Trump

[thehistorymakers]

Struggling to believe what I have just read on this thread.

Good Lord. OF COURSE president Trump would be the biggest global security risk. He would have his hand on the trigger of the biggest nuclear arsenal of all and by the look of it would view number of nukes like a willy-waving contest.

I look at his rallies. I look at protesters being punched and forcibly ejected before Trump stands up and offers to pay his supporters legal fees if they get arrested, and I can't be the only one reminded of a certain demented Austrian garnering support in Munich Beer halls.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35703300

From the link, not my opinions.

Donald Trump has been condemned by many on the left and some on the right as being beyond the pale, a toxic virus that exists on the fringes of the political mainstream. But where do his policy views actually fit when compared to his fellow presidential candidates - and past Republican commanders-in-chief?

The New Yorker has definitely set a new mark when it comes to acceptable policy prescriptions on the topic of immigration, but in other areas he is moderate and occasionally to the left of his contemporaries.

Here's a look at where Mr Trump falls on the political spectrum - along with his top competitors and past Republican presidents. It reveals a Donald Trump who isn't quite so extreme after all - and a party that has moved decidedly to the right in recent decades.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35703300

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Fuck that. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the US. He wants a religious group treated differently. That is straight out of mein kampf. Next stop ghettoes.

And he wants that wall built to keep Mexicans out.

Yep he is super-moderate. He is a fucking nutter and the world would be a lot safer with him outside power.

 

[ROVERT47]

If Trump was a Democratic and his diatribe was aimed at the establishment rather than the vulnerable the secret services would be searching for a book depository as we speak.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

So you approve of the violent demonstrations? That does surprise me.

Where did I approve? Trying to understand why something happens is a long way from condoning it. Understanding what motivates people can sometimes help prevent similar situations arising.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

Where did I approve? Trying to understand why something happens is a long way from condoning it. Understanding what motivates people can sometimes help prevent similar situations arising.

In that case please accept my apologies. And I agree with the points raised above.

 

[thehistorymakers]

$#@! that. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the US. He wants a religious group treated differently. That is straight out of mein kampf. Next stop ghettoes.

And he wants that wall built to keep Mexicans out.

Yep he is super-moderate. He is a $#@!ing nutter and the world would be a lot safer with him outside power.

I have said on more than one occasion that he is a cunt and I don't like him, but the USA have had a few of them as Presidents.
He was stupid to say ban all Muslims, I will not defend that, but I will defend his right to speak and let democracy run it's course.

 

[thehistorymakers]

And if the cost of appearing strong is by sacrificing American, British, NATO, et al. lives on some wild goose chase, that's okay?

This without even getting into the specifics of the Ukraine and Syria situations, which are far more complicated than just "Russia is taking the piss because they can now". Don't forget that the people of Crimea voted to join Russia.

It is no good telling Russia you can't do something and then stand by and let them do it. The reason they did it is because the USA is seen to have a weak President by Putin.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

I have said on more than one occasion that he is a $#@! and I don't like him, but the USA have had a few of them as Presidents.
He was stupid to say ban all Muslims, I will not defend that, but I will defend his right to speak and let democracy run it's course.

He wasn't stupid to say ban all Muslims, he was wrong.

 

[jd1981]

Trump reminds at times of Martin Sheens charachter in the film the dead zone.

 

[thehistorymakers]

He wasn't stupid to say ban all Muslims, he was wrong.

Maybe both?

 

[jd1981]

It is no good telling Russia you can't do something and then stand by and let them do it. The reason they did it is because the USA is seen to have a weak President by Putin.

Again what should Obama have done in regards to the Crimea other than carrying out economic sanctions?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Really did see all this coming before the last UK election. History tells us that after a recession or a double recession extremes from either side gather momentum. See Russia and communism in 1917 and see Germany in the 30's. Obama has been one big disappointment to many and the situation in afghan and Iraq have seriously questioned the coalitions decision to interfere. No weapons of mass destruction found, no real stability in any of the countries that have had their despots overthrown. Putin saw an opportunity and seized it. There was never going to be much real sanction against him or any military intervention. So Trump has spent 3 decades amassing billions you dont think he has a bucket load of favours to call in? They are all coming in now , at a time when the current president looks a bit dithery the other challengers are weak or tainted, Russia is looking stronger, EU has a crisis after crisis be it Brexit, Migrants or the EU economy and this morning Quentin , sorry George Osborne pre-warns that Austerity and cuts will be the theme again this week in the budget. The working PAYE man will suffer again. Hence why labour have now gone to a more left wing leader and Tories are lurching to the right.Hillary needs to seriously step up her game if she is to beat Trump. His rhetoric is being believed by too many. Its a runaway train and that cannot have a happy ending.
The only positive is that Trump will have advisors and he has more intelligence than GW. I hope that lessons have been learnt with regards to gung ho foreign policy given the stream of lives lost in the conflicts this century. What will happen will be another Cold war of sorts as the common ground available dissipates.

 

[thehistorymakers]

Again what should Obama have done in regards to the Crimea other than carrying out economic sanctions?

First of all he should have respected the democratic process in Ukraine instead of backing the people who had lost the elections. Then if you are going to cause a civil war, don't do fuck all, when the people you backed are getting attacked by the Russians.
Obamas words are empty threats to Putin. There have been two big confrontations under Obama, Ukraine and Syria and it's 2-0 to the Russians.

 

[Alan]

First of all he should have respected the democratic process in Ukraine instead of backing the people who had lost the elections. Then if you are going to cause a civil war, don't do $#@! all, when the people you backed are getting attacked by the Russians.
Obamas words are empty threats to Putin. There have been two big confrontations under Obama, Ukraine and Syria and it's 2-0 to the Russians.

And if Obama had done nothing, as you suggest, it is probable that all of Ukraine would have joined Crimea in returning to Russia.

We didn't cause the civil war. If anything, the unrest in Ukraine was doubly the fault of a poor economic situation in the country and of the EU for attempting to play the hero in a territory that they knew full well would be provoking Russia to do something in order to protect its interests.

You can't very well preach that we should respect Ukraine's sovereignty while simultaneously ignoring Crimea's popular vote to secede as well as Russia's sovereign right to move to protect an area that directly affects it.

Despite what you may think, Russia is a toothless entity for any enemy they may have. Short of nuclear warfare, which even Putin isn't aggro enough to commit to, Russia simply doesn't have the money for a sustained conflict. The only way they can expand their territory is to the Old Bloc, the annexation of which would be utterly disastrous for Russia's economy as it already can barely support itself.

Talk of a Cold War revival has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[thehistorymakers]

And if Obama had done nothing, as you suggest, it is probable that all of Ukraine would have joined Crimea in returning to Russia.

We didn't cause the civil war. If anything, the unrest in Ukraine was doubly the fault of a poor economic situation in the country and of the EU for attempting to play the hero in a territory that they knew full well would be provoking Russia to do something in order to protect its interests.

You can't very well preach that we should respect Ukraine's sovereignty while simultaneously ignoring Crimea's popular vote to secede as well as Russia's sovereign right to move to protect an area that directly affects it.

Despite what you may think, Russia is a toothless entity for any enemy they may have. Short of nuclear warfare, which even Putin isn't aggro enough to commit to, Russia simply doesn't have the money for a sustained conflict. The only way they can expand their territory is to the Old Bloc, the annexation of which would be utterly disastrous for Russia's economy as it already can barely support itself.

Talk of a Cold War revival has been greatly exaggerated.

Sorry Alan, you are talking bollocks again.

 

[thehistorymakers]

And if Obama had done nothing, as you suggest, it is probable that all of Ukraine would have joined Crimea in returning to Russia.

We didn't cause the civil war. If anything, the unrest in Ukraine was doubly the fault of a poor economic situation in the country and of the EU for attempting to play the hero in a territory that they knew full well would be provoking Russia to do something in order to protect its interests.

You can't very well preach that we should respect Ukraine's sovereignty while simultaneously ignoring Crimea's popular vote to secede as well as Russia's sovereign right to move to protect an area that directly affects it.

Despite what you may think, Russia is a toothless entity for any enemy they may have. Short of nuclear warfare, which even Putin isn't aggro enough to commit to, Russia simply doesn't have the money for a sustained conflict. The only way they can expand their territory is to the Old Bloc, the annexation of which would be utterly disastrous for Russia's economy as it already can barely support itself.

Talk of a Cold War revival has been greatly exaggerated.

Don't take my word for it...

Taken from the link below.

Vladimir Putin’s Syrian gambit has demonstrated once again the Russian president’s knack for outfoxing President Obama.

Again and again, Russia threatens and the president folds. The administration even reacted to news of the Russian deployment in Syria with another concession — ending an 18-month suspension of military-to-military relations with Russia, which dated back to Russia’s initial aggression against Ukraine. The purpose of the concession, administration spokesmen explained, was to “de-conflict” American and Russian operations in Syria.

Four days later, hounded by accusations that restoration of military relations had rewarded Russian adventurism, the Obama administration backtracked. The Pentagon announced that it would not “de-conflict” until the Russians entered into dialogue about political alternatives to Bashar al-Assad. But Putin, correctly sensing a bluff, did not budge. When the US and Russian presidents met in the city on Monday, Obama capitulated for a second time, consenting to the original de-confliction regimen.

ADVERTISING

Obama’s vacillation and cowering spurred Putin to trample the United States still further. On Wednesday, at the US embassy in Baghdad, a Russian general warned of imminent Russian airstrikes in Syria and told the United States to vacate Syrian airspace within the hour.

As the Russian air campaign began, Secretary of State John Kerry issued a vague warning, of the sort that the Obama administration has frequently toted as a fig leaf for inaction. “We would have grave concerns should Russia strike areas where ISIL [ISIS] and al Qaeda-affiliated targets are not operating,” Kerry announced.



http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/putins-power-grab-in-syria-draws-weak-response-from-dc/

 

[Tredman]

Don't take my word for it...

Taken from the link below.

Vladimir Putin’s Syrian gambit has demonstrated once again the Russian president’s knack for outfoxing President Obama.

Again and again, Russia threatens and the president folds. The administration even reacted to news of the Russian deployment in Syria with another concession — ending an 18-month suspension of military-to-military relations with Russia, which dated back to Russia’s initial aggression against Ukraine. The purpose of the concession, administration spokesmen explained, was to “de-conflict” American and Russian operations in Syria.

Four days later, hounded by accusations that restoration of military relations had rewarded Russian adventurism, the Obama administration backtracked. The Pentagon announced that it would not “de-conflict” until the Russians entered into dialogue about political alternatives to Bashar al-Assad. But Putin, correctly sensing a bluff, did not budge. When the US and Russian presidents met in the city on Monday, Obama capitulated for a second time, consenting to the original de-confliction regimen.

ADVERTISING

Obama’s vacillation and cowering spurred Putin to trample the United States still further. On Wednesday, at the US embassy in Baghdad, a Russian general warned of imminent Russian airstrikes in Syria and told the United States to vacate Syrian airspace within the hour.

As the Russian air campaign began, Secretary of State John Kerry issued a vague warning, of the sort that the Obama administration has frequently toted as a fig leaf for inaction. “We would have grave concerns should Russia strike areas where ISIL [ISIS] and al Qaeda-affiliated targets are not operating,” Kerry announced.



http://nypost.com/2015/10/04/putins-power-grab-in-syria-draws-weak-response-from-dc/

You and the Murdoch owned NY post are talking bollocks, not Alan.

I get Trump's views and xenophobia excites you, but being on the side of the KKK isn't a good place to be.

 

[leedswolf]

Maybe both?

No. He knew exactly what he was saying.

 

[Johnny75]

Sorry Alan, you are talking bollocks again.

I wonder what your stance would be if Obama was white...

 

[thehistorymakers]

You and the Murdoch owned NY post are talking bollocks, not Alan.

I get Trump's views and xenophobia excites you, but being on the side of the KKK isn't a good place to be.

I thought you might have being trying to work out how to get rid of the anti-semites and Islamic bullies hijacking the Labour party.

Anyway, at least I put links up backing up what I said. Unlike you, putting links up backing what I said. Hahaha. You might have forgotten about that, but I haven't!

Hahahqhha