U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Svip]

Kaine also claimed Trump loves Kim Jong-un, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, claims that have absolutely no basis on reality whatsoever.

 

You folks are grasping at straws here.

Are we?

 

 

"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Right? He was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights — they didn't talk, they were a terrorist, it was over," Trump said as many in his audience of about 2,000 laughed on Tuesday evening.

Source.

 

 

“If you look at North Korea, this guy, he’s like a maniac.”

 

“You’ve got to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?”

Source.

 

There are plenty of examples about Putin, but they are harder to find now that the conversation is muddled by the VP debate.

 

Also, praise is different from love. Those two quotes I posted are definitely praise.

[Typhus]

 

 

Imagine a Republican party finally stripped of men like Trump - the religious fundamentalists, the sexists, the racists, the imperialist war-mongers. It could actually be a legitimate opposition party again. But first, it seems that there are elements within it which have to be purged. And maybe if Trump screws up enough that could happen.

 

 

Without the "religious fundamentalists, the sexists, the racists, the imperialist war-mongers" the right wing in general would stop existing completely. It would probably cause a new state of society where we all come together to enjoy love and peace, and live in harmony with nature again.

 

I disagree. People would still divide themselves along financial lines, have different plans on what to funnel taxpayer money into, appeal to different demographics and so on. The only difference would be that both parties conformed to a mutual respect for civil liberties and diplomacy - as they should.

Utopianism is a dead end, and nothing can create a perfect world. But we can strive towards establishing common values and battling tribalism within the political sphere.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Typhus

[Svip]

Typhus does have a point; destroying the world is a good motivator to start over again a different way.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Svip

[sivispacem]

Er, pretending that Putin has, in fact, done a better job of leading Russia than Obama has the US is absolutely praise. We're talking about an individual who has effectively turned Russia into a corrupt kleptocracy-cum-oppressive counterintelligence state where political opponents and human rights activists are brazenly murdered in broad daylight; where the state intelligence apperatus appropriate aggressively companies run by anyone refusing to tow the United Russia political line and manufacture evidence used to imprison political opponents who continue to flout government demands.

 

Of course Pence would probably know all this if he wasn't utterly f*cking ignorant on the subject of international relations and foreign affairs.

[jatiger13]

Trump stating that Putin has made a better leader for Russia than Obama has for the US isn't him praising or admiring Putin.

You need to improve your understanding of the English language. Commending someone on something is effectively the same as praising them.

 

I shouldn't even have to explain how blatantly obvious it is that what Trump said is just one of the many different ways he has called Obama incompetent.

Trump calling someone else incompetent, lol that's rich. "Hello Mr Drumpf, look into this mirror." Edited October 5, 2016 by jatiger13

[Tchuck]

Trump stating that Putin has made a better leader for Russia than Obama has for the US isn't him praising or admiring Putin.

 

 

English is not my first language, but what Trump has said is effectively both praising AND admiring him. I think you are the one grasping at straws here defending Trump.

 

 

I shouldn't even have to explain how blatantly obvious it is that what Trump said is just one of the many different ways he has called Obama incompetent.

 

Even though he hasn't explained directly why Obama is incompetent, he has said why other leaders (Putin, Kim-Jong Un) are better than him. If I say someone is better than someone else I am effectively praising that person. But maybe that's just how I use the English language.

 

 

Not to mention, Pence talked poorly of Putin several times last night, calling him a small bully, saying the American political system is "superior to the crony, corrupt, capitalist system in Russia in every way"

 

Sure. He also praised Putin heavily in the pest, per evidence of the link I posted. So is he just like Trump in that he will take whatever position is currently in favour with the crowd? Cause if so, that makes him a sh*tty people pleaser at best. I mean, we already know we can't trust/rely on anything Trump says. Is his VP the same way? That kind of sucks, but whatever.

 

 

... In addition to Putin, Kaine also claimed Trump loves Kim Jong-un, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, claims that have absolutely no basis on reality whatsoever.

 

See Sivis' post. Or don't, whatever keeps your orange-tinted glasses on.

 

 

You folks are grasping at straws here.

 

Physician, heal thyself. I mean, all we have are verbatim the words spoken by these "politicians". What else are we supposed to rely on?

Edited October 5, 2016 by Tchuck

[X S]

There really is no need to even avoid or apologize the Putin remarks. Putin is a better leader; it's pretty self-evident in the way he carries himself, and it's one of the reasons Russia is now ascending to a position of power in opposition to NATO.

 

There are different styles of leadership, whether by democratic or authoritarian means, or by love or fear, but they are all a forms of leadership, regardless. Putin is certainly an authoritarian leader who would rather be feared than loved, but it doesn't make him any less of a leader because of it, because leadership is about motivating or challenging subordinates to complete a goal or a series of tasks. And since there are no arbitrary limits to this, it also applies to dictators such Adolf Hitler, an incredibly charismatic leader that had the power to socially influence and persuade millions with his vision and goals for a "pure" and powerful German nation.

 

So when people talk about Putin's leadership, they're talking about him from a leadership perspective, not his actual history of silencing dissidents, planning assassination attempts on foreign leaders, invading Crimea, etc. So whoever assumes the presidency needs to be able to work with him, not just talk tough. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

[Skeever]

 

"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Right? He was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights — they didn't talk, they were a terrorist, it was over," Trump said as many in his audience of about 2,000 laughed on Tuesday evening.

Source.

Ah yes, calling him a "really bad guy" before making a joke about him being good at killing terrorists. Trump's practically endorsing him in that quote.

 

“If you look at North Korea, this guy, he’s like a maniac.”

 

“You’ve got to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?”

Source.

I don't see any praise for Jong-un in this quote, either. At best, he's intrigued by how such a young man could so easily be in control of a country and its military. Not exactly a commendation, if you ask me.

 

There are plenty of examples about Putin, but they are harder to find now that the conversation is muddled by the VP debate.

Of course. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of examples regarding Gaddafi, either.

 

You need to improve your understanding of the English language. Commending someone on something is effectively the same as praising them.

I'm well aware of that. However, I have yet to see Trump (or Pence, for that matter) actually praise any of the aforementioned dictators thus far. Stating that Putin has been better for Russia than Obama has been for the US is not "praise", but a reality.

[sivispacem]

Putin is a better leader; it's pretty self-evident

No, it's not. It's not "self-evident" in any way. I'd be really amused, I mean interested, to see you demonstrate as much.

 

There are different styles of leadership, whether by democratic or authoritarian means, or by love or fear, but they are all a forms of leadership, regardless.

Authoritarian leadership has its place, but typically only as a response to a crisis situation. Requiring far-reaching authoritarianism and state instigsted violence against political opponents merely to maintain the status quo is not indicative of good leadership.

 

So whoever assumes the presidency needs to be able to work with him, not just talk tough. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

Putin clearly thinks that he's better off with Trump in power, otherwise he'd probably be dedicating less effort and resources to trying to swing the election in his favour. A new approach probably needs to be taken with Russia, but I don't think Trump is man to do it given he totally lacks tact or a basic understanding of diplomacy.

[El Dildo]

X S thinks "subjugation" and "leadership" are synonyms.

[Svip]

 

 

"Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. Right? He was a bad guy, really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights — they didn't talk, they were a terrorist, it was over," Trump said as many in his audience of about 2,000 laughed on Tuesday evening.

Source.

 

Ah yes, calling him a "really bad guy" before making a joke about him being good at killing terrorists. Trump's practically endorsing him in that quote.

 

I think the audience is laughing for a different reason than you think. Why would Trump bring it up if it was not to underline his position that we need to be tough on terrorists? He is praising Saddam Hussein for being tough on terrorists, when President Obama won't.

 

But he sort of putting a disclaimer on his praising, by saying that he still thinks Hussein is a bad guy. In fact, he does this a lot; first say something bad about them to make clear to the audience that he overall disapproves of these people, then go onto praise one aspect of them.

 

The audience then laughs because the terrorists got what was coming to them.

 

 

 

 

“If you look at North Korea, this guy, he’s like a maniac.”

 

“You’ve got to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals, and all of a sudden — you know, it’s pretty amazing when you think of it. How does he do that?”

Source.

 

I don't see any praise for Jong-un in this quote, either. At best, he's intrigued by how such a young man could so easily be in control of a country and its military. Not exactly a commendation, if you ask me.

 

'You gotta give him credit' is textbook commendation. I think 'intrigued' is an understatement, I think Trump is impressed.

 

 

 

There are plenty of examples about Putin, but they are harder to find now that the conversation is muddled by the VP debate.

Of course. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the lack of examples regarding Gaddafi, either.

 

The problem with Gaddafi is not so much praise as it is that Trump tried to work with Gaddafi back when he ruled Libya. He also flipflopped on the matter, back in 2011 he was for intervention into Libya, but now he is against and blaming Clinton for the resulting mess. Much in the same way he is backing out of his soft support of the Iraq War.

 

Sure, the benefit of hindsight. And that's OK if you are just some guy having an opinion, but a bit different when you are making decisions as the President.

 

As for Trump and Putin, Trump's comments about Putin have been in the approval category of Putin's conduct, both domestically and internationally. Trump tends to highlight the fact that Putin has a 86% approval rating in Russia. And he is not bringing it up just because it is curious, but because he is using to underline his point about Putin being a great leader, or at the very least, a better leader than President Obama.

[Spaghetti Cat]

You'd think that from last nights debate that the biggest threat to the US isn't ISIS, Russia, China, N Korea, or even Iran but Trump's taxes. Talk about having nothing to offer. Guess that's why there were so many interruptions from jerk-face:

 

 

 

Now, anybody with any common sense would have seen that Pence had the upper hand the whole night. But if the goal was to unload all the opposition research and be an ass, then hand it to Kaine. He won that one hands down.

 

I did think that the moderator asked some important questions. Must have learned from the goofy questions that the last moderator had. Though it's still one sided with the major media firmly in Queen Hillary's pocket.

 

 

 

Would have been nice to let Pence finish without cutting in. It's like a 2 on 1 debate. The server and cybersecurity is an important issue. It goes to the heart of why Mrs Clinton was such a failure as Sec. of State.

 

Gun running in Libya for example: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115

 

Or, you know, freggin' arming Al Qaeda:

 

 

The ferocity of the assault on Aleppo is driving many of the Western-backed anti-Assad groups to cooperate more closely with jihadist fighters, rebel officials told Reuters.

In Aleppo, rebels in the Free Syrian Army are sharing operational planning with Jaish al-Fatah, an alliance of Islamist groups that includes the former Syrian wing of al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, in nearby Hama province, FSA groups armed with U.S.-made anti-tank missiles are taking part in a major offensive with the al Qaeda-inspired Jund al-Aqsa group.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN11Z1IY

 

But hey, what should I expect from our glorious news media? They are trying to prop up this campaign the best they can. To the point of giving questions and answers to Clinton ahead of time:

 

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/clinton-harvey-memo.pdf

 

No bias, not at all.

[sivispacem]

Jund al-Aqsa are a Salafist group but they're not inspired by al-Qaeda. They used to be allowed to the al-Nursa Front but that doesn't really matter because your assertion's totally f*cking wrong.

 

Arming people who fight alongside Jund al-Aqsa ! = Arming al-Qaeda. But to be honest I think you know that already and intentionally disregard these basic facts in pursuit of conspiratorial rhetoric. It becomes pretty difficult to put any faith at all in what you post.

 

"No bias, not at all"? Indeed.

[Spaghetti Cat]

al-Fatah is the AQ group, they rebranded earlier this year for this exact reason.

 

http://www.longwarjournal.org/tags/jaysh-al-fateh

 

also, since you are a MOD, maybe lay off the f*ck this and f*ck that in the D&D section? Doesn't make you look that good.

[sivispacem]

Yeah, you referred to "arming", not "operational planning". The two are definitely not synonymous. In fact, they're nothing alike, and in fact that latter doesn't even involve the US. Tell me, where in that nice little succinct quotation did it state, or even suggest, that the US was arming Jaish al-Fatah? Nowhere, because it says nothing of the sort and it would take a hilarious misinterpretion to believe it did.

 

I'll stop stating you're totally f*cking wrong when you stop posting stuff that's self-evidently f*cking wrong. You don't like it, you know where the door is. Or, here's a hint, think before you post.

[Creed Bratton]

It's pretty much over: http://www.npr.org/2016/10/05/496543135/npr-battleground-map-clinton-tide-rises-again?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=movies&utm_term=artsculture&utm_content=202605

 

However, let's wait for the next debate to see Trump make an ass of himself again. For the sake of my own amusement I hope that he does a lot better.

Edited October 5, 2016 by The Yokel

[X S]

No, it's not. It's not "self-evident" in any way.

 

I'm not sure what you find so amusing. There are many articles and academic research papers dedicated to analyzing Putin and his leadership. Hell, even LinkedIn posted an article on Putin's leadership for aspiring entrepreneurs.

 

What is self-evident, however, are his boilerplate traits of leadership. He exhibits some of the following:

 

1. Charisma

2. Self-confidence

3. Resiliency & Perseverance

4. Self-reflection

5. Discipline & Patience

6. Knowledge & Experience

 

Putin also has some of the highest approval ratings of any world leader, results of which were sampled by Western pollsters. He averages an 82% approval rating, and he commands the respect of Russians through culture, tradition and values.

 

It's simple game theory, you have to acknowledge his strengths first before you could begin to attack him at his weaknesses. Denying or obfuscating this with the "boogeymen" narrative is a line right out of the neocon playbook; it's irrational nonsense.

 

 

Requiring far-reaching authoritarianism and state instigsted violence against political opponents merely to maintain the status quo is not indicative of good leadership.

 

Fear and authoritarianism is a form of leadership, whether you agree with it or not. It being "good" has nothing to do with it.

[seven50iL]

Long story short I signed up on Hillary's site so I could get a chance to fly out with 1 friend to the 1st debate so I had to put my email on. Then after it prompted me I have to donate 1st and obviously I was like f that because why would anyone throw money for a free contest? Lmao so I've been getting a lot of email's and this is what I got 1 hour ago:

 

Friend --

The Trump campaign just announced they’re nearing 3 million individual donors. If that’s true, it means they'll soon have about 400,000 more donors than our campaign -- and it means that they’re stepping up just as we’ve fallen short of our digital fundraising goals several days in a row.

We have 34 days left in this campaign. The time for waiting is over. If we allow Trump’s team to outpace ours, we could live to regret it on November 8th -- and for who knows how many years after that.

I mean, honestly. Are we going to let DONALD TRUMP have more grassroots backers than Hillary Clinton? No. We can't let that happen.

This whole election can be a plot for a movie I swear ahaha. Can't wait for Sunday! Are you guys watching the debate with your friends? Brew is defiantly needed ahaha. #34DaysLeft

[make total destroy]

 

Are you guys watching the debate with your friends?

I can't think of any better way to spend time with your friends.

 

WIll your black friends be there?

[El Dildo]

1. Charisma

2. Self-confidence

3. Resiliency & Perseverance

4. Self-reflection

5. Discipline & Patience

6. Knowledge & Experience

pretty sure you just described Hillary Clinton...

 

...that being said, notice how none of these traits are reflective of values; they're just an assortment of characteristics.

the same 6 could be applied to a lot of people who are both good and bad. Hitler. Steve Jobs. etc.

 

your argument is that Putin is a great leader or something because of X Y and Z.

in reality Putin is just a petty dictator who rules through fear, intimidation, and physical acts of violence against his political rivals. under his administration critical journalists have had to flee the country or basically risk disappearing into a slave camp in Siberia. he manipulates the economy to enrich himself through intense corporate corruption while manipulating the government in order to maintain his grip on absolute power despite his formal Presidency having come to an end more than once.

 

also I dunno if you were living under a rock or whatever, but Putin violated international treaties by invading a sovereign nation recently. he's also threatened to attack NATO forces over control of the North Pole. so there's that.

Edited October 5, 2016 by El Diablo

[Creed Bratton]

Except for charisma. Hillary has no charisma. She barely passes for a human. I think Trump is a racist scumbag and I still think he's more likable on a personal level simply because he appears more human. I'd never vote for him though.

[El Dildo]

whatever you're being hyperbolic.

 

she has enough charisma.

it's all perspective.

 

there are plenty of people, especially women, who would describe her as having charisma and coming off as a completely normal human being. she's a mother, grandmother, and devoted wife. give her a f/cking break...

[X S]

 

1. Charisma

 

pretty sure you just described Hillary Clinton...

 

Is this supposed to be a joke?

[make total destroy]

Is 'charisma' really that desirable? Some of the most charismatic people have been serial killers, cult leaders, and genocidal dictators.

 

Charisma is basically synonymous with dishonesty and insincerity. Needless to say, Clinton has 'charisma' for sure.

Edited October 5, 2016 by make total destroy

[Twilight Sky]

 

I did think that the moderator asked some important questions. Must have learned from the goofy questions that the last moderator had. Though it's still one sided with the major media firmly in Queen Hillary's pocket.

Edit: Realized I misread this quote.

 

Yeah the moderator did good, but I think she was just following the rules to the letter and exerted her authority slightly more than Lester.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Twilight Sky

[jatiger13]

Fear and authoritarianism is a form of leadership, whether you agree with it or not. It being "good" has nothing to do with it.

It being good has everything to do with it.

If you have to "lead" through fear, you're not much of a leader. Putin can't "lead" without fear.

 

 

"You do not lead by hitting people over the head. That's assault, not leadership." Dwight D Eisenhower

 

 

 

If people are forced to follow what you say, guess what, you're no longer leading. You're walking behind them, pushing them where ever you want them to go.

 

Calling Putin a great leader is asinine on so many levels.

Edited October 5, 2016 by jatiger13

[TheFrank]

Er, pretending that Putin has, in fact, done a better job of leading Russia than Obama has the US is absolutely praise. We're talking about an individual who has effectively turned Russia into a corrupt kleptocracy-cum-oppressive counterintelligence state where political opponents and human rights activists are brazenly murdered in broad daylight; where the state intelligence apperatus appropriate aggressively companies run by anyone refusing to tow the United Russia political line and manufacture evidence used to imprison political opponents who continue to flout government demands.

 

So, he turned Russia into Russia?

[jatiger13]

Corruption increased under Putin's dictatorship.

[Not A Nice Person]

 

The GOP still hasn't responded, I think.

[El Dildo]

Is this supposed to be a joke?

couldn't be bothered to make a salient reply, eh?

suppose I'll just literally repeat myself seeing as to how you ignored the entire substance of the post.

 

...that being said, notice how none of these traits are reflective of values; they're just an assortment of characteristics.

the same 6 could be applied to a lot of people who are both good and bad. Hitler. Steve Jobs. etc.

 

your argument is that Putin is a great leader or something because of X Y and Z.

in reality Putin is just a petty dictator who rules through fear, intimidation, and physical acts of violence against his political rivals. under his administration critical journalists have had to flee the country or basically risk disappearing into a slave camp in Siberia. he manipulates the economy to enrich himself through intense corporate corruption while manipulating the government in order to maintain his grip on absolute power despite his formal Presidency having come to an end more than once.

 

also I dunno if you were living under a rock or whatever, but Putin violated international treaties by invading a sovereign nation recently. he's also threatened to attack NATO forces over control of the North Pole. so there's that.