Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:17 pm

Cid - weren't you criticizing Obama for being soft of Russia after Crimea, eastern Ukraine, and MH17?

Now the foreign policy is too strong on Russia?

I can look up the posts if I need to jog your memory.

expandspanos · Post by **expandspanos** » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:32 pm

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NChKRRTF18[/youtube]

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:58 am

Skjellyfetti wrote:Cid - weren't you criticizing Obama for being soft of Russia after Crimea, eastern Ukraine, and MH17?

Now the foreign policy is too strong on Russia?

I can look up the posts if I need to jog your memory.

I knew you were going to chime in on this. You are misinterpreting my point (as usual). I know exactly what I have said about Crimea, but I think you should go back and link to my posts on the matter anyway. I like making you research.

I have always been critical of writing checks we have no intention of cashing. I have a problem with two things:

1. Playing nice with Russia as a method of appeasement. We have attempted to do this while at the same time talking a critical game with them on specific foreign matters. The alternative to this is NOT to be belligerent- rather, it would be to ignore Russia. I am critical of the NATO chest beating over Crimea because we have no intention of backing it up and the Russians KNOW this. Obama's Russia policy isn't foreign policy at all. It is domestic policy- aimed at looking tough and smart to American voters. Remember when Obama told Medvedev on an open mic to tell Putin to be patient? That he would have more wiggle room after the elections? Remember Obama telling Romney that viewing Russia as our number one geopolitical enemy was 1980s foreign policy? Obama's actions on Russia have nothing to do with Russia.

My position has been consistent- I think Russia IS an adversary, they are an adversary because we tweak them with empty threats, and this is a worse policy (with a worse outcome) than doing nothing.

I am critical of PRETENDING to be tough- there's a difference - and it allows the Russians to outmaneuver us at every turn- in Syria, Crimea, and now Iran and Turkey.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:08 am

CID1990 wrote: I am critical of PRETENDING to be tough- there's a difference - and it allows the Russians to outmaneuver us at every turn- in Syria, Crimea, and now Iran and Turkey.

Well, I see three routes.

1) Talk tough with no real intention of backing it up. And Russia knows this. And, this seems to be what you're arguing against. (Obama's strategy)

2) Talk tough and be 100% willing to start a hot war with Russia (and probably China).

3) Don't talk tough and allow Russia to do as it pleases. (seems to be Trump's strategy).

I don't think you are advocating for #2.

I assume you're advocating for #3? I would be perfectly happy with #3. I'm not defending Obama's foreign policy re: Russia here.

But, if we did 3..... how would that not "allow the Russians to outmaneuver us at every turn." They'd just operate as they please. If you are content with #3 you have to be content with Russia operating as they please, right? Are you?

If our goal is to stop the Russians from "outmaneuvering us" in Syrian, Crimea, Iran, and Turkey. We HAVE to be willing to start a hot war - or at least convince Russia that we are now able.

option #3 does the opposite of this, no? If that is your goal in foreign relations with Russia is to prevent their actions in eastern Europe and central Asia.... you have to go with #2, right?

GrizFanStuckInUtah · Post by **GrizFanStuckInUtah** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:08 pm

Post by **93henfan** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:15 pm

Wow! Oh my.

Somebody get this cunt a lozenge and an MRI. Damn.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfagbVCjFa4[/youtube]

Bronco · Post by **Bronco** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:18 pm

-
I don't understand how the smartest woman in the world could hold the microphone up to her mouth while coughing.

Best comment I saw on the coughing video was "Huma hair ball"

She is sick and not just her political views

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:29 pm

Trump makes up polling data.

I think the first time he's deleted a tweet.

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:50 pm

Skjellyfetti wrote:
CID1990 wrote: I am critical of PRETENDING to be tough- there's a difference - and it allows the Russians to outmaneuver us at every turn- in Syria, Crimea, and now Iran and Turkey.
Well, I see three routes.

1) Talk tough with no real intention of backing it up. And Russia knows this. And, this seems to be what you're arguing against. (Obama's strategy)

2) Talk tough and be 100% willing to start a hot war with Russia (and probably China).

3) Don't talk tough and allow Russia to do as it pleases. (seems to be Trump's strategy).

I don't think you are advocating for #2.

I assume you're advocating for #3? I would be perfectly happy with #3. I'm not defending Obama's foreign policy re: Russia here.

But, if we did 3..... how would that not "allow the Russians to outmaneuver us at every turn." They'd just operate as they please. If you are content with #3 you have to be content with Russia operating as they please, right? Are you?

If our goal is to stop the Russians from "outmaneuvering us" in Syrian, Crimea, Iran, and Turkey. We HAVE to be willing to start a hot war - or at least convince Russia that we are now able.

option #3 does the opposite of this, no? If that is your goal in foreign relations with Russia is to prevent their actions in eastern Europe and central Asia.... you have to go with #2, right?

I've always been an advocate for the third option where Russia is concerned. Here's the thing- if we leave Russia alone, then there's nothing to outmaneuver. The whole issue becomes moot- goes away.

Take Crimea for example. Why did Putin move to destabilize Ukraine and annex Sevastopol in the first place? Because we were playing footsie with them and floating possible NATO membership. Everything Russia has done for the last ten years has been a reaction to the perception that we are acting directly and specifically against their interests. Their actions in Georgia during the Bush admin was the same situation.

It is our own ridiculous policy of bringing former Soviet states into NATO that has precipitated this- and there is no reason to do it in the first place. We would be adding countries to a mutual defense treaty that will immediately not pull their weight. It has zero benefit to our own interests.

If we had not been courting Ukraine none of what went on there would have happened. And as a result, we painted ourselves into a corner where the only option (other than war with Russia) is to show weakness to the world, and more importantly our allies.

Edit/add: Now look where we are- Ukraine will never be a NATO member and it is because Putin has effectively seized their one strategic asset. We got outmaneuvered and for nothing. We set it up for the Russians and they bit our asses.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bronco · Post by **Bronco** » Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:31 pm

-
Still coughing on the plane talking to her loyal supporters er reporters

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apuA5CACTfs[/youtube]

Post by **93henfan** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 7:12 am

Trump overtakes Clinton 45%-43% in latest CNN/ORC poll. This is a four-way poll.

Trump leads Clinton 49%-29% among independents in the same poll.

89Hen · Post by **89Hen** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 7:50 am

Saw my first Hillary TV ad yesterday. The only mention of Hillary was "I approve this message". Typical bullshit politics. Vote for me because I'm not him.

Post by **SDHornet** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:13 am

Cluck U wrote:
JohnStOnge wrote:The point, Cluck, is that the people responsible for defending the United States consider Russia to be the biggest threat. You can believe some people writing comments critical of their conclusion while describing it. Or you can believe them.

And you can think this is of no concern (Forbes article):

It's not like it could be a problem if they decide they need to launch because they think there might be a preemptive strike. Not at all. "A nuclear arsenal on hair trigger." Why, WHO would be concerned about THAT? Of COURSE Islamist road side bombs are of WAY more concern!
Way to go, Trollman!

No, the point is that you took an article and made up your own fear.

And, you forgot this one quote...and it is rather important:

"So Russian military doctrine states that it might be necessary to use nuclear weapons to combat conventional attacks from the West."

JSO IQ quiz question:

How many American lives have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

Bonus question: how many lives world wide have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

Nuclear attack...

Next you will be telling me that Lex Luther will break the San Andreas Fault.

I disappear on an extended weekend vacay and I miss this gem?

Post by **SDHornet** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:18 am

Skjellyfetti wrote:
CID1990 wrote: I am critical of PRETENDING to be tough- there's a difference - and it allows the Russians to outmaneuver us at every turn- in Syria, Crimea, and now Iran and Turkey.
Well, I see three routes.

1) Talk tough with no real intention of backing it up. And Russia knows this. And, this seems to be what you're arguing against. (Obama's strategy)

2) Talk tough and be 100% willing to start a hot war with Russia (and probably China).

3) Don't talk tough and allow Russia to do as it pleases. (seems to be Trump's strategy).

I don't think you are advocating for #2.

I assume you're advocating for #3? I would be perfectly happy with #3. I'm not defending Obama's foreign policy re: Russia here.

But, if we did 3..... how would that not "allow the Russians to outmaneuver us at every turn." They'd just operate as they please. If you are content with #3 you have to be content with Russia operating as they please, right? Are you?

If our goal is to stop the Russians from "outmaneuvering us" in Syrian, Crimea, Iran, and Turkey. We HAVE to be willing to start a hot war - or at least convince Russia that we are now able.

option #3 does the opposite of this, no? If that is your goal in foreign relations with Russia is to prevent their actions in eastern Europe and central Asia.... you have to go with #2, right?

This. At what point is "enough enough" regarding Russia? That's the dilemma with this issue.

Post by **DSUrocks07** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:32 am

SDHornet wrote:
Skjellyfetti wrote:
Well, I see three routes.

1) Talk tough with no real intention of backing it up. And Russia knows this. And, this seems to be what you're arguing against. (Obama's strategy)

2) Talk tough and be 100% willing to start a hot war with Russia (and probably China).

3) Don't talk tough and allow Russia to do as it pleases. (seems to be Trump's strategy).

I don't think you are advocating for #2.

I assume you're advocating for #3? I would be perfectly happy with #3. I'm not defending Obama's foreign policy re: Russia here.

But, if we did 3..... how would that not "allow the Russians to outmaneuver us at every turn." They'd just operate as they please. If you are content with #3 you have to be content with Russia operating as they please, right? Are you?

If our goal is to stop the Russians from "outmaneuvering us" in Syrian, Crimea, Iran, and Turkey. We HAVE to be willing to start a hot war - or at least convince Russia that we are now able.

option #3 does the opposite of this, no? If that is your goal in foreign relations with Russia is to prevent their actions in eastern Europe and central Asia.... you have to go with #2, right?
This. At what point is "enough enough" regarding Russia? That's the dilemma with this issue.

Any "hot war" will immediately go nuclear. That's a fact.

Why are we so worried about "keeping everyone in their cages", yet high-stepping all around the world like its any of our business. We're upset about Ukraine yet WE WERE THE ONES who were promoting NATO membership, which can be perceived as a step towards EU membership. The globalists are wanted to turn the EU into a sovereign supranational government, a united superpower in Europe, one who is constantly at odds with Russia. You don't think that Russia would perceive this as a threat to their interests? Who are we to say that "our interests" supersedes everyone else?

Post by **SDHornet** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:39 am

DSUrocks07 wrote:
SDHornet wrote: This. At what point is "enough enough" regarding Russia? That's the dilemma with this issue.
Any "hot war" will immediately go nuclear. That's a fact.

Why are we so worried about "keeping everyone in their cages", yet high-stepping all around the world like its any of our business. We're upset about Ukraine yet WE WERE THE ONES who were promoting NATO membership, which can be perceived as a step towards EU membership. The globalists are wanted to turn the EU into a sovereign supranational government, a united superpower in Europe, one who is constantly at odds with Russia. You don't think that Russia would perceive this as a threat to their interests? Who are we to say that "our interests" supersedes everyone else?

Wasn't talking about Crimea, that battle has been lost. But what happens when Russia turns its eye on Israel or whatever ally we claim to be of that we are supposedly willing to go to war over. How (or can?) we determine which allies are worth fighting for? That is the dilemma I was referring to.

Post by **DSUrocks07** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:52 am

SDHornet wrote:
DSUrocks07 wrote:
Any "hot war" will immediately go nuclear. That's a fact.

Why are we so worried about "keeping everyone in their cages", yet high-stepping all around the world like its any of our business. We're upset about Ukraine yet WE WERE THE ONES who were promoting NATO membership, which can be perceived as a step towards EU membership. The globalists are wanted to turn the EU into a sovereign supranational government, a united superpower in Europe, one who is constantly at odds with Russia. You don't think that Russia would perceive this as a threat to their interests? Who are we to say that "our interests" supersedes everyone else?
Wasn't talking about Crimea, that battle has been lost. But what happens when Russia turns its eye on Israel or whatever ally we claim to be of that we are supposedly willing to go to war over. How (or can?) we determine which allies are worth fighting for? That is the dilemma I was referring to.

Russia is not going to risk it's own complete destruction, which is what would happen in a nuclear war. It's a no-win scenario. You might as well say, "What if Russia launched airstrikes on London and Paris?"

Ironically, Russia being Iran's ally does more to hold the Iranians in check than anything else. It's more of a deterrent to "American liberators" spreading freedom.

For some reason, our foreign policy in the 21st century is to destabilize standing functional governments for moral reasons and then throw up our hands after the shit hits the fan.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:58 am

93henfan wrote:Trump overtakes Clinton 45%-43% in latest CNN/ORC poll. This is a four-way poll.

Trump leads Clinton 49%-29% among independents in the same poll.

Interesting poll of all 50 states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... tate-poll/

If Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi continue as "swing states" .....

Post by **93henfan** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 9:41 am

Skjellyfetti wrote:
93henfan wrote:Trump overtakes Clinton 45%-43% in latest CNN/ORC poll. This is a four-way poll.

Trump leads Clinton 49%-29% among independents in the same poll.
Interesting poll of all 50 states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... tate-poll/

If Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi continue as "swing states" .....

I'm just amazed that Trump is still in the conversation since you've told us how this is going to be a landslide of epic proportions.

Post by **SDHornet** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:39 am

93henfan wrote:
Skjellyfetti wrote:
Interesting poll of all 50 states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... tate-poll/

If Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi continue as "swing states" .....
I'm just amazed that Trump is still in the conversation since you've told us how this is going to be a landslide of epic proportions.

hilldog just might cough her way out of the WH.

Imagine a debate where all she does is cough.

Please happen...please happen.

Skjellyfetti · Post by **Skjellyfetti** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:50 am

93henfan wrote: I'm just amazed that Trump is still in the conversation since you've told us how this is going to be a landslide of epic proportions.

Clinton will win and win easily.

Would you like to place a bet on this?

Haven't made a bet for 2016 yet. AZ lost in 2008. Ivy lost in 2012.

Maybe you're the taker this year?

Post by **CAA Flagship** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:59 am

Hillary says that Trump's comments on the Federal Reserve are dangerous because words move markets.
So she is concerned about him moving markets yet kills Biotech stocks every time she spouts off about drug pricing (at least 3 times in the last 14 months). Oh, and classified emails.

Post by **Ivytalk** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:28 pm

Skjellyfetti wrote:
93henfan wrote: I'm just amazed that Trump is still in the conversation since you've told us how this is going to be a landslide of epic proportions.
Clinton will win and win easily.

Would you like to place a bet on this?

Haven't made a bet for 2016 yet. AZ lost in 2008. Ivy lost in 2012.

Maybe you're the taker this year?

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:32 pm

SDHornet wrote:
DSUrocks07 wrote:
Any "hot war" will immediately go nuclear. That's a fact.

Why are we so worried about "keeping everyone in their cages", yet high-stepping all around the world like its any of our business. We're upset about Ukraine yet WE WERE THE ONES who were promoting NATO membership, which can be perceived as a step towards EU membership. The globalists are wanted to turn the EU into a sovereign supranational government, a united superpower in Europe, one who is constantly at odds with Russia. You don't think that Russia would perceive this as a threat to their interests? Who are we to say that "our interests" supersedes everyone else?
Wasn't talking about Crimea, that battle has been lost. But what happens when Russia turns its eye on Israel or whatever ally we claim to be of that we are supposedly willing to go to war over. How (or can?) we determine which allies are worth fighting for? That is the dilemma I was referring to.

That's not going to happen. Read my reply to Jelly's question.

Russia may seem unpredictable, but in fact they are one of our most predictable adversaries. They act exclusively in their own strategic interests.

Now look at NATO. Russia views NATO as an existential threat. Russia doesn't FEAR NATO right now- because the string pullers currently are wet noodles. But Russia understands all too well that today's NATO, although wishy washy, has the military infrastructure to be tomorrow's Wehrmacht (as far as they are concerned)

DSU said the same thing I did- Russia's annexation of Crimea was a direct reaction to Ukraine and NATO courting each other.

In the longer sense, we have been spiking the football on the Russians since the wall came down. We gad a golden opportunity to make an ally out of them and instead we humiliated them by folding many former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO. We did a few other things that were uncalled for.

The really frustrating thing here is that for all their faults, the Russians are natural allies. We will need them more in the next 50 years than we can imagine. We just need to recognize that they have a national inferiority complex coupled with a memory of being invaded and nearly squashed- we should take those things into account when we deal with them and the obvious way forward to having Russia as a partner will become evident even to an amateur.

To directly answer your question- Russia has no interest in our strategic allies like Israel.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post by **93henfan** » Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm

Skjellyfetti wrote:
93henfan wrote: I'm just amazed that Trump is still in the conversation since you've told us how this is going to be a landslide of epic proportions.
Clinton will win and win easily.

Would you like to place a bet on this?

Haven't made a bet for 2016 yet. AZ lost in 2008. Ivy lost in 2012.

Maybe you're the taker this year?

Sure. Current odds are 70:30 Clinton. I'll put down $30 to your $70 on Trump over Clinton. Winner take all. <extending my hand for shake>

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums