General US Politics

[Phoenix Wright]

great question! i'll edit if i think of something better. i'm guessing "immediate" is akin to the famous "100 days" phrase.

clinton: keeping obamacare alive

trump: nothing

[Life]

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.

Donna Brazile has been fired from CNN (bless your soul, John Podesta). Even MSNBC is sitting on camera and saying "well, what now?".

The fallout is huge and it's only going to get bigger if you ask me.

Phoenix, my one guess would be an attempt to repeal NAFTA. Whether or not that's a good thing is another matter entirely and not one I know enough about.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Life

[Crysta]

nah, so far this is still small compared to the access hollywood tape damage

EDIT: as for what harry reid has implied i'm not investing too much faith in it because it's harry reid lol

Edited October 31, 2016 by Crysta

[Life]

nah, so far this is still small compared to the access hollywood tape damage

EDIT: as for what harry reid has implied i'm not investing too much faith in it because it's harry reid lol

Agreed on the Harry Reid point.

Disagree on the context. When people lose jobs over corruption, that is huge. It is disingenous to think otherwise.

[Crysta]

You think it's huge because you hone in on it like a fly on honey.

I can't see many 'undecided' voters looking far into the issue at all; the access hollywood thing was more generally horrifying and got constant replay. Brazile was quite literally on her way out before being formally fired, and the circumstances surrounding it hardly grabs headlines - except to those looking for them.

EDIT: this changes if the e-mails have something damaging beyond what wikileaks has found (which hasn't really turned on the anti-hillary deluge in spite of them thinking it would lol)

i recall hearing about the debate questions being forwarded before this

Edited October 31, 2016 by Crysta

[Life]

EDIT: this changes if the e-mails have something damaging beyond what wikileaks has found (which hasn't really turned on the anti-hillary deluge in spite of them thinking it would lol)

I think it is much bigger than what was on Wikileaks, hence Comey's announcement. If it wasn't, why risk his career?

[Crysta]

I'm not sure what this huge risk is.

He wouldn't have committed perjury; he was intentionally vague. And he's a lawyer.

[tuvarkz]

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!

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.

If the tax code was too convoluted and confusing, then people wouldn't have enough understanding of it to see the loopholes. Methinks it's the establishment that is intentionally skipping on looking at the issue.

Also, it wasn't admitting to sexual assault. It was bragging that women were letting him grope them, in other words consensually=it's not sexual assault. Also, I never said perfect rulers. I said 'absolute rulers that were great leaders for their people', not 'perfectly honest rulers' (In which case not even the mythical version of King Arthur aka the paragon of being a good ruler would apply)

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.

So, Bashar al-assad wants the Kurds out of his country, the Kurds want their country, and Turkey, who nobody except those intent on getting it into the EU (and remain willfully blind that the country is quite backwards and that Erdogan is functionally a dictator, or that he has tried to blackmail Europe with more refugees) really likes. The solution is quite obvious-expel Turkey from NATO, tell the Kurds that if they pull out of Syria, they will be given plenty of military support to claim a big chunk of Turkey. Erdogan is the only one that will really be pissed off about it, and will have to resign to have to give up a significant part of Turkey's territory.

Regarding immediate policy changes with Trump: De-escalation with Russia, and likely starting 'negotiations' with Mexico to have them pay for the wall, directly or indirectly.

[Life]

Quick point to make. Erdogan is very popular in Turkey. I asked a Turk about it the other day and he said that the people really like him, even if he is a dictator.

[Yojinbo]

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.

In Hillary's case foreign policies against Russia and Iran would become a lot more aggressive than they already are, which is cause for great concern - especially if you live in Europe, or outside of the USA in general.

Trump's ideas on how to proceed with regards to foreign policies seem more sensible to me - more balanced relationships across the board with some pragmatism towards Putin and distance to the atrocities Saudi-Arabia commits on a daily basis among other things are much healthier for the world than Hillary's unconcealed desire to drag Europe and the Middle East into war for the benefit of america's military industry complex. The problem with Trump is that the very few constructive ideas coming from him - foreign policies are among them imo - have virtually no chance of finding a majority among either party. It's a lost cause because the only things I'd find Trump worth voting for have no chance of actually happening, and the rest of his ideas are either terrible or just straight up unenforcable garbage like the whole wall deal with Mexico.

Phoenix, my one guess would be an attempt to repeal NAFTA. Whether or not that's a good thing is another matter entirely and not one I know enough about.

That attempt, if Trump decided to go for it at all, would fail though as he'd get no support for it from either party. Which is a pity because NAFTA has become a problem for a lot of people in both Mexico and the USA. But there's that 1% that benefits from it and that 1% happens to be the one that's in control. They'll make sure that NAFTA will stay no matter how many mexican farmers are forced out of business by it [and emigrate to the USA as a consequence].

[Yula]

By the way, if you read the emails, you understand why the whole russophobia is going on. John Podesta and Hillary Clinton both have ties to Russia, they're projecting onto Trump and on top of that, trying to hide their connections. We live in an oligarchy peeps, Hillary is owned by Russia.

If you don't believe me, look up something called Uranium One.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Setsuna Meioh

[Time the Crestfallen]

If the tax code was too convoluted and confusing, then people wouldn't have enough understanding of it to see the loopholes. Methinks it's the establishment that is intentionally skipping on looking at the issue.

Also, it wasn't admitting to sexual assault. It was bragging that women were letting him grope them, in other words consensually=it's not sexual assault. Also, I never said perfect rulers. I said 'absolute rulers that were great leaders for their people', not 'perfectly honest rulers' (In which case not even the mythical version of King Arthur aka the paragon of being a good ruler would apply)

That's not how consent works. Groping unwilling women and being allowed to get away with it because he's rich and powerful is not consent.

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.

Trump would probably start on the wall, repealing NAFTA and trying to buddy up with Russia, as others have said. Not sure what Hillary would do to be honest.

[ping]

If the tax code was too convoluted and confusing, then people wouldn't have enough understanding of it to see the loopholes. Methinks it's the establishment that is intentionally skipping on looking at the issue.

Also, it wasn't admitting to sexual assault. It was bragging that women were letting him grope them, in other words consensually=it's not sexual assault. Also, I never said perfect rulers. I said 'absolute rulers that were great leaders for their people', not 'perfectly honest rulers' (In which case not even the mythical version of King Arthur aka the paragon of being a good ruler would apply)

What

You got to be kidding. What you're saying here is basically that the women should proactively greet Trump with "I'm not OK with you making any sexual advances so keep your tiny fingers away from me" and if they don't it implies consent? That's not how it works. What Trump described was very clearly sexual assault.

[tuvarkz]

That's not how consent works. Groping unwilling women and being allowed to get away with it because he's rich and powerful is not consent.

What

You got to be kidding. What you're saying here is basically that the women should proactively greet Trump with "I'm not OK with you making any sexual advances so keep your tiny fingers away from me" and if they don't it implies consent? That's not how it works. What Trump described was very clearly sexual assault.

Quoting from the video "And when you are a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." It is known that women will throw themselves at famous males, particularly those in the entertainment industry. Trump being rich and famous, even if not conventionally attractive, it is perfectly possible that there were women willing to let him touch them in exchange for gifts or other types of favors.

[Phoenix Wright]

Phoenix, my one guess would be an attempt to repeal NAFTA. Whether or not that's a good thing is another matter entirely and not one I know enough about.

for trump? possibly, but getting rid of nafta would take far longer than 100 days.

If the tax code was too convoluted and confusing, then people wouldn't have enough understanding of it to see the loopholes. Methinks it's the establishment that is intentionally skipping on looking at the issue.

that isn't true. what is true is that it takes a long time for congress to do anything, and if given the task of, let's say, untangling a huge knot of cords with 535 members of congress nearly each getting a say in what the next move should be, it's gonna take quite a bit longer.

the establishment (read: the rich) are very much intentionally not calling it to issue because they get to pay less taxes without breaking the law. that's partly why there were no americans in the panama papers. and guess what! trump is very much a part of that establishment.

Also, it wasn't admitting to sexual assault. It was bragging that women were letting him grope them, in other words consensually=it's not sexual assault. Also, I never said perfect rulers. I said 'absolute rulers that were great leaders for their people', not 'perfectly honest rulers' (In which case not even the mythical version of King Arthur aka the paragon of being a good ruler would apply)

is it consensual if he "doesn't even wait" before kissing them? if he gropes them? the woman in the video was clearly uncomfortable. i can only imagine the other people he's hurt.

funnily enough, i didn't say perfect either. i think there's convincing arguments from historians or otherwise that might argue khan was not so great a ruler.

Quoting from the video "And when you are a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." It is known that women will throw themselves at famous males, particularly those in the entertainment industry. Trump being rich and famous, even if not conventionally attractive, it is perfectly possible that there were women willing to let him touch them in exchange for gifts or other types of favors.

since you're so sure, source?

Edited October 31, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Time the Crestfallen]

Quoting from the video "And when you are a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." It is known that women will throw themselves at famous males, particularly those in the entertainment industry. Trump being rich and famous, even if not conventionally attractive, it is perfectly possible that there were women willing to let him touch them in exchange for gifts or other types of favors.

Bullshit. What 'gifts' and 'favours' was Trump giving these people? Unsolicited groping is sexual assault, regardless of how rich and famous someone is.

Edited October 31, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Crysta]

lol tuvarkz is giving trump the benefit of the doubt simply because he's rich and famous and making the same assumption trump likely makes: that they want it because he's a rich and famous male and it would get them something in exchange (in the video it was furniture evidently!)

more than likely he gets away with it because the females he preys on know he's rich and powerful and they're not. it's not necessarily a business transaction they want to be a part of in the first place.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Crysta

[André The kid]

If the tax code was too convoluted and confusing, then people wouldn't have enough understanding of it to see the loopholes. Methinks it's the establishment that is intentionally skipping on looking at the issue.

Also, it wasn't admitting to sexual assault. It was bragging that women were letting him grope them, in other words consensually=it's not sexual assault. Also, I never said perfect rulers. I said 'absolute rulers that were great leaders for their people', not 'perfectly honest rulers' (In which case not even the mythical version of King Arthur aka the paragon of being a good ruler would apply)

So, Bashar al-assad wants the Kurds out of his country, the Kurds want their country, and Turkey, who nobody except those intent on getting it into the EU (and remain willfully blind that the country is quite backwards and that Erdogan is functionally a dictator, or that he has tried to blackmail Europe with more refugees) really likes. The solution is quite obvious-expel Turkey from NATO, tell the Kurds that if they pull out of Syria, they will be given plenty of military support to claim a big chunk of Turkey. Erdogan is the only one that will really be pissed off about it, and will have to resign to have to give up a significant part of Turkey's territory.

Regarding immediate policy changes with Trump: De-escalation with Russia, and likely starting 'negotiations' with Mexico to have them pay for the wall, directly or indirectly.

Do you actually think you can ban Turkey from Nato, just like that?

What the hell are you high on?

Seriously, i want some.

And giving a Rebel Group that has no connection to Turkey, the ability to take them down? And turn your back on Turkey and wage war with them? What if Russia decides do help them? Which I could definitely see happening!

(Apart from their hatred, which is fueled by oil) - Pun tottaly intended, to lighten the mood xD

And when there was a Coup d'état attempt in Turkey, and The system won, everyone came out and congratulated Turkey on fixing the problem in a "Diplomatic Way".

My reaction:

"Yeah Right, Death penalty and killing everyone involved is definitely a diplomatic way!"

Because yeah, Turkey brough back the death penalty for this.

Look, the World is terrible right now.

We went WAY OF Topic with the discussion.

And although I agree this is a discussion we should have, we are in the wrong topic for this.

Getting back to the Us Elections,

America can't stop policing the world, because from my last few posts, i think you definitely get the picture of what is going on in the world around us.

As an old Portuguese say : "Todos a tentar puxar a brasa à sua Sardinha" (Everyone is trying to pull their Sardine to the heat) - Direct translation.

As you can see, each country will put their needs and desires first. And that's why America's Role is important.

I Think that it has been badly managed in recent years, but with some work, let's make America Great Again! (Don't Vote for trump Though xD)

I've said this twice before, but you can't really just let a good piece of advice slip away:

No matter who you vote for, remember!

Your vote determines the fate of the whole World... And not just america.

I Rest my case.

Edited October 31, 2016 by André The kid

[Rezzy]

Do you actually think you can ban Turkey from Nato, just like that?

What the hell are you high on?

Seriously, i want some.

And giving a Rebel Group that has no connection to Turkey, the ability to take them down? And turn your back on Turkey and wage war with them? What if Russia decides do help them? Which I could definitely see happening!

(Apart from their hatred, which is fueled by oil) - Pun tottaly intended, to lighten the mood xD

And when there was a Coup d'état attempt in Turkey, and The system won, everyone came out and congratulated Turkey on fixing the problem in a "Diplomatic Way".

My reaction:

"Yeah Right, Death penalty and killing everyone involved is definitely a diplomatic way!"

Because yeah, Turkey brough back the death penalty for this.

Look, the World is terrible right now.

We went WAY OF Topic with the discussion.

And although I agree this is a discussion we should have, we are in the wrong topic for this.

Getting back to the Us Elections,

America can't stop policing the world, because from my last few posts, i think you definitely get the picture of what is going on in the world around us.

As an old Portuguese say : "Todos a tentar puxar a brasa à sua Sardinha" (Everyone is trying to pull their Sardine to the heat) - Direct translation.

As you can see, each country will put their needs and desires first. And that's why America's Role is important.

I Think that it has been badly managed in recent years, but with some work, let's make America Great Again! (Don't Vote for trump Though xD)

I've said this twice before, but you can't really just let a good piece of advice slip away:

No matter who you vote for, remember!

Your vote determines the fate of the whole World... And not just america.

I Rest my case.

Why America be the one to police the world? America spends far too much on the military, and the European nations and other first world countries could do with increasing their military spending and not depending on the US to do it.

[ping]

Quoting from the video "And when you are a star, they let you do it. You can do anything." It is known that women will throw themselves at famous males, particularly those in the entertainment industry. Trump being rich and famous, even if not conventionally attractive, it is perfectly possible that there were women willing to let him touch them in exchange for gifts or other types of favors.

Quoting from the video - literally immediately before your part of the quotation starts: "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait."

Selective quotations are a powerful tool indeed.

Edited November 1, 2016 by ping

[CyborgZeta]

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.

I doubt Harry Reid, considering the FBI came out today and said they found no connections between Trump and Russia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

[tuvarkz]

Quoting from the video - literally immediately before your part of the quotation starts: "You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait."

Selective quotations are a powerful tool indeed.

Except that stealing kisses is not sexual assault, unless the definition of sexual assault got expanded to the point where I feared it could end up expanding to (and got dismissed for) some time ago.

[eclipse]

Except that stealing kisses is not sexual assault, unless the definition of sexual assault got expanded to the point where I feared it could end up expanding to (and got dismissed for) some time ago.

Rest assured, I'd punch someone if they kissed me without my consent. Even if it isn't illegal, it's gross personal misconduct.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Except that stealing kisses is not sexual assault, unless the definition of sexual assault got expanded to the point where I feared it could end up expanding to (and got dismissed for) some time ago.

Right, and what about the part where he "grabs them by the pussy" as he so eloquently put it?

[André The kid]

Why America be the one to police the world? America spends far too much on the military, and the European nations and other first world countries could do with increasing their military spending and not depending on the US to do it.

The Eu has spent 2.1 Billion € in military in the last 2 years.

I understand why you don't want America to police the world, but it has to happen.

Otherwise, who will face Russia?

Russia is behind America in Military power.

Without America, The Rest of the world is as good as toast.

Think of it like this.

America Only does "police work" because it is needed.

Even if we invested 10Billion € in Military power and nuclear weapons, we still wouldn't be able to face Russia, and we're talking about an investment that the Eu is not able to make, for obvious reasons.

America can't quit the police work.