2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

>If there's no FDA there will be poison in our food

If I poison your food will I be dealing with the Food Safety Authority or An Garda Síochana?

I'd prefer the food never reached the plate before one knew it was tainted. That is largely due in part to food regulations which include rules on how it's prepared and how it is inspected. With no FDA nothing even compels you to post allergen warnings on your products. There's a natural and progressive reason the FDA formed in the first place, such that there were laws about food and drugs and an administration to obersee their carriage and enforcement. You could offload that responsibility to the cops (jail someone for killing a peanut allergic person?) but cops as it is already have a reasonably broad scope of law enforcement, such that special branches like the DEA exist, and the FBI exists because criminals do not always loiter within a single local or state level jurisdiction.

oik

Rather than getting into a petty squabble with an admin who should know better...


Trump is going to walk back his FDA statement.

There are many things wrong with the FDA. I know a restaurateur in the states and I've heard stories about them. They're a nightmare and a huge unnecessary drain on businesses.

He's going to moderate his stance on the issue as he always does by probably changing it to "we're going to reduce the size and scope of the FDA" or some other plan.

The first step in Trump's plans is always to grab your attention.

oik

I'd prefer the food never reached the plate before one knew it was tainted. That is largely due in part to food regulations which include rules on how it's prepared and how it is inspected. With no FDA nothing even compels you to post allergen warnings on your products. There's a natural and progressive reason the FDA formed in the first place, such that there were laws about food and drugs and an administration to obersee their carriage and enforcement. You could offload that responsibility to the cops (jail someone for killing a peanut allergic person?) but cops as it is already have a reasonably broad scope of law enforcement, such that special branches like the DEA exist, and the FBI exists because criminals do not always loiter within a single local or state level jurisdiction.

Look, I'm not against food regulations and I don't believe for a second that Trump is either. See my earlier post.


Can I just ask, do you go through the same rigmarole every time Trump starts a conversation about a topic?

Take his first statement at face value and then run with it?

This election cycle must have been very tedious and repetitive for you.

His strategy is to keep people like you who work in the media arguing over every little thing he says as he gradually, slowly but surely makes his way back towards the centre on every issue stealing all the headlines in the process.

K-9

Mod:

What's up with all the sarcasm and smart arsery?

Either reply with civility or don't reply at all. Attack the post, not the poster.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

Both Trump and Clinton (and Obama) are promising that jobs won't be sent overseas with Trump further promising to bring some back. By positioning himself more strongly on this issue than Clinton his initial promise seems more believable in people's minds.

Most Trump supporters probably understand on some level that the jobs that have already left aren't coming back but when they consider who's more likely to prevent more leaving, Trump appears stronger on the issue in general and so voters who are concerned about it gravitate to him just like voters on issues to do with race relations and equality will gravitate towards Clinton because she takes stronger stances on those issues.

Oh yeah, I get why he is applying that stance. And I get why people who work in those sectors would latch on to it - they're being played by a con man with a long, long history of overpromising and not so much under-delivering as just not delivering at all (then litigating to escape ever having to deliver down the line). But I fully get where they're coming from and it's the one demographic outside of the mega-rich whose reasons I fully understand for supporting Trump.

What I find gas though (and it applied to Sanders during the primaries too) is that people don't see the impact of that, when for example an iPhone would cost $15,000 to buy (and similar figures even for cheap knock offs, if made in the US). That example alone would put Apple out of business, and then what happens to the 50,000 people who work for them or work for their vendors etc. And that's just for one company who offer something that many might call essential to their everyday lives, but is essentially a luxury product. When we get down to the more essential household and everyday items, the problem becomes even more troublesome beyond the company and it's employees themselves.

The obvious end result of this is that people just stop buying American products altogether, and all these American businesses go bust. Tinfoil hat time on this, but I reckon Trump's companies would be given exemptions left, right and centre. Including replacing the companies that go out of business, for example Apple.

Then we've got the utter hypocrisy of people giving out about the politicians being out of touch, while themselves not only supporting one of the most out of touch billionaires around, but also displaying exactly that themselves. A guess more than anything here, but I don't think Amerika for example is too bad off in terms of money - not calling him rich, but I doubt he's constantly scraping pennies together to put food on the table, or to keep a roof over it. So just using him as an example, they're giving out about nobody looking out for the poor and struggling everyday Americans out there, while dismissively claiming that a $150 suit will now be $500 and sure it'll all be grand. Tell that to the guy who has to save up $5-10 a week or whatever little he can manage to get the $150 suit to help get jobs that require such clothing to be work, that in turn would give the opportunity to increase their opportunities in life. It's fickle, but the weight put into appearance during interviews for many companies is huge - I can attest to that having worked in recruitment companies for much of the last year.

Can't remember who, but someone put it well earlier in the thread (or the old one?) when they said we're not living in a post-truth or post-facts world, so much as we're living in a post-reality world.

oik

Can't remember who, but someone put it well earlier in the thread (or the old one?) when they said we're not living in a post-truth or post-facts world, so much as we're living in a post-reality world.

Humans were never designed to be rational anyway. It's a myth to think that humans are capable of being rational. We're not capable of rationality, only rationalisation.

I wanted to link an article but haven't enough posts. "What If Evolution Bred Reality Out Of Us?" from NPR.org

oik

Then we've got the utter hypocrisy of people giving out about the politicians being out of touch, while themselves not only supporting one of the most out of touch billionaires around, but also displaying exactly that themselves. A guess more than anything here, but I don't think Amerika for example is too bad off in terms of money - not calling him rich, but I doubt he's constantly scraping pennies together to put food on the table, or to keep a roof over it. So just using him as an example, they're giving out about nobody looking out for the poor and struggling everyday Americans out there, while dismissively claiming that a $150 suit will now be $500 and sure it'll all be grand. Tell that to the guy who has to save up $5-10 a week or whatever little he can manage to get the $150 suit to help get jobs that require such clothing to be work, that in turn would give the opportunity to increase their opportunities in life. It's fickle, but the weight put into appearance during interviews for many companies is huge - I can attest to that having worked in recruitment companies for much of the last year.

I think it's unfair to categorise Trump supporters as hypocrites for that reason. I happen to think Trump is less out of touch than Clinton. She has been under secret service protection for 30 years now. She hasn't even so much as driven a car. Trump has lived the life of a billionaire businessman whereas Hillary has lived the life of a queen. I think the latter is more likely to be out of touch.

I'm not a massive fan of Trump's policies on trade although I don't believe they'd be as disastrous as people think. When I started my business my first instinct was to look for raw materials in Asia thinking they'd be much cheaper. The cost of an 8% tariff as well as the risks of doing business in China as well as delivery times wasn't worth my while for the volume I was doing so I ended up buying from within the EU. Luckily I was competing with other domestic businesses in the same situation so it didn't make me much less competitive. The point is the tariff didn't kill my business or make it more expensive I just shopped elsewhere. It would have been the same had the tariff been 50% rather than 8%. I'm sure there are billions of dollars sent overseas that were just on the threshold of staying in America if the price was right (or wrong as the case may be), so changing trade policies isn't this mad idea I think people have been conditioned to think it is.

Billy86

oik wrote: »

I think it's unfair to categorise Trump supporters as hypocrites for that reason. I happen to think Trump is less out of touch than Clinton. She has been under secret service protection for 30 years now. She hasn't even so much as driven a car. Trump has lived the life of a billionaire businessman whereas Hillary has lived the life of a queen. I think the latter is more likely to be out of touch.

I'd say Trump is about every bit as likely to drive his own car as Clinton is. Meanwhile while she is far from the most pious person in the world, Clinton's jobs have been far from 'living like a queen' and have involved serving the public, dealing with people in the US and their needs and wants. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's job has been serving Donald Trump and nothing else but that. Time and again he has screwed the taxpayer and his own employees over to benefit himself, and is probably the most infamously self-absorbed person in the entire world outside of North Korea.

oik

I'd say Trump is about every bit as likely to drive his own car as Clinton is. Meanwhile while she is far from the most pious person in the world, Clinton's jobs have been far from 'living like a queen' and have involved serving the public, dealing with people in the US and their needs and wants. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's job has been serving Donald Trump and nothing else but that. Time and again he has screwed the taxpayer and his own employees over to benefit himself, and is probably the most infamously self-absorbed person in the entire world outside of North Korea.

I won't deny that Trump is very vain, but there's plenty of photos of Trump driving his own car and I know from family in NYC that it's not rare you'd spot him walking down the street. Someone on celebrity apprentice (who claimed he'd never vote for him) also mentioned the fact that he eats with his workers in the canteen of Trump tower. I'm not claiming he's Joe the Plumber by any means but we're comparing two of the most privileged people on earth, it's going to sound ridiculous. He's very very good with people whatever way you look at it. Not many people who know him don't like him.

Trump actually addressed the fact that he sometimes doesn't pay contractors (or holds out on paying them) if they do a poor job. It's a high risk strategy but it's a good way to set a good precedent for dealing with him. Do a good job if you want to get paid right away. It's not the most ethical way to do business but that hard-nosed attitude explains why he has succeeded in the Manhattan real estate industry which is famously ruthless.

I think it's amusing that you'd call what Clinton did "serving the public". There's more than enough suspicion to justify the belief that Clinton engaged in pay-for-play with foreign entities as SoS. Maybe not enough to convict, but certainly enough to undermine any trust you might have for her in office.

glued

It's quite disturbing the levels of support both candidates are getting. Especially Clinton considering how poor of a politician she has proven to be.

Akrasia

oik wrote: »

Look, I'm not against food regulations and I don't believe for a second that Trump is either. See my earlier post.


Can I just ask, do you go through the same rigmarole every time Trump starts a conversation about a topic?

Take his first statement at face value and then run with it?

This election cycle must have been very tedious and repetitive for you.

His strategy is to keep people like you who work in the media arguing over every little thing he says as he gradually, slowly but surely makes his way back towards the centre on every issue stealing all the headlines in the process.

Absolute nonsense. If you're looking for a pattern in the way Trump communicates, it's not a deliberate strategy of provacation to grab our attention followed by measured explanation of a rational policy.

The only pattern is: Trump blurts something out in order to please whatever crowd he thinks he's talking to, followed by a random scatter of statements either doubling down on previous claims, or saying the opposite, or pretending he never made those claims in the first place.

oik

Absolute nonsense. If you're looking for a pattern in the way Trump communicates, it's not a deliberate strategy of provacation to grab our attention followed by measured explanation of a rational policy.

The only pattern is: Trump blurts something out in order to please whatever crowd he thinks he's talking to, followed by a random scatter of statements either doubling down on previous claims, or saying the opposite, or pretending he never made those claims in the first place.

Yes that's called AB testing in the computer programming world. He throws out an idea and sees how well it's received then acts accordingly. And it's not absolute nonsense, nor is what he says random.

Put it this way, if a guy is on the cusp of becoming president and you think he's crazy or a dummy, then the smart money is on you being wrong.

Calina

oik wrote: »

Yes that's called AB testing in the computer programming world. He throws out an idea and sees how well it's received then acts accordingly. And it's not absolute nonsense, nor is what he says random.

Put it this way, if I guy is on the cusp of becoming president and you think it's crazy or a dummy, then the smart money is on you being wrong.

There is no way that Trump is applying AB testing in his speeches. He really isn't intelligent enough and the occasions on which he's been dragged into the real world and told what to say he's clearly not wanted to.

oik

There is no way that Trump is applying AB testing in his speeches. He really isn't intelligent enough and the occasions on which he's been dragged into the real world and told what to say he's clearly not wanted to.

He's intelligent enough to run rings around every opponent he's come up against and stay in the running with the political establishment and media against him but not intelligent enough to use AB testing. Okay...

gosplan

Trumps problem isn't intelligence.

It's being

1: highly reactionary
2: unprincipled
3: very 'loose' as regards legalities and corruption

B0jangles

According to Trump's Director of African-American outreach, Omarosa Manigault, Trump made the decision to run for president the night Obama laughed at him at the 2011 White House Correspondent's Dinner.

She also said the following:

“Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omarosa-bown-to-president-trump_us_57e47e34e4b0e80b1ba15296

At this point I feel like we've slipped into an alternate universe entirely written by Marvel Comics.

oik

According to Trump's Director of African-American outreach, Omarosa Manigault, Trump made the decision to run for president the night Obama laughed at him at the 2011 White House Correspondent's Dinner.

She also said the following:

At this point I feel like we've slipped into an alternate universe entirely written by Marvel Comics.

Wouldn't believe a word that comes out of Omarosa's mouth tbh. She made Piers Morgan likeable. And I highly doubt Trump would ever confide that in her, she's probably just looking for attention for herself.

Count Dooku

gosplan wrote: »

Trumps problem isn't intelligence.

It's being

1: highly reactionary
2: unprincipled
3: very 'loose' as regards legalities and corruption

and if despite this Clinton is "not 50 points ahead" Trump, it can mean only that she is least electable POTUS candidate and must resign immediately
Problem is not that Trump is bad, problem is that Clinton is not any better or sometimes even worse that him. At least Trump has some chances to propose something new, while Clinton will continue with failed policies of Obama

Overheal

oik wrote: »

He's intelligent enough to run rings around every opponent he's come up against and stay in the running with the political establishment and media against him but not intelligent enough to use AB testing. Okay...

It's nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with being a narcissistic sociopath. He just literally doesn't care what others think, whereas the normal psyche that runs for president has what the layman would call a conscience.

oik

It's nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with being a narcissistic sociopath. He just literally doesn't care what others think, whereas the normal psyche that runs for president has what the layman would call a conscience.

Well now I understand your problem. You think caring what others think is a normal positive thing. Healthy people only care about what their family and close friends think of them.

I also think it's strange that you think conscience is a common thing in a presidential candidate. I can think of two presidents who more than likely did not have a conscience off the top of my head. Bill and LBJ. They were also two of the most popular and effective presidents of the 20th century.

Akrasia

oik wrote: »

Well now I understand your problem. You think caring what others think is a normal positive thing. Healthy people only care about what their family and close friends think of them.

I also think it's strange that you think conscience is a common thing in a presidential candidate. I can think of two presidents who more than likely did not have a conscience off the top of my head. Bill and LBJ. They were also two of the most popular and effective presidents of the 20th century.

Caring about what others think is a pretty important quality in someone running in a popularity contest.

Caring about others is an important quality in a public representative. Trump only cares about himself, and only cares about what others can do for him.

He uses everyone, and the voters who vote for him are like Lenin's useful idiots. He will shaft anyone if he thinks it will benefit him in some way

I'm not convinced that Clinton is much better in this regard, but she is at least mindful of the optics and public perception of her, so this constrains what she is prepared to do.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

It's nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with being a narcissistic sociopath. He just literally doesn't care what others think, whereas the normal psyche that runs for president has what the layman would call a conscience.

He does care what people think. The American people that is. Why should he give a toss what his political opponents believe! He is ultimately answerable to the electorate. The need to conform with Washington is an unattractive characteristic in this climate. Most Americans have already made up their minds on a lot of the big issues like gun control, immigration, climate change, foreign wars, bank bailouts and the National Deficit. Democrats & Liberals will attack him no matter what. Once he is a friend of Conservatives than he becomes enemy number 1.

oik

I'm not convinced that Clinton is much better in this regard, but she is at least mindful of the optics and public perception of her, so this constrains what she is prepared to do.

If we're going to talk about constraints, Trump will be subject to far more scrutiny as president from the media the Democrats and his own party than any other candidate would have been.

oik

Caring about what others think is a pretty important quality in someone running in a popularity contest.

Caring what others think on a deep personal level is different to caring about one's public perception for the purposes of politics.

The poster Overheal was referring to the former. Of course Trump cares what the public thinks when it comes to winning their support.

oik

Given the extent to which the Clinton's suppress any negative information about themselves, pneumonia, emails, the Benghazi video lie, etc. are people going to be satisfied with an administration that treats every piece of info as though it's none of the public's business?

Trump will get away with far less of that as president due to the level of scrutiny he'll be under.

K-9

oik wrote: »

If we're going to talk about constraints, Trump will be subject to far more scrutiny as president from the media the Democrats and his own party than any other candidate would have been.

If the Republicans control both houses and the Presidency, rightly so.

Overheal

Nobody is really talking about congressional races, which 6 weeks away from the vote is a bit worrisome.

oik wrote: »

If we're going to talk about constraints, Trump will be subject to far more scrutiny as president from the media the Democrats and his own party than any other candidate would have been.

Frankly that's because I could sleep at night if one of the other choices was in office. Even Cruz despite his bible thumping, would have been a more rational POTUS than Trump ever will be.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Nobody is really talking about congressional races, which 6 weeks away from the vote is a bit worrisome.



Frankly that's because I could sleep at night if one of the other choices was in office. Even Cruz despite his bible thumping, would have been a more rational POTUS than Trump ever will be.

Ted Cruz wanted to bring back capital punishment which most States in America are going against. The Pope and Amnesty International are promoting abolishment of the death penalty. His comments on abortion were over the top. You see you hatred for Trump is blinding you. Trump can read his audience well. He is a celebrity personality and has brought so many new faces into politics. He can appeal to the Sanders supporters that Cruz could never have.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Ted Cruz wanted to bring back capital punishment which most States in America are going against. The Pope and Amnesty International are promoting abolishment of the death penalty. His comments on abortion were over the top. You see you hatred for Trump is blinding you. Trump can read his audience well. He is a celebrity personality and has brought so many new faces into politics. He can appeal to the Sanders supporters that Cruz could never have.

Capital Punishment is not something the executive branch gets to set policy on, so he can think that all he wants. Some states still have capital punishment, its a decision left to the states.

Whereas deporting 11 million illegals is something the POTUS can ordain, though its limited by the funding of congress...

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Capital Punishment is not something the executive branch gets to set policy on, so he can think that all he wants. Some states still have capital punishment, its a decision left to the states.

Whereas deporting 11 million illegals is something the POTUS can ordain, though its limited by the funding of congress...

Cruz supporters are proponents of the death penalty in America. Those illegals would be in a much worse position even if he ever got close to office.

ebbsy

Akrasia wrote: »

Caring about what others think is a pretty important quality in someone running in a popularity contest.

Caring about others is an important quality in a public representative. Trump only cares about himself, and only cares about what others can do for him.

He uses everyone, and the voters who vote for him are like Lenin's useful idiots. He will shaft anyone if he thinks it will benefit him in some way

I'm not convinced that Clinton is much better in this regard, but she is at least mindful of the optics and public perception of her, so this constrains what she is prepared to do.

People who are called idiots usually end up doing the exact opposite to what you want.

oik

Capital Punishment is not something the executive branch gets to set policy on, so he can think that all he wants. Some states still have capital punishment, its a decision left to the states.

Whereas deporting 11 million illegals is something the POTUS can ordain, though its limited by the funding of congress...

Look, I realise that every candidate that gets past May with a realistic chance of winning in a primary campaign has been telling a few porkies regardless of what party they're in and has probably made some mad statements to try and drum up the base.

What does Trump say when he wants to get a cheer from the crowd? "We're going to build the wall", "we will enforce the law", "our police and our military are such good people", yeah real harmful stuff.

Ted Cruz, "let's carpet bomb Syria"

Skylinehead

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Ted Cruz wanted to bring back capital punishment which most States in America are going against.

What do you mean by "bring back"? The US federal government has capital punishment, and no president can dictate to states on their own policies in that regard.

KingBrian2

Skylinehead wrote: »

What do you mean by "bring back"? The US federal government has capital punishment, and no president can dictate to states on their own policies in that regard.

The trend has been away from the death penalty. California and other states kill more people as much as some of the most repressive gvt in the world. A lot of Americans are moving the other way. Massachusetts doe not execute most felonies. The number of executions would soar if execution became a staple of American life.

oscarBravo

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

The activities of Trump adviser Carter Page, who has extensive business interests in Russia, have been discussed with senior members of Congress during recent briefings about suspected efforts by Moscow to influence the presidential election, the sources said. After one of those briefings, Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote FBI Director James Comey, citing reports of meetings between a Trump adviser (a reference to Page) and “high ranking sanctioned individuals” in Moscow over the summer as evidence of “significant and disturbing ties” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the bureau.

Naturally, this has been greeted with, basically, "Carter Who? Never heard of him" by the Trump camp. Which is about par for the course from a candidate and campaign who make everything up as they go along (including whatever is currently convenient to pass off as the truth).

You'd expect that from a narcissist and his inner circle of yes-men. It's truly bizarre to watch complete outsiders do the same. Some of the rationalisation of his most irrational behaviour on this thread alone is utterly bemusing.

oik

Naturally, this has been greeted with, basically, "Carter Who? Never heard of him" by the Trump camp. Which is about par for the course from a candidate and campaign who make everything up as they go along (including whatever is currently convenient to pass off as the truth).

You'd expect that from a narcissist and his inner circle of yes-men. It's truly bizarre to watch complete outsiders do the same. Some of the rationalisation of his most irrational behaviour on this thread alone is utterly bemusing.

First off, Carter Who? Never heard of him.

Secondly do you understand what a loose association the term "adviser" can entail?

Thridly, why is it that whenever someone criticised US foreign policy in relation to the middle-east it's all fair game but when someone criticises US foreign policy in relation to Russia it's considered 2 steps from treason?

Why is it considered "effusive praise" to say one leader is stronger than the other, a charge I'm sure even Obama himself would admit to.

Why were the DNC hacks which were attributed to Putin without any evidence to back it up drummed up to be this mad conspiracy when the Chinese stealing blue prints for US fighter jets probably didn't even make the front page?

I think I know the reason. It's the baby boomers' irrational fear of Russia because of all that Cold War propaganda they were subjected to. It makes for a very effective election stunt if you can draw any connection between Trump and Russia.

I welcome this added scrutiny, but the same posters who claim Trump is a maniac and an idiot who has no clue what he's doing also like to claim he's some sort of undercover Russian operative who definitely knows what he's doing. I wish they would just make up their minds.

oik

What do you mean by "bring back"? The US federal government has capital punishment, and no president can dictate to states on their own policies in that regard.

Cruz was signalling to his supporters that he's tough on crime, he's just not as good at it as Trump. The details don't actually matter, people just want to know where you stand on the spectrum when it comes to various issues.

Semi-related, what does Clinton mean when she says "equal pay for equal work" when 1, there's no such thing as equal work, and 2, it's already illegal to discriminate against women?

PopePalpatine

KingBrian2 wrote: »

[Trump] can appeal to the Sanders supporters that Cruz could never have.

How? There's pretty much only one area of common ground between the two, and that's opposition to trade deals.

KingBrian2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How? There's pretty much only one area of common ground between the two, and that's opposition to trade deals.

I'm pretty sure he supports an education program fit for all Americans. He spoke a lot about educating American children.

oik

How? There's pretty much only one area of common ground between the two, and that's opposition to trade deals.

That's a pretty big piece of common ground.

You may be thinking of younger Bernie voters who were supporting free education for themselves. The older Bernie voters that Trump is courting weren't voting for that.

Overheal

oik wrote: »

Look, I realise that every candidate that gets past May with a realistic chance of winning in a primary campaign has been telling a few porkies regardless of what party they're in and has probably made some mad statements to try and drum up the base.

What does Trump say when he wants to get a cheer from the crowd? "We're going to build the wall", "we will enforce the law", "our police and our military are such good people", yeah real harmful stuff.

Ted Cruz, "let's carpet bomb Syria"

Trump, "we need to take out their families"

Akrasia

Overheal wrote: »

Trump, "we need to take out their families"

I can't believe you're taking something that Trump said and repeating it. Media Bias folks.

Well, the last laugh is on you. From now on Boards.ie are banned from all Trump events and you'll be hearing from Trump's lawyers

oik

Trump, "we need to take out their families"

Not the most popular or humane policy, but known to work.

"Six years later, in October 1985, Alpha Group was dispatched to war-torn Beirut, Lebanon. The Kremlin was informed of the kidnapping of four Soviet diplomats by the militant group, the Islamic Liberation Organization (a radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood). It was believed that this was retaliation for the Soviet support of Syrian involvement in the Lebanese Civil War.[19] However, by the time Alpha arrived, one of the hostages had already been killed. Through a network of supporting KGB operatives, members of the task-force identified each of the perpetrators involved in the crisis, and once identified, began to take the relatives of these militants as hostages. Following the standard Soviet policy of no negotiations with terrorists, one of the hostages taken by Alpha Group had his testicles removed and sent to the militants before being killed. The warning was clear: more would follow unless the remaining hostages were released immediately.[20] The show of force worked, and for a period of 20 years no Soviet or Russian officials were taken captive, until the 2006 abduction and murder of four Russian embassy staff in Iraq."


In a purely amoral and calculating way, this would be the way to prevent the most amount of attacks possible.

Not that I support it, just sayin'.

oik

I can't believe you're taking something that Trump said and repeating it. Media Bias folks.

Well, the last laugh is on you. From now on Boards.ie are banned from all Trump events and you'll be hearing from Trump's lawyers

It's not media bias to point it out, it's media bias to also fail to point out that the US government already does that.

They threatened Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's son after extensive waterboarding failed to produce any results, and it worked.

oscarBravo

oik wrote: »

Not the most popular or humane policy...

You misspelled "war crime".

Not that I support it, just sayin'.

Of course you don't. That's why you basically said it's a good idea.

Trump advocates war crimes; Trump supporters become apologists for war crimes. There's literally nothing the man could do that would make his disciples disavow him.

Overheal

oscarBravo wrote: »

You misspelled "war crime". Of course you don't. That's why you basically said it's a good idea.

Trump advocates war crimes; Trump supporters become apologists for war crimes. There's literally nothing the man could do that would make his disciples disavow him.

Basically Trump voters are having a referendum on whether they'd like the country to become a fascist world power that ignores UN and NATO obligations pisses on trading partners and otherwise goes it alone.

It would be almost frightening if Trump actually would ever follow through with it. The man can't even write a check to charity without going through the five stages of grief, he has too many vested international interests, including cheap overseas labor making trump clothing and such, to ever go along with it.

glued

oscarBravo wrote: »

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html



Naturally, this has been greeted with, basically, "Carter Who? Never heard of him" by the Trump camp. Which is about par for the course from a candidate and campaign who make everything up as they go along (including whatever is currently convenient to pass off as the truth).

You'd expect that from a narcissist and his inner circle of yes-men. It's truly bizarre to watch complete outsiders do the same. Some of the rationalisation of his most irrational behaviour on this thread alone is utterly bemusing.

That's becuase Americans are so paranoid about any connection with Moscow at all. The difference between America and Russia is that one thinks they can do what the want and cry foul at other countries when they do similar and the other just does whatever they want without the self-righteous narrative.

The most bizarre thing about these elections isn't Donald Trump. You can see how a market has opened up for Trump considering how poorly Bush and Obama have managed the country since 2001. What is bizarre is that people are still trying to pomp up Hilary as some form of white knight in comparison to Trump. How many people is Trump responsible for killing? People seem to forget that Hillary has made a career covering up and getting away with mistake after mistake.

Two very dangerous candidates yet the media is focusing in on one because people would rather read about Trump building a wall than Hillary and Benghazi.

alastair

You do realise that Hillary is resposible for killing precisely no-one in Benghazi, right?

oik

Of course you don't. That's why you basically said it's a good idea.

Trump advocates war crimes; Trump supporters become apologists for war crimes. There's literally nothing the man could do that would make his disciples disavow him.

Saying something works is not the same as saying it's a good idea. Using the word "basically" to twist the meaning around is a barely concealed sleight of hand and a pretty disingenuous debating tactic from an admin of all people.

oik

You do realise that Hillary is resposible for killing precisely no-one in Benghazi, right?

I didn't kill him with my car. I just failed to push the brakes.