over the coming years. Which governments will they seek to undermine? Who might they target next with their drones? How will they dictate NATO policy? What disgusting wars might they start, and will they drag others into them? Specifically, will they continue to provoke and encircle Russia, what might their relations be with Iran, might they try to undermine democracy once again in South America.

It's far from obvious to me who presents the greater threat to the rest of us here.

So it's down to the US then, not capital?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So it's down to the US then, not capital?

What is? You mean US foreign policy? It is pursued with certain interests at heart, clearly, but 'capital' is not a person. People make decisions to go to war or to back a coup, not 'capital'. And not everyone will be equal in that regard (Blair exemplifies this - there was not inevitability to his decision to go to war in Iraq, no irresistible force of 'capital' compelling him to do it). I'm not not scared by Trump in this respect, but I don't understate my fear of a Clinton presidency.

 

[petee]

Are you concerned with Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen? China's in the South China Sea? Russia's in the Caucasus? Are you also saying that capital doesn't have interests that are the same in any country?

 

[butchersapron]

I think there's a need to distinguish between a US person and the rest of us. For a US person, I don't doubt that a Trump presidency would be worse - pity the poor under Trump, and the very modest things Obama has done would all be under attack.

But that is not of direct concern to the rest of us, if we're honest. It doesn't directly affect us if abortion rights are under attack in the US, for instance.

The main direct concern for us is the military action, both covert and overt, both direct and indirect, that the US empire will engage in over the coming years. Which governments will they seek to undermine? Who might they target next with their drones? How will they dictate NATO policy? What disgusting wars might they start, and will they drag others into them? Specifically, will they continue to provoke and encircle Russia, what might their relations be with Iran, might they try to undermine democracy once again in South America.

It's far from obvious to me who presents the greater threat to the rest of us here.

Disgusting

 

[butchersapron]

I ain't no us with you after that.

 

[Riklet]

I am enjoying sitting back with the popcorn on the deck-chair watching Donald Trump make the Republican party implode and losing them the election.

Liberals need to chill out about him.

 

[coley]

I think his comments re; women who have an abortion should face criminal sanctions, have scuppered him, thankfully.
And he can row backwards as hard as he likes, the damage is done.

 

[scifisam]

So am I getting this right? At least two people here think that Trump, with his racist rhetoric (he wants to BUILD A HUGE WALL), apparent hatred of anyone 'different" (like women and disabled people) and emphasis on physical fighting (supporting his staff who hit reporters), is *less* likely to start wars than Clinton? Are you completely fucking insane?

 

[coley]

So am I getting this right? At least two people here think that Trump, with his racist rhetoric (he wants to BUILD A HUGE WALL), apparent hatred of anyone 'different" (like women and disabled people) and emphasis on physical fighting (supporting his staff who hit reporters), is *less* likely to start wars than Clinton? Are you completely fucking insane?

I think people who reckon Trump isn't so bad, reckon he will direct his warmongering against home grown adversaries, the poor, women, illegal immigrants etc,

 

[Casually Red]

So am I getting this right? At least two people here think that Trump, with his racist rhetoric (he wants to BUILD A HUGE WALL), apparent hatred of anyone 'different" (like women and disabled people) and emphasis on physical fighting (supporting his staff who hit reporters), is *less* likely to start wars than Clinton? Are you completely fucking insane?

No, she's fucking insane . Even more than trump is . Along with her insane mates MCain and project for a new american century Kagan . Theyre ALL fucking crazy and ALL they want to do is start wars .

And as regards supporting an aide who grabbed a woman reporters arm , that crazy woman has been supporting a serial rapist who bites women's faces for decades . And going after his victims, sending thugs to terrorise and silence them . she's scum .

 

[Casually Red]

You can take your arbitrary decisions about what is of direct concern to us and stick them. Because the separation is false in my opinion, and pays no meaningful attention to the concept of solidarity.

Solidarity my arse . Solidarity with westerners , not with the subhumans who don't qualify . The rest of the worlds population .

According to Bernie Sanders this what type of Wall street , hedge fund supportedcvermin you're in "solidarity "
with .

 

[Casually Red]

I think people who reckon Trump isn't so bad, reckon he will direct his warmongering against home grown adversaries, the poor, women, illegal immigrants etc,

Clinton will manage to do that too as well as start wars .

Let's face it half the liberals on here are happy enough for countries to be bombed and invaded .

And Trump is bad, he's horrible . Simply not as horrible and dangerous as she is .

 

[Casually Red]

Interesting bit here from these conservative fuckos , who reckon he's not even a conservative at all . But a populist who's right wing pronouncements often shouldn't always be taken too seriously .

Some of his uturns and evasions are quite funny to read as well
Is Donald Trump Conservative? Here's the Rundown - Breitbart

 

[scifisam]

Clinton will manage to do that too as well as start wars .

Let's face it half the liberals on here are happy enough for countries to be bombed and invaded .

And Trump is bad, he's horrible . Simply not as horrible and dangerous as she is .

I typed out a post then decided that arguing with somebody so incredibly stupid and fucked up is really not worth my time. "Half the liberals here want countries bombed" is, literally, an insanely delusional thing to say.

 

[Casually Red]

When your own security is at risk, and you have the opportunity to vote, and the choice is between someone who will put you at risk and someone who won't in the same way, how on earth would you expect those people to put the security of others across the world before their own? It's just not how people work. The relative amounts of risk involved aren't important when it comes to the choice put before a single voter when they are the ones living their life, not living the life of someone a world away.

Let's say we had 2 politicians over here. One was going to preserve your ESA, make sure legislation was in place to prevent discrimination against you, and would roll back privatization of the NHS, which you rely on, but they want to bomb the shit out of various places around the world. The other doesn't really say much about those other places around the world, other than to say we're better than them, and we'll continue to be great, but they do say that people who claim ESA are cockroaches and it should be stripped from them, they should be sent to workhouses, and this politician also gives time and credibility to people who go as far as to say people who claim ESA should be shot, and indeed in the run up to the election people who claim ESA are targets for increased violence.

Who should people who claim ESA vote for?

High minded ideals are one thing, but when they ignore the realities of regular people just trying to survive their crappy state of affairs they mean fuck all.

Trump admires the Scottish NHS . Thinks its a great idea . Wants people to keep their social security entitlements . Says the subject is " off the table " . No cuts, ever . Clinton doesnt promise that .Wants to spend billions..if not trillions..on US infrastructure projects...jobs... as opposed to wars . Wants to stop the US taxpayer propping up NATO . wants to keep the mandatory paying of union subscriptions . Wants to put an end to the usual billionaire clubs funding politicians campaigns .

I haven't heard any talk of work houses . You also seem to think the cost of these trillion dollar wars doesn't hit the ordinary tax payer in the pocket and the money spent on them wouldn't be better off spent on a national infrastructure and millions of jobs .

And again, I'm not a fucking American nor am i going to live there .His economic policies don't affect me in the slightest . And as far as I can see many of them are to the left of Clinton, who's as economically right wing as they come . And a crazed warmonger to boot . And as regards regular people the millions Clinton has destroyed were regular people . They're dead now . But they were regular people like you and me . I don't identify with them any less than I do a yank or Brit . Often a bit more in fact .

I think some of you cats watched an episode of Friends too many and only identify with certain kinds of human being .

 

[Casually Red]

I typed out a post then decided that arguing with somebody so incredibly stupid and fucked up is really not worth my time. "Half the liberals here want countries bombed" is, literally, an insanely delusional thing to say.

Not when you've been arguing constantly like I have against those who approved of " intervention " in Yugoslavia , Libya, Syria etc . Whether overtly or covertly . And those who can support the prime mover behind it all and Iraq too. who'll do way worse again if she's ever elected .

 

[Ted Striker]

So am I getting this right? At least two people here think that Trump, with his racist rhetoric (he wants to BUILD A HUGE WALL), apparent hatred of anyone 'different" (like women and disabled people) and emphasis on physical fighting (supporting his staff who hit reporters), is *less* likely to start wars than Clinton? Are you completely fucking insane?

3.

From my admittedly distant perspective the cost of wars cuts right through him, and the budget cut for the military is propping up every single financial pledge he's making.

Clinton can lobby and schmooze her way around everything, and won't give 2 fucks about invoking every struggling political leaders' get-out-of-jail-free card and pick on a regime to start on when the going gets tough.

Trump's an evil man, but his stupidity will ensure he implodes. Hillary is a much more dangerous weapon.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Can't argue with that.

Except about the minor detail of what the "bad things" are.

And how on earth one would go about "reversing" them. All of them.

 

[8den]

No, she's fucking insane . Even more than trump is . Along with her insane mates MCain and project for a new american century Kagan . Theyre ALL fucking crazy and ALL they want to do is start wars .

And as regards supporting an aide who grabbed a woman reporters arm , that crazy woman has been supporting a serial rapist who bites women's faces for decades . And going after his victims, sending thugs to terrorise and silence them . she's scum .

At least we're not a the whole menopausal serial killer about to start ww3 due to her hot flushes you were dribbling about a few weeks ago.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So am I getting this right? At least two people here think that Trump, with his racist rhetoric (he wants to BUILD A HUGE WALL), apparent hatred of anyone 'different" (like women and disabled people) and emphasis on physical fighting (supporting his staff who hit reporters), is *less* likely to start wars than Clinton? Are you completely fucking insane?

I can see why some people might think that and not be "completely fucking insane", given Clinton's war-like prior form, and her backing of some absolutely unsavoury foreign policy ventures.
The truth is probably that whoever the fuck wins, realpolitik wins out, and what the generals and CEOs want done, will get done, regardless of the effect on "normal Americans", let alone the rest of the world.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Can't argue with that.

Except about the minor detail of what the "bad things" are.

And how on earth one would go about "reversing" them. All of them.

Easy.
You get Superman to fly around the world anti-clockwise, so that time flows backward to a golden age.

 

[a_chap]

Not sure I buy all of this, but...

Why losing Wisconsin could cost Donald Trump the Republican nomination

 

[krtek a houby]

...Let's face it half the liberals on here are happy enough for countries to be bombed and invaded ...

Are you being sponsored by Fox News?

 

[Obediah Marsh]

Clinton will be out to avenge Benghazi for sure. That's unfinished business.