POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[beachbum111111]

with that logic you should kill yourself because you'll die sometime in your life
terrible ideology to have

Every time someone tries to follow the "rules of war" they get forgeted over.

Following the rules of the UN caused over a million people to die in Rwanda. We didn't follow any "rules of war" when the U.S.A and Britain fought Germany and Japan. Why? because we would have loving lost.

There are no good guys in war. History is written by the victor and you aren't going to succeed if you follow arbitrary rules that will forget you over in the end when your enemy doesn't follow them.

[Ad Bot]

[Drydess]

Every time someone tries to follow the "rules of war" they get forgeted over.

Following the rules of the UN caused over a million people to die in Rwanda. We didn't follow any "rules of war" when the U.S.A and Britain fought Germany and Japan. Why? because we would have loving lost.

there's a difference between making the right call and making the winning call

[beachbum111111]

there's a difference between making the right call and making the winning call

What would you say the "right" call is with CIA? To leave? Because Sanders sure as hell doesn't want to do that.

[Drydess]

What would you say the "right" call is with CIA? To leave? Because Sanders sure as hell doesn't want to do that.

well of course not to leave, but not to massacre everybody related to them, that's absolute bullstuff

In WWII, Japan being nuked was a certain winning call, however it killed millions of innocent people
It could have been handled better, the US just panicked and threw their nukes at two hugely populated cities just to send a message, not to mention the firebombs

The same message could have been sent by targeting enemy military ports, or a diplomatic victory via espionage (which America was greatly capable of).


At times the winning call is required, such as at times when you are trapped and the winning way is the only way out.

[beachbum111111]

In WWII, Japan being nuked was a certain winning call, however it killed millions of innocent people
It could have been handled better, the US just panicked and threw their nukes at two hugely populated cities just to send a message, not to mention the firebombs

Aaand you just proved that you have no clue what your talking about. It would have cost the US 10 million lives on both ends for a land invasion. To compare the two atom bombs only killed about a quarter of a million civilians. America also had to worry about the Soviet Union launching their own invasion of Japan which would have been even worse not only for the casualties, but for the people in whatever government the Soviet Union would set up for their part of the archipelago.

Also it wasn't "millions of people" who died and they weren't "massively populated" cities either. One of them wasn't even a city. Use your head before you spout lies.

[Planr]

In WWII, Japan being nuked was a certain winning call, however it killed millions of innocent people
It could have been handled better, the US just panicked and threw their nukes at two hugely populated cities just to send a message, not to mention the firebombs

The same message could have been sent by targeting enemy military ports, or a diplomatic victory via espionage (which America was greatly capable of).

Time to learn some history.

Japan was extremely adamant that they would never surrender. We destroyed their military bases; they did not surrender. We firebombed their cities (which, by the way, killed way more people than the atomic bombs did, just so you understand); they did not surrender. The next two options on the table were a full-on land invasion (which would've caused far more deaths than the nukes would, as there were millions of japanese soldiers entrenched in Japan ready for an invasion) or use of the new nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons were chosen because they were the best call and would cost far fewer deaths in comparison to the atomic bombs.

By the way, your death toll numbers are way off, again proof you don't know what you're talking about.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+many+did+the+atomic+bomb+kill+in+japan
The actual death toll for the atomic bombs was around 200,000. Far less than the loss of life that would've occurred if we had done a full-on invasion.

[Toxicology]

Aaand you just proved that you have no clue what your talking about.

go easy on him hes only 10

[Goth77]

None of these corrupt starfishs are worth the vote, honestly.

Having said that, if I would have voted (in another time where voting actually matters) probably for Rand Paul because he actually cares about the constitution and the principles our nation was founded upon. Free speech, free market, a nation backed by sound currency, protecting our borders instead of sending troops over seas.

At this point I don't even care about voting. The election is nothing more than a bunch of old kooks bickering about the same stuff, trying to "outwit" the other in some way that usually isn't relevant. It's pretty much all for stuffs and giggles when it comes down to it.

[beachbum111111]

None of these corrupt starfishs are worth the vote, honestly.

Having said that, if I would have voted (in another time where voting actually matters) probably for Rand Paul because he actually cares about the constitution and the principles our nation was founded upon. Free speech, free market, a nation backed by sound currency, protecting our borders instead of sending troops over seas.

At this point I don't even care about voting. The election is nothing more than a bunch of old kooks bickering about the same stuff, trying to "outwit" the other in some way that usually isn't relevant. It's pretty much all for stuffs and giggles when it comes down to it.

Honestly I could never trust Rand after he stabbed his father in the back in the 2012 election.

[Goth77]

Honestly I could never trust Rand after he stabbed his father in the back in the 2012 election.

I would vote for Ron before Rand also. I know Rand endorsed Romney but that was only because he was the only republican who would make it to the debate vs obama @ the time, and Rand knew that. He used the opportunity to climb up the congressional "ladder" per say. Not saying what he did was right tho, im sure his dad was pretty upset about his choice

[Cappytaino]

I really liked Gary Johnson, but he never runs with either major party, so he never gets any debate exposure and people don't ever hear about him or any of his platforms. At this point, it's down to Clinton and Sanders being incredibly far from my own views, and while I don't agree with everything Annoying Orange says, he's the closest to it.

[Ipquarx]

What would you say the "right" call is with CIA? To leave? Because Sanders sure as hell doesn't want to do that.

You do realize that what Drumpf said was the exact logic that terrorists use in the first place, right?
What do you think terrorists were thinking when they wanted to bring down the twin towers?
"Don't kid yourself. These americans, they have hearts. They care about their family. We need to take out their families." is exactly what they were thinking. If you seriously want to defend what Drumpf said you literally need to admit that terrorist logic is A-OK.

[$trinick]

Drumpf

I don't get why you're still using this stale meme. Do you see anyone else using it? Plus, it feels petty anyway to use it as a substitution for his name in all situations rather than a quick jab at him inside a quip.

[Zloff]

something I've noticed across the internet:

"Look at me I'm edgy and clever for using Donald's last name before they legally changed it" - perfectly fine
"Look at me I'm edgy and clever for using Jenner's first name before they legally changed it" - transphobe >:\

probably has something to do with varying levels of respect, where as you would use "Drumpf" like an insult to show you don't respect him.

You do realize that what Drumpf said was the exact logic that terrorists use in the first place, right?
What do you think terrorists were thinking when they wanted to bring down the twin towers?
"Don't kid yourself. These americans, they have hearts. They care about their family. We need to take out their families." is exactly what they were thinking. If you seriously want to defend what Drumpf said you literally need to admit that terrorist logic is A-OK.

this doesn't answer his question. regardless, if you support $12+ minimum wage you literally have to admit that inflation and a higher unemployment rate is A-OK

if you support free college you literally have to admit that increased taxes and lowered quality of education is A-OK

if you support the "fairness paycheck law" you literally have to admit that providing compensation for women instead of actually working towards ending any real discrimination is A-OK (effectively making you loveist against men)

I'm not sure which of Bernie's policies you support, so I picked a few. I'd elaborate on these, but I'm trying to make a point, not focus on the policies

[Pecon]

Except that $12+ minimum wage won't have any significant impact on large corporations. Walmart makes a profit of $14 billion a year, don't you think they could afford to pay their workers more?

Letting more people get college education doesn't make it not worthwhile. Have you read the numbers on how far behind the US is in educated people? This is just trying to catch up. (Also this is another thing that would be paid for with wall-street speculation tax)