Poll

Will Trump get re-elected in 2020?

Yes
No

Author Topic: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD  (Read 2848076 times)

Damn are you telling me it's more profitable to sensationalize and lie about news than it is to faithfully report?
Wow, do we actually agree on sometehing?

I bring up the Six-Day war to draw comparisons to how decisive of a victory I believe it to be.
Again though, the aggressors lost against a much smaller nation. It's brown townogous to us attacking North Korea and them managing to repel our armies in six days. Like, going off what actually happened, it would be terrible if our invasion went like the Six-Day War.

This is mostly semantics at this point, since I get what you're trying to say. But the Six-Day War is actually a great example of why having a huge military advantage doesn't necessarily ensure everything will go well. We won't be able to destroy North Korea overnight, and scores more civilians will end up dying in the subsequent land-invasion.

I believe NK will develop WMDs at some point, albeit slowly. The question becomes "Will the regime collapse first or will they get ICBM tech first?"
Even if they do, they won't use them. Nobody is going to approve a nuclear strike knowing that the rest of the world will instantly wipe their country off the map.

The only downside of North Korea acquiring nukes is that it effectively prevents us from ever invading and installing a new regime, but we shouldn't do that anyway for reasons which you're already aware of.

I don't believe in American-lead regime changes, but perhaps allowing open elections after the regime is deposed and tried for war crimes might be a better alternative. Literally anyone they could elect would be better than Dennis Rodman's Pal.
Hey, we did it in Iraq. Second time's the charm?


Wow, do we actually agree on sometehing?
I'm gonna go ahead and ruin it and say this is evidence of the market always prioritizing profit over people, so long as their Valued Consumers stay alive enough to continue purchasing.

https://mic.com/articles/183457/the-new-york-times-just-leaked-a-climate-report-that-directly-contradicts-the-Annoying Orange-administration?utm_campaign=social&utm_medium=future&utm_source=policymicTBLR#.ndANl4TH0
“Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible for the observed climate changes in the industrial era,” the report reads in part. “There are no alternative explanations, and no natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed changes in climate.”

Damn I can't believe the Chinese conspiracy has tainted federal scientists now, too.

Hey, we did it in Iraq. Second time's the charm?
The Iraq situation is much more complicated than just the political side of things.

This is purely anecdotal, but a buddy of mine served in Iraq and one of his jobs involved working as a sniper/doing reconnaissance to provide the local police with intelligence.

Again, this is anecdotal, but I trust his perception of the following:

Iraq is a mess because the people supposed to be keeping the peace (local police/military) and fighting CIA are just about the worst possible for the job.

1. They're frequently lazy/cowardly and will lay down their weapons and run away/hide at the first sight of actual danger. They just want to get paid and go home, not to risk life/limb fighting CIA/other jihadi groups. Of course CIA will then often come by and pick up abandoned weapons and even vehicles.

2. They are often unable to follow simple directions due to issues with comprehension or interpretation. My buddy has a story about how he had to direct the police to enter the third house along a street, and the police were unable to understand his direction and all he could do was watch through his scope as they kicked down the nearest door and ran in. The person of interest they were supposed to arrest ended up getting away by running out a back door upon hearing the commotion. Either they couldn't count to 3, weren't listening carefully, or likely both.

3. Some will use opiates, even while on duty, leading to a general inability to perform the required tasks. Being high as stuff on what is essentially heroin isn't conducive to successful military operations.

Completely disregarding the political side of the Iraq problem (which admittedly is huge) the Iraqi police and army are so ridiculously cowardly and incompetent that they are completely ineffective at deterring jihadis from recruiting, training, and carrying out attacks.

It's about Afghanistan, but there's a fairly interesting documentary from Vice (blegh) called "This is What Winning Looks Like. It illustrates very similar problems to the situation in Iraq within the Afghan security forces. At one point, the Afghan forces kidnap three men to "get revenge" for a prior kidnapping by terrorists in some sort of poor attempt at a ransom/hostage exchange. They brick the hostages into a sweltering closet-sized room, denying them food and water and any sort of ability to access a bathroom. I'll admit I laughed at the "Rambo" guy carrying the machine gun running into the middle of the field firing blindly at the treeline where the enemy supposedly was, however.

It's just a clown fiesta on so many levels.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 10:29:58 PM by Cappytaino »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/opinion/womens-march-progressives-hate.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=keywee&mccr=domdesk&kwp_0=486334&kwp_4=1753586&kwp_1=748932

This is an extremely fascinating opinion piece about prominent members of left-wing social movements and some of their unaddressed hypocrisies. Mainly the activists who decry Annoying Orangeian bigotry but also support anti-semitism, authoritarian dictators, and cop-killers.

I'm obviously not posting this to make any blanket statement about liberals, feminists, or social activists (that much should be evident if you've ever read anything I've posted here). But I think people do have the personal responsibility to point out when members of their own creed are being bad people.

3. Some will use opiates, even while on duty, leading to a general inability to perform the required tasks. Being high as stuff on what is essentially heroin isn't conducive to successful military operations.
is there any proof of this besides the fact that they're probably taking morphine? if it is morphine then it's probably somewhat normal to be taking it, i wouldn't say in the field but certainly at some sort of reserves base

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/opinion/womens-march-progressives-hate.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=keywee&mccr=domdesk&kwp_0=486334&kwp_4=1753586&kwp_1=748932

This is an extremely fascinating opinion piece about prominent members of left-wing social movements and some of their unaddressed hypocrisies. Mainly the activists who decry Annoying Orangeian bigotry but also support anti-semitism, authoritarian dictators, and cop-killers.

I'm obviously not posting this to make any blanket statement about liberals, feminists, or social activists (that much should be evident if you've ever read anything I've posted here). But I think people do have the personal responsibility to point out when members of their own creed are being bad people.
Liberals rarely care about actual politics, because they are outside of the group being affected by harmful policies. They just jump on the "loving drumpf" train because it makes them look cool.

Liberals rarely care about actual politics, because they are outside of the group being affected by harmful policies. They just jump on the "loving drumpf" train because it makes them look cool.
i dont think you've seen any actual liberals outside of the BLF

or the liberals you've seen/met are all alt-left/sjw type libs...

The alt left isn't a thing

The alt left isn't a thing
what does alt- stand for then i genuinely do not know

i thought it just meant the more extreme people on that side of politics, in this case like people in peta or something

i dont think you've seen any actual liberals outside of the BLF
or the liberals you've seen/met are all alt-left/sjw type libs...
Liberalism in america is a group mostly comprised of centrists/centrist conservatives and people who otherwise like to complain without committing to any actual policy changes, or anything outside of the status quo for that matter.

what does alt- stand for then i genuinely do not know

i thought it just meant the more extreme people on that side of politics, in this case like people in peta or something
the alt in alt right just means that it's still right-wing, but an extreme alternative to normal conservative or rightist views

Liberalism in america is a group mostly comprised of centrists/centrist conservatives and people who otherwise like to complain without committing to any actual policy changes, or anything outside of the status quo for that matter.
how many liberals have you seen in real life? seems like you're basing opinions off of the loud minority of the people you see on the internet.

how many liberals have you seen in real life? seems like you're basing opinions off of the loud minority of the people you see on the internet.
in this case he's really not. think about it, most all of the presidential candidates this year were pretty far into the upper right quadrant of the axis, so a really liberal candidate would be a lot closer to the center
people actually liberal are the ones that go out and vocalize it