Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
No, Trump just does what he feels like at that moment in time. He doesn't apply his brain, a trait that makes Twitter his perfect social media outlet due to it catering towards quick, easy responses with no critical thought thanks to the character limit.

He can't be banned or suspended from twitter, even if an act of Congress was passed, because a) 1st amendment rights or something and b) from January he would just veto it

Twitter is a private organization and has every right to ban or suspend any user it likes.

See that horrible fethwit professional troll Milo Yannopiolis, for example.

 feeder wrote:
Twitter is a private organization and has every right to ban or suspend any user it likes.

See that horrible fethwit professional troll Milo Yannopiolis, for example.

Our glorious gay Milo is a great speaker I saw him again recently

So far the Ben Carson appointment and the EDU appointment has been a mystery. Everyone else has been great - still on the fence on our boy Bannon - but we'll see how he works out in 2017. Looking good so far for our president elect of the united states.

What has Hillary been up to? Is she going to run the Clinton foundation full time now?

 Stevefamine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Twitter is a private organization and has every right to ban or suspend any user it likes.

See that horrible fethwit professional troll Milo Yannopiolis, for example.

Our glorious gay Milo is a great speaker I saw him again recently

He's a walking contradiction for sure...

I think he's trying to be this 'free speech warrior', but really he's this 'free speech outrageous yahoo' weirdo.

But, I do enjoy when people claims he's a:
-homophobe: uh...dude... he's flaming gay
-racist: uh... dude... he talks about black schlongs all day long and is (or was) living with a black boyfriend
-misogynist : his rants against modern femanisms certainly supports that, and I haven't seen him refute it either

He's just over-the-top... he's a gay Howard Stern.

So far the Ben Carson appointment and the EDU appointment has been a mystery. Everyone else has been great - still on the fence on our boy Bannon - but we'll see how he works out in 2017. Looking good so far for our president elect of the united states.

Carson is the biggest headscratcher to me... does he even have experience in running a large department (8000+ employees!).

What has Hillary been up to? Is she going to run the Clinton foundation full time now?

Quiet retirement.

The foundation isn't going to get the same kind of scratch now, since she's out of the influence peddling business.

 sebster wrote:

You're trying to make a big deal about a thing were Clinton is like almost all her contemporaries. There are some Democrats who more dovish, and there's Democrats and a whole lot of Republicans who are more hawkish. That's the US spectrum.

It seems to me that you are going out of your way to reject any notion of perspective. Perhaps Clinton is not a warhawk when compared to people who sing about bombing Iran (that it isn't definite says it all, really) but when one considers that she thinks that Obama, who has overseen massive drone bombing campaigns and general constant war in the Middle East, wasn't forceful enough it is entirely fair to say she wants war. Even more so considering she actively pushed for war in Libya and wants a no-fly zone in Syria.

If we aren't allowed to call her a warmonger because other people also want war and phrase it in more openly vicious rhetoric that tells me that US politics are deeply sick, not that Clinton is actually peace-loving and just. Tirelessly arguing for the death of meaning in the name of justifying atrocities is the most banal of evils.

 Stevefamine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Twitter is a private organization and has every right to ban or suspend any user it likes.

See that horrible fethwit professional troll Milo Yannopiolis, for example.

Our glorious gay Milo is a great speaker I saw him again recently

I can't comment on the quality of his elocution. However, he is a professional troll. He contributes nothing to society.

So far the Ben Carson appointment and the EDU appointment has been a mystery. Everyone else has been great - still on the fence on our boy Bannon - but we'll see how he works out in 2017. Looking good so far for our president elect of the united states.

DeVos is an unknown, but appears to be a bad choice. Sessions is a terrible choice. Ebell is a horrible choice. Mattis might be good for the job, but is currently legally barred from the role.

What has Hillary been up to? Is she going to run the Clinton foundation full time now?

Hopefully. She needs to retire from politic s and spend her remaining years trying to do good for the world. Her karmic debt must be enormous.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

Sabre clashing with China isn't smart unless you are hell bent on starting war.

But then again we are talking about Donald "why haven't we used nukes already" Trump. One of the biggest warhawk candinates USA has had for a few decades.

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

Sabre clashing with China isn't smart unless you are hell bent on starting war.

But then again we are talking about Donald "why haven't we used nukes already" Trump. One of the biggest warhawk candinates USA has had for a few decades.

Indeed, its a shame the Democrats put up a candidate instrumental in the Libya war and Syria as his opponent.

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

Sabre clashing with China isn't smart unless you are hell bent on starting war.

But then again we are talking about Donald "why haven't we used nukes already" Trump. One of the biggest warhawk candinates USA has had for a few decades.

Indeed, its a shame the Democrats put up a candidate instrumental in the Libya war and Syria as his opponent.

It's just so funny that the Democratic leadership at every step did everything they could to present the worst possible presidential candidate.

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

Sabre clashing with China isn't smart unless you are hell bent on starting war.

But then again we are talking about Donald "why haven't we used nukes already" Trump. One of the biggest warhawk candinates USA has had for a few decades.

Indeed, its a shame the Democrats put up a candidate instrumental in the Libya war and Syria as his opponent.

It's an even bigger shame that we see so much ignorance on a candidate when so many keep claiming she was a less warlike option.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

Sabre clashing with China isn't smart unless you are hell bent on starting war.

But then again we are talking about Donald "why haven't we used nukes already" Trump. One of the biggest warhawk candinates USA has had for a few decades.

Indeed, its a shame the Democrats put up a candidate instrumental in the Libya war and Syria as his opponent.

It's an even bigger shame that we see so much ignorance on a candidate when so many keep claiming she was a less warlike option.

Than the guy asking why we can't use nukes, talking about how the US army would shoot the families of terrorists if he told them to, and saying we should torture people because ISIS does it?

I mean...yeah. In the context of Trump vs. Clinton, she was definitely the less warlike (and, for that matter, less war-criminal-y) candidate. That seems pretty self-evident.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

You're trying to make a big deal about a thing were Clinton is like almost all her contemporaries. There are some Democrats who more dovish, and there's Democrats and a whole lot of Republicans who are more hawkish. That's the US spectrum.

It seems to me that you are going out of your way to reject any notion of perspective. Perhaps Clinton is not a warhawk when compared to people who sing about bombing Iran (that it isn't definite says it all, really) but when one considers that she thinks that Obama, who has overseen massive drone bombing campaigns and general constant war in the Middle East, wasn't forceful enough it is entirely fair to say she wants war. Even more so considering she actively pushed for war in Libya and wants a no-fly zone in Syria.

If we aren't allowed to call her a warmonger because other people also want war and phrase it in more openly vicious rhetoric that tells me that US politics are deeply sick, not that Clinton is actually peace-loving and just. Tirelessly arguing for the death of meaning in the name of justifying atrocities is the most banal of evils.

Its because your perspective is irrelevant to US politics in a US political thread. It actually comes off as silly and possibly ignorant that someone who has grown up under the US's protective ageis and thus lives in a nation that has had little to worry about where national defense is concerned, is lecturing Americans on what qualifies as "hawkish" with in their political system and standard.

So while the US hovers over Europe like an angry mama bear, destroying its own economy so that Europeans can consider defense spending a token concept, we get called "hawkish". Perhaps, we should finally cut Europe free lol.

I mean...yeah. In the context of Trump vs. Clinton, she was definitely the less warlike (and, for that matter, less war-criminal-y) candidate. That seems pretty self-evident.

I can't believe you're making me defend Trump.
Which candidate effectively threatened nuclear war with Russia-Clinton.
Which candidate advocated the Libya war?
Which candidate advocated going to war with Iraq?
Which candidate advocated involvement in the Syrian civil war?

Which country does Trump advocate going to war with?
Asking about using nukes is asking about a military weapon, not going to war.
Asking about going after ISIL family members is a tactic, not going to war. While distasteful, Clinton literally went to war with a country that had complied with everything we asked.

So while the US hovers over Europe like an angry mama bear, destroying its own economy so that Europeans can consider defense spending a token concept, we get called "hawkish". Perhaps, we should finally cut Europe free lol.

There you go. Declare NATO victorious and the need for it passed, and get out. Same for SEATO. Time for us to be as peaceful as everyone else.

 Spinner wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

Sabre clashing with China isn't smart unless you are hell bent on starting war.

But then again we are talking about Donald "why haven't we used nukes already" Trump. One of the biggest warhawk candinates USA has had for a few decades.

Indeed, its a shame the Democrats put up a candidate instrumental in the Libya war and Syria as his opponent.

It's an even bigger shame that we see so much ignorance on a candidate when so many keep claiming she was a less warlike option.

Than the guy asking why we can't use nukes, talking about how the US army would shoot the families of terrorists if he told them to, and saying we should torture people because ISIS does it?

I mean...yeah. In the context of Trump vs. Clinton, she was definitely the less warlike (and, for that matter, less war-criminal-y) candidate. That seems pretty self-evident.

Military conflicts Donald Trump has been involved in starting. Zero.

Military conflicts Hillary Clinton has been involved in starting. A lot.

Actions speak louder then words. Well... they used to at least. Seems they don't anymore.

Oh, is it already time for the "there's no gain for the US from being world hegemon, you should all be grateful we're protecting you from the goodness of our hearts!"-spiel already? I thought that wasn't due until February?

Also, "threatening to use nuclear weapons isn't the same as threatening to go to war!" is a strong contender for this year's "accident while thinking" award.

 djones520 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

Sabre clashing with China isn't smart unless you are hell bent on starting war.

But then again we are talking about Donald "why haven't we used nukes already" Trump. One of the biggest warhawk candinates USA has had for a few decades.

Indeed, its a shame the Democrats put up a candidate instrumental in the Libya war and Syria as his opponent.

It's an even bigger shame that we see so much ignorance on a candidate when so many keep claiming she was a less warlike option.

Than the guy asking why we can't use nukes, talking about how the US army would shoot the families of terrorists if he told them to, and saying we should torture people because ISIS does it?

I mean...yeah. In the context of Trump vs. Clinton, she was definitely the less warlike (and, for that matter, less war-criminal-y) candidate. That seems pretty self-evident.

Military conflicts Donald Trump has been involved in starting. Zero.

Military conflicts Hillary Clinton has been involved in starting. A lot.

Actions speak louder then words. Well... they used to at least. Seems they don't anymore.

So...how many military conflicts has Donald Trump been in a position to start, then?

Up until now, anyway.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Oh, is it already time for the "there's no gain for the US from being world hegemon, you should all be grateful we're protecting you from the goodness of our hearts!"-spiel already? I thought that wasn't due until February?

Aw, c'mon you know you like Col. Jessep's testimony speech as much as the rest of us do.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DARN what you think you're entitled to!

That sounds an awful lot like fascism to me. You know, the evil you supposedly saved us from entirely selflessly* in the first place.

*Do note that I'm mocking the notion that the US as a state dominates the globe out of kindness and altruism, not the contributions of any individuals who got caught up in said domination.

 djones520 wrote:

Military conflicts Donald Trump has been involved in starting. Zero.

Military conflicts Hillary Clinton has been involved in starting. A lot.

Actions speak louder then words. Well... they used to at least. Seems they don't anymore.

I'll keep that quote for History. Then we will see how much impact can have words when they were told by an obvious liar over "actions". And we will see who will look stupid in the end.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Oh, is it already time for the "there's no gain for the US from being world hegemon, you should all be grateful we're protecting you from the goodness of our hearts!"-spiel already? I thought that wasn't due until February?

Also, "threatening to use nuclear weapons isn't the same as threatening to go to war!" is a strong contender for this year's "accident while thinking" award.

You must be confused. by US policy NATO is protected by the US against (now Russia) via the MAD strategy. That means we threaten to use nukes.

"History fades into shadow as there are so few left who remember it."
-some hawt British chick in the prelude to a movie about two guys taking a vacation trip to see the only live volcano in traveling distance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That sounds an awful lot like fascism to me. You know, the evil you supposedly saved us from entirely selflessly* in the first place.

You can thank my Dad and Uncle if you'd like. I'll take you on a tour to Inks Lake. We can grab some Mexican food on the way back.

Trump explicitly wanted to use the nuclear weapons. That is not the same as holding them back as a weapon of last resort.

EDIT: Y'know, much as we disagree on things Fraz I find myself wishing I could take you up on that. Maybe one day, eh? After all, us Labrador lovers are simply the aquatic special forces of the Dachshundkrieg, no?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Trump explicitly wanted to use the nuclear weapons. That is not the same as holding them back as a weapon of last resort.

Against who?

Eisenhower threatened China with nukes to get them to the table.

Kennedy threatened the USSR for messing with his Cuba Libre.

Nixon threatened the USSR when it threatened to intervene in the Arab / Israeli war of 1973.

That's the thing: Trump didn't have a reason, and thus not a target. He wanted to use nuclear weapons because... reasons? That's a bit scary.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's the thing: Trump didn't have a reason, and thus not a target. He wanted to use nuclear weapons because... reasons? That's a bit scary.

You didn't cite who he wanted to nuke. Please cite the full quote from a reputable source that he wanted to nuke someone.

(besides cat people. Nuking them is completely understandable. And also people who like escargo. What the funk is up with that?)

 Frazzled wrote:
And also people who like escargo. What the funk is up with that?)

Also nuke people who can't spell escargot correctly.

I know right. It should be spelled S.N.A.I.L.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So, to an uninformed observer, how bad was the Taiwan call? How angry is it likely to make China?

First thing Trump's done that I totally agree with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I take back what I said about Trump playing it smart over Taiwan.

By backtracking, he comes across as weak and indecisive, rather than a shrewd operator with a touch of the realpolitik about him.

There's never been anything smat in what he did. Just deliberate sabre clashing with China.

It was a smart move until he backtracked at a rate of knots. I stand by that claim.

Sabre clashing with China isn't smart unless you are hell bent on starting war.

But then again we are talking about Donald "why haven't we used nukes already" Trump. One of the biggest warhawk candinates USA has had for a few decades.

Indeed, its a shame the Democrats put up a candidate instrumental in the Libya war and Syria as his opponent.

It's an even bigger shame that we see so much ignorance on a candidate when so many keep claiming she was a less warlike option.

Than the guy asking why we can't use nukes, talking about how the US army would shoot the families of terrorists if he told them to, and saying we should torture people because ISIS does it?

I mean...yeah. In the context of Trump vs. Clinton, she was definitely the less warlike (and, for that matter, less war-criminal-y) candidate. That seems pretty self-evident.

Military conflicts Donald Trump has been involved in starting. Zero.

Military conflicts Hillary Clinton has been involved in starting. A lot.

Actions speak louder then words. Well... they used to at least. Seems they don't anymore.

Wow! That's just not even close to resembling an argument. Let's see, one was a US Senator and Secretary of State while the other was a reality TV show host. So making the statement that Trump was involved in zero military conflicts is just patently irrelevant when you consider the simple fact that: Government, on any level, that Donald Trump has been involved in. Zero.

 feeder wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Twitter is a private organization and has every right to ban or suspend any user it likes.

See that horrible fethwit professional troll Milo Yannopiolis, for example.

Our glorious gay Milo is a great speaker I saw him again recently

I can't comment on the quality of his elocution. However, he is a professional troll. He contributes nothing to society.

If his performance on Channel 4 news (I think?) a couple of weeks ago was his usual standard then he just throws out buzzwords and avoids answering the actual questions asked.

Apparently the point is completely missing people...

Saying Clinton is a more "peaceful" candidate is farcical, because we have a long history of her being an absolute warhawk.

Her decades in our government has seen her support every major military move that has been made. She's on the record saying that our current administration hasn't used enough of the stick. She has advocated being militarily antagonistic with Russia, over Syria.

What about any of this tells you she would be a more peaceful president? What do we have about Trump? Just his words. We have him not supporting the Iraq invasion, that Clinton supported. We have his buffoonish comments about using nukes in a non-specific scenario. We have his words, that is all. Yet people are bending over so far backwards to discredit him, they're completely ignoring things about Clinton.

So if you want to keep touting that Clinton is a more peaceful candidate, you keep beating that trashcan. The facts are clear though. She believes in foreign policy through the use of might, just as much as the next war hawk.

 djones520 wrote:
What about any of this tells you she would be a more peaceful president? What do we have about Trump? Just his words. We have him not supporting the Iraq invasion, that Clinton supported. We have his buffoonish comments about using nukes in a non-specific scenario. We have his words, that is all.

But what do we have to suggest that he'd be a peaceful president? Not even words. Once again we're back to this bizarre situation where we're supposed to ignore all the awful things Trump promises to do and assume he'll do the exact opposite, out of nothing more than wishful thinking that somehow Trump won't be all that bad.

Yet people are bending over so far backwards to discredit him, they're completely ignoring things about Clinton.

No, we're not ignoring anything about Clinton. Most people understand perfectly well that Clinton is in favor of using the military to solve problems. However, Clinton's pro-war positions are the same kind of pro-war positions that any US presidential candidate is expected to have. And compared to the pro-war positions (and actions!) of the Bush administration she's arguably on the peaceful end of the scale. Compared to Trump's gleeful celebration of the idea of war and willingness to even consider crossing the line with nuclear weapons she was a much less threatening option.