Lord Raven Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) Edit: wifi is satan Edited October 31, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Making life fair is a form of freedom seeing as if everyone has access to the same opportunities from birth (something that is 100% bullshit by the way; your birth and upbringing is a very significant factor in how you turn out) then they are free to choose a career that they can sustain themselves with. You're wording it as if literally the only thing the government should do is arm a military and police, but why can't people privatize military and security to protect their own rights? This is really selective anarchy. This is the only point that I'm really going to answer because this is the root of why we disagree. I don't think that making life fair is freedom. I don't believe in the true equality that you are searching for. And I don't think so because you are looking for an equality of outcome. You are saying that caring for others before myself is freedom. I disagree. Literally, the government should only arm a police and military and fund a legal system. There is no selective anarchy because of the legal system. That is the point of a republic. Privatizing the military or police force allows for the creating of an army in which to rebel against the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Ok. Regarding Atlas Shrugged, the reason I said "pretty much that" is that it articulates my opinion a lot better than I can do myself. I have no problem trying but I don't feel that I have a more clear way of articulating my position on the matter than what Ayn Rand did. Then just copy-paste your arguments of the internet. It's what I do everyone else does. If you get down to the root of it, a hospital is not a necessity. A doctor could work out of his own house if he so wished. Hospitals simply allow more people to get medical care at the same time. Rather than everyone line up to see one doctor, a hospital can accommodate more people at one time. The question is if people have a right to health care and if a doctor is morally obligated to help patients for less money than he could charge. That's the argument regarding privatization vs. public at its core. I don't think that the right to health care exists. I think that it's a privilege. Same goes for businesses, entitlements... It is not the role of government to make life fair for everyone. They are there simply to make sure that everyone's individual freedoms are being protected. On paper, perhaps not. But why shouldn't it? If the government has the power to make life better for people, than I believe it should, as should everyone for that matter. Simply put, a society in which everyone is out purely for the betterment of themselves is not a functional society. I see a lot of people argue that only bare necessities should be paid for, but the problem is that their are lots of different and conflicting opinions on what a bare necessities. You say that health care is a privilege, but what about the people who think that health care is a necessity because a lot of people can't afford treatment on their own or that something you consider a necessity is a privilege or wasteful? If people only ever paid for what they wanted, then you'd just wind up with everything being underfunded. The fact is that every society is, to some degree, reliant on altruism to function, even if it's for something as simple as taking a job as a teacher instead of a higher paying job because the idea of teaching children and molding the next generation is more important than getting paid a fuckton of money. I, for example and hypothetically speaking, don't like the military, but I would pay for that because I know that their are many, many people who are reliant on the military to defend them and I may wind up being in need of them one day. Similarly, I (again, hypothetically speaking), might not like health care, but I will pay for that because I know that their are people who won't be able to access health care without it and if I ever get injured, then I can feel safe knowing that the medical bills won't ruin me financially. That's why Atlas Shrugged isn't applicable in real society; because if everyone was as self-focused as Ayn Rand thinks they should be, and altruism, generosity and self-sacrifice was denounced to that degree, then society would most likely fall apart, or require a massive change that would make it virtually unrecognisable compared to current society. Society is quite literally built on self-sacrifice, compromise and, to an admittedly much lesser degree, altruism, and to say otherwise is delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) I don't think that making life fair is freedom. I don't believe in the true equality that you are searching for. And I don't think so because you are looking for an equality of outcome. You are saying that caring for others before myself is freedom. I disagree.No I'm not. Read what I've been saying this whole thread instead of making something up. When have I ever preached equality of outcome? You tryna group my viewpoints with communism? I really can't tell if you're just doing the poorest strawman in existence or you literally just respond to the point you were hoping I'd make but didn't actually make. In either case, your reading comprehension needs some serious work.Literally, the government should only arm a police and military and fund a legal system. There is no selective anarchy because of the legal system. That is the point of a republic. Privatizing the military or police force allows for the creating of an army in which to rebel against the government.No man everyone should have their own military to fight for their own freedoms. Government is useless according to you. Healthcare is also security like police and militia are - because it keeps a healthy population that is secure from disease. One that can actually function in the day-to-day, because people who work often times support more than just themselves. You're pretty much having people live in inherent insecurity by not giving them healthcare.Actually, people should put out their own damn fires instead of relying on the government to do it for them. In an emergency don't call an EMT go use your own defribulators and whatever else an EMT is armed with. Be prepared for everything, even if you can't afford it! Also pay for your own damn school! Teachers ain't free! If you're poor and you want your kids to have a good education? Too fucking bad kiddo, shoulda had better parents! EDIT: reminder that life admiral just posted that Hillary Clinton is more likely than not running a child sex trafficking scheme. Also he mentioned 650k emails; that's 2000 emails per day for a year, and divide 2000 by the number of years and it is still ridiculous. Did /r/conspiracy just send a plant to Serenes? Edited October 31, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) I don't think Life understands that the premise of social liberalism is that individuality and freedom does not flourish in all environments. A Government who is utilising taxes and welfare does not neccessarily have anything against freedom, they simply believe that the state is a vehicle that can be utilised to overall improve the freedom of their citizens. I think it is intuitive (and demonstrably observable) that some restrictions can overall increase our freedom; We are overall more free in a world where you are legally required to get an education for example, as one's overall opportunties in life increase significantly when they have basic reading and writing skills. We are overall more free in a world where violent criminals are incarcerated, as such people restrict everyone else's freedoms. etc. A common rebuttal by conservatives and liberatarians is that charity will make do. But do we really think it will? Many charities claim not to operate for profit but pay their executives huge salaries, and if we simply look at the way many rich people and corporations use tax loopholes to avoid paying into the public money pot, what makes you so sure they'll be willing to give their money away without being obligated to in a system with no/next to no taxes? However, I'll admit that in other models such as social liberalism and social democracy, the Government is a flawed thing too and often fails to make things work out appropriately, and often can undermine the benefits of the free market in crony capitalist approaches. I've said much of this before, and I've said the following too; What we ideally want is a society where basically everyone feels morally obligated to help others. Only that can really make either solution work. And divisive approaches to politics is definitely not a good way of achieving this. Edited October 31, 2016 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just call me AL Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I just realized something about the FBI's decision to reopen the case. Put aside my bias for a second, I think this theory has some credence. Comey just tanked his career. He had to know that he would tank his career by doing this. It's not in his personal gain to tank his career unless it was one of the two options. 1. That he had a personal axe to grind against Hillary and that his original decision not to press charges was calculated. To me, this theory sounds not that credible because this grudge would have to be very deep and personal. 2. That he found something actually significant on Hillary on the device of Huma Abedon when investigating Anthony Weiner. To me, the second theory makes a lot more sense. We know that Weiner is under investigation for sending nude pictures to 15 year olds. And his connection is the fact that his now-estranged wife is Hillary's top aide and some 650,000 emails pertaining to the original Clinton investigation were found on a personal device in Abedon's home. Abedon lied under oath. She claimed that every single device had been turned over. And not only that, but the Clinton campaign (and Trump's) has been talking about only 30,000 emails. This is over 20x that number. You don't just pull a number like that out of thin air. But notice that he's not dispensing any details about what the supposed 650k e-mails in question, despite demands and the simple fact that he should. And given the timing of this, considering that Trump's support was double-digits behind Clinton, and that he's outright lost three debates, the first listed reason (which I bolded) would be far more likely than the 2nd listed reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André The kid Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) This may be the de facto truth, but I honestly wish America would cut back on policing the world. There's no real reason to still have troops in Europe, and perhaps we should let South Korea take over defense of their own border. Both of the two main party candidates will likely continue the same policy that Obama and Bush have had. Of course, I'm just a filthy libertarian who's going to vote third party. So, I end making both sides hate me. America CAN'T Stop policing the world when they are guilty of most of its problems. The problem in the middle east is 75% Usa's and 25% Russia's Fault. And we know where this is going to end if we let Russia take care of it. Most countries in the middle east have nuclear weapons, and still most of said nations are ran by either terrorists, or lunatics. And you want to stop Policing the World? America's at fault for the European Refugee Crisis and the War on the middle east. America can't ignore this problem, which is in fact, what they have been doing so far. I've said it before, but i'll say it again ,From an European's perspective. Having to clean up your bullshit is Tiresome! Either Solve the problems you say you're going to Solve, WITHOUT FUCKING EVERYTHING IN THE PROCESS (Ala Iraq, because face it, Iraq's Issue is US's Fault.) Or stop Trying to be the police of the world. Because The US invaded Iraq to Stop Iraq's invasion over Kuwait (gee, wonder why... Oh right... *cough* oil *cough*.) But when Iraq invaded Iran, No one batted an eye, In fact, Usa sold weapons to both sides and profited from it. And honestly, I'd say that at this point, voting for a third party might be the solution the world needs. I Just wish that the UN didn't stop Israel from conquering Siria back in the 80's. Because we wouldn't have to be dealing with this bullshit. There are too many Nuclear weapons in the world to let Trump take charge, but also too many to let Hillary take charge. (For opposite reasons). I've said it Before, but i'll say it again! Whoever you vote for, Remember! The USA Is the World's Police (For better or Worse), and your vote Determines the fate of whole world, not just america. Edited October 31, 2016 by André The kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Not quite, actually. George Bush Sr. defended Kuwait and didn't proceed into Iraq, and Dubya was the one who invaded Iraq 12 years later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 America CAN'T Stop policing the world when they are guilty of most of its problems. The problem in the middle east is 75% Usa's and 25% Russia's Fault. And we know where this is going to end if we let Russia take care of it. Why does America have to be the only one taking the charge here? Why can't a coalition of countries take responsibility? The EU, NATO, or UN could be the ones ensuring stability in the world, if the wanted to. Saying America is 75% responsible for the Middle East's problems is a bit extreme. They've been in a tenuous state for centuries. Much of the problems now can be traced to the European powers divvying the area up after the world wars. Most countries in the middle east have nuclear weapons, and still most of said nations are ran by either terrorists, or lunatics. And you want to stop Policing the World? America's at fault for the European Refugee Crisis and the War on the middle east. America can't ignore this problem, which is in fact, what they have been doing so far. I've said it before, but i'll say it again ,From an European's perspective. Having to clean up your bullshit is Tiresome! Either Solve the problems you say you're going to Solve, WITHOUT FUCKING EVERYTHING IN THE PROCESS (Ala Iraq, because face it, Iraq's Issue is US's Fault.) Or stop Trying to be the police of the world. Because The US invaded Iraq to Stop Iraq's invasion over Kuwait (gee, wonder why... Oh right... *cough* oil *cough*.) But when Iraq invaded Iran, No one batted an eye, In fact, Usa sold weapons to both sides and profited from it. And honestly, I'd say that at this point, voting for a third party might be the solution the world needs. I Just wish that the UN didn't stop Israel from conquering Siria back in the 80's. Because we wouldn't have to be dealing with this bullshit. There are too many Nuclear weapons in the world to let Trump take charge, but also too many to let Hillary take charge. (For opposite reasons). I've said it Before, but i'll say it again! Whoever you vote for, Remember! The USA Is the World's Police (For better or Worse), and your vote Determines the fate of whole world, not just america. As blah said, HW didn't invade Iraq, he only pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait. I don't think W invaded for oil, but for a misguided notion that toppling Saddam would help democracy gain a foothold in the Middle East, but obviously, it didn't work. There seems to be a paradox, where people want the US to intervene and be the world's police force, but then get mad at America for doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Perhaps, but the question is would he do it if he ever had the opportunity? Do you really think Trump, who has exploited these loopholes in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future, would be willing to do anything to fix them? It comes back to the logic of "we're sick of big businesses buying out politicians and messing with the system, so we're going to vote in the big businesses to do something about it" that always leaves me shaking my head. Regarding the fact that Trump's also disadvantaged in closing the loopholes-I'm assuming Trump has a 'win more often' rather than a 'win more (quantity rather than chances)' mindset, to which the tax loopholes being closed creates a neutral condition with. Even if assuming that he's trying to minimize his losses, he could always close loopholes in fields in which his companies have the least involvement, which maximizes his chances of 'staying ahead', which while advantageous to him, is also a benefit for the country. Regarding voting in big business, it's also to know that almost every single other big business is backing Clinton and not Trump. He is not a part of the system. Let's play spot the war crime. How do you know that the civilians and families are "basically indoctrinated"? how far away from ISIS do they need to be before they aren't considered terrorists? What if an ISIS member's family has no knowledge of their relative's occupation, are they still indoctrinated? Flying into a village and bombing the thing to rubble because you think there are some terrorists there sounds like a better way to make enemies than anything I could come up with. As hawkish as Hillary's foreign policy is, I'm glad she at least has never openly advocated for war crimes. Given the strongly patriarchal and authoritarian nature of radical islam, I am assuming it to be quite likely. I don't recall Hillary taking a position against drone strikes either (correct me if needed on this one) which have killed civilians in the middle east as well. would you trust me for professional medical advice for asthma because i'm asthmatic and have been to the hospital many times (and have been told much about it by doctors)? sure it won't. but typically those rulers didn't have filthy records like trump does (not paying employees, committing sexual assault crimes, etc.) No, I wouldn't trust you with direct advice for asthma, but I would trust someone that says I look bad enough and should get a checkup with the doctor (The analogy being, Trump could always ask for a neutral party of lawyers to be assigned to specifically look up for abuseable loopholes so that Congress could get to making laws to close them). Disregarding the fact that I think that the Trump comments on the video do not imply he has committed sexual assault, Genghis Khan was one of the first figures that came to mind when I was thinking of absolute rulers that helped their people quite a lot, amongst a few others of similar nature. Regarding the Middle East, I'll say that the zone has historically been regularly at war due to a variety of reasons, oil just being the latest of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 No, I wouldn't trust you with direct advice for asthma, but I would trust someone that says I look bad enough and should get a checkup with the doctor (The analogy being, Trump could always ask for a neutral party of lawyers to be assigned to specifically look up for abuseable loopholes so that Congress could get to making laws to close them). are you assuming this is not already being done? do you think the united states is aware of the loopholes but just doesn't know how to deal with them? the issue is the tax code is too convoluted and confusing. and its in rich people's interests to keep the loopholes there! Disregarding the fact that I think that the Trump comments on the video do not imply he has committed sexual assault, Genghis Khan was one of the first figures that came to mind when I was thinking of absolute rulers that helped their people quite a lot, amongst a few others of similar nature. you think openly and freely (read: without stress or anxiety) admitting to sexual assault does not at least imply he committed sexual assault? i can see the argument for it not being explicit proof, but you don't even think it's implied? what do the comments mean then? i think an argument exists that would posit khan was not a perfectly honest ruler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André The kid Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Why does America have to be the only one taking the charge here? Why can't a coalition of countries take responsibility? The EU, NATO, or UN could be the ones ensuring stability in the world, if the wanted to. Saying America is 75% responsible for the Middle East's problems is a bit extreme. They've been in a tenuous state for centuries. Much of the problems now can be traced to the European powers divvying the area up after the world wars. As blah said, HW didn't invade Iraq, he only pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait. I don't think W invaded for oil, but for a misguided notion that toppling Saddam would help democracy gain a foothold in the Middle East, but obviously, it didn't work. There seems to be a paradox, where people want the US to intervene and be the world's police force, but then get mad at America for doing so. We get mad for doing so because of what they did. They invaded iraq, left it in ruin, and then left, as if nothing had happened, leaving the country to be ruled by terrorrists. A coalition? Forget it. With Russia Supporting Bashar al-assad? You're forgeting that Nato, along with Kurds (Rebels) are fighting Bashar al-assad (Supported By Russia), and you're also forgetting that Turkey hates the Kurds. Trying a coalition is although not a bad idea, between them, stupid. Alright, The Us isn't at fault for 75%, just 70%. Although yes, England and France do take some of the blame, most of it is on the US. Stability? THe Un? Don't make me laugh. Just go Tell Russia to back down from their terrorism, and MAYBE, THEN MAYBE, we can try. Until then, no dice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 We get mad for doing so because of what they did. They invaded iraq, left it in ruin, and then left, as if nothing had happened, leaving the country to be ruled by terrorrists. A coalition? Forget it. With Russia Supporting Bashar al-assad? You're forgeting that Nato, along with Kurds (Rebels) are fighting Bashar al-assad (Supported By Russia), and you're also forgetting that Turkey hates the Kurds. Trying a coalition is although not a bad idea, between them, stupid. Alright, The Us isn't at fault for 75%, just 70%. Although yes, England and France do take some of the blame, most of it is on the US. Stability? THe Un? Don't make me laugh. Just go Tell Russia to back down from their terrorism, and MAYBE, THEN MAYBE, we can try. Until then, no dice. Unfortunately, you can't expect a country to police a world, then get mad when they engage in things like nation building. Inevitably any country that claims hegemony will work in its self interests in the end, even if they try to be altruistic. The USA has generally been a positive force in the world, but it's time for other countries to step up. Many in the US grow tired of policing the world because people simultaneously hate us for it, but also expect us to do it and get mad when we suggest stopping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André The kid Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Unfortunately, you can't expect a country to police a world, then get mad when they engage in things like nation building. Inevitably any country that claims hegemony will work in its self interests in the end, even if they try to be altruistic. The USA has generally been a positive force in the world, but it's time for other countries to step up. Many in the US grow tired of policing the world because people simultaneously hate us for it, but also expect us to do it and get mad when we suggest stopping. We don't get mad for you policing the world. We get mad for you going to Iraq and doing what you did. I get what you're trying to say. But i'd like for you to understand my point too. Because of your "Police work", there are people suffering. I don't want to blame America, but i can't blame Russia, or Putin will have my head, so who will I Blame? (Apart from the obvious culprit in the situation?) I don't want to point fingers, but it has to be done. You can't stop policing the world, do you want to Leave the middle east in the chaos that it is now? Or to let North Corea have its way, Now fully armed with Nuclear weapons? Along with countries ran by terrorrists that also conviniently have nukes? Yep, Great time to stop the police work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom037 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Given the strongly patriarchal and authoritarian nature of radical islam, I am assuming it to be quite likely. I don't recall Hillary taking a position against drone strikes either (correct me if needed on this one) which have killed civilians in the middle east as well. not condemning drone strikes =/= "They're probably radicals, so just blow them up anyway". Also please respond to my other questions regarding the arbitrary way you're talking about killing potentially innocent bystanders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 You know someboy's running out of arguments when they resort to citing Ayn Rand to back up their arguments. America CAN'T Stop policing the world when they are guilty of most of its problems. [...] The problem in the middle east is 75% Usa's and 25% Russia's Fault. And we know where this is going to end if we let Russia take care of it. [...] Most countries in the middle east have nuclear weapons [...] And honestly, I'd say that at this point, voting for a third party might be the solution the world needs. [...] I Just wish that the UN didn't stop Israel from conquering Siria back in the 80's. Because we wouldn't have to be dealing with this bullshit. [...] Just go Tell Russia to back down from their terrorism [...] I don't want to blame America, but i can't blame Russia, or Putin will have my head, so who will I Blame? [...] You can't stop policing the world, do you want to Leave the middle east in the chaos that it is now? Or to let North Corea have its way, Now fully armed with Nuclear weapons? [...] Along with countries ran by terrorrists that also conviniently have nukes? [...] ... dude. What stuffs are you on and where can I get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André The kid Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 You know someboy's running out of arguments when they resort to citing Ayn Rand to back up their arguments. ... dude. What stuffs are you on and where can I get it? What I'm high on? Reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Except that a claim like "most middle eastern countries have nuclear weapons" has nothing to do with what you call "reality". Israel is the only country in the region that does and I don't think that's what you meant when you were talking about "countries ran by terrorists". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André The kid Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) Except that a claim like "most middle eastern countries have nuclear weapons" has nothing to do with what you call "reality". Israel is the only country in the region that does and I don't think that's what you meant when you were talking about "countries ran by terrorists". That's WHERE YOU ARE SUPER WRONG. India - Has nuclear weapons Paquistan - Has Nuclear Weapons North corea - Has nukes (not from middle east, but still an issue) China - not from middle east, but has nukes. Paquistan is ran by terrorists. The country has no government, and is ravaged by talibans every day, which were trained by whom? AMERICA! America trained The talibans, and when Russia dropped the support towards Pakistan (because of terrorism) - America Bailed! And left well trained soldiers and equipment in the hands of Extremist Muslims in a frail country.. Because what couldn't go wrong! And Iraq is ran by terrorists (Well, kinda). They are not as extremist as ISIS, but they still hate us for not loving ALA. So yeah, the middle east is in a pickle. Don't even try to think i smoke, a 5 minute research will prove my point. OH, and Pakistan and India, two of the countries with Nukes. have been fighting for decades for a small place (as big as Lisbon), between their borders called Caxemira, which China is also involved with. Yeah . Three countries with nuclear weapons fighting over a land with oil, WHAT COULD GO WRONG? Right? Edited October 31, 2016 by André The kid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Paquistan is ran by terrorists. The country has no government, and is ravaged by talibans every day, which were trained by whom? I don't know that much about Pakistan (hey nice spelling) but you are dead wrong on this. The country as a whole is not ravaged by the Taliban; the border is where all of this applies. As for nukes I'm about to play a game so I'm not going to try to prove or disprove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) But notice that he's not dispensing any details about what the supposed 650k e-mails in question, despite demands and the simple fact that he should. And given the timing of this, considering that Trump's support was double-digits behind Clinton, and that he's outright lost three debates, the first listed reason (which I bolded) would be far more likely than the 2nd listed reason.So you think that James Comey is committing perjury in front of the American people just to attempt to tank the campaign (which may or may not work).He wouldn't have HAD to. He wasn't in fear of losing his job because he concluded the investigation over with no request to prosecute. In fact, it would have been more beneficial to just sit on his hands until after the election. This is Comey's career that we are talking about. You don't publically blow up your career as head of the FBI on a grudge. Can we stop pretending that James Comey was a good person until Thursday? Also, if those emails do contain classified information, are you telling me that he should give them over to the public? Funny, I didn't see this kind of fervour surrounding Wikileaks. But that's because the Russians did it... we think. Also Raven, 650,000 is not my number. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957&ved=0ahUKEwitqLrYgIbQAhXGCsAKHY8iBOcQFgg5MAk&usg=AFQjCNFKM3P9drb0Ykbeu-Ug5P0DQ4P1NQ Wall Street Journal is also wrong? Edited October 31, 2016 by Life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 That's WHERE YOU ARE SUPER WRONG. India - Has nuclear weapons Paquistan - Has Nuclear Weapons North corea - Has nukes (not from middle east, but still an issue) China - not from middle east, but has nukes. ... none of these countries are located in the middle east - India and Pakistan are in South Asia; NK and China in eastern Asia. The conflict between India and Pakistan has nothing to do with US activities in the region and NK is fucked up in general. China's has signed NPT and is not directly involved in a military conflict right now nor is there any threat of using nukes coming from China. An open conflict between any of these countries may involve the threat of nuclear weapons being used but the USA is not involved in anything that could cause the situation to escalate like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I'm doubtful there's anything really groundbreaking in them simply because the Clinton campaign isn't reacting the way I would expect a campaign about to be busted would react. I don't think Comey is being deliberately malicious, either, though. My predictions: the Trumpets will get a premature sugar high as they imagine what might be in them (already have really) but it'll end with a big "meh". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I don't think Comey is being deliberately malicious, either, though. Given the recent claims by Harry Reid (not sure how reliable) that Comey is sitting on information relating to Trump and Russia, I wouldn't put it past him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 So, I'm curious: what do you think would be the biggest immediate changes that would occur under the administration of both candidates? I can imagine there would be quite a few changes in foreign policy if Trump was elected, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.