Gleichschaltung?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-25-2017, 05:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think you can hand Johnson to Hillary.

That's why Bill had Monica and Monica had a stain on her dress. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-26-2017, 02:07 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: He said they will reimburse us but we will be paying for it initially. When Muir tried pinning him down on specifics he sounded like an un-polished politician attempting to sound like a real politician providing no answers.

Mexico has plainly said they won't pay for the wall. I guess Trump is gonna stick his tiny red white and blue fist down their throat and rupture their internal organs with democracy if they refuse. Cause we're Merica!

When Mexico plainly states they won't pay for our wall that's an alternative fact. They just don't know it, yet. 

[Dill]

(01-26-2017, 02:20 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Trump is going to accidentally make us weaker in the world. While in Trump world we are getting stronger.

Pulling out of NAFTA doesn't mean it crumbles it means they have a chance to modernize the deal and another country will reap the rewards left by the giant void of the USA pulling out. We live in a global society no matter how much Trump and all his anti-patriots want to try to resist it.

Other countries are going to feel the need to become more independent because America won't have their back. I hope our allies build up their militarily and defense systems making it a more balanced world while taking away a lot of the USA's power. Next time our ass backwards society elects another incompetent they will be more independent from our BS and able to stand up to him.  It sent way to many ripples across the world just because one nation failed to handle their obligation to democracy and elect a responsible and fit leader.

Eventually if we ever get out of this funk we would be able to cut our military budget and spend more on our own problems.

Save this post, Cage. You will need to remake these points in future threads on Trump's foreign policy.

70 years of diplomacy swirling down the drain.

[Dill]

(01-26-2017, 03:18 PM)Benton Wrote: Sure, it will allow him to say he's "making" them pay for it, but a big chunk of that money goes to Mexico because we've got a giant border and they don't have the resources to defend/patrol it for us. If we cut off that aide, I imagine one of the first things Mexico does is end their patrols along the border (because why should they give a crap if people go north and send money home).

I cannot think of a Trump policy which seems genuinely thought out and likely to produce a desired policy goal.

His primary audience seems to be people who don't know much about foreign policy but love the sound of authoritarian solutions--MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT!   TORTURE WORKS!  MILLIONS VOTED ILLEGALLY! A TOTAL BAN ON ALL MUSLIMS!    DEPORT THEM!

I am puzzled at the number of people who say "let's wait and see how he does." Might as well be saying "give hate a chance."

[Rotobeast]

(01-26-2017, 03:18 PM)Benton Wrote: My brother and his family go to Reynosa every year with their church to build houses for people who need them. It's a pretty violent city controlled by drug cartels. The people don't have any way of opposing them, so the cartels do what they want. It's a pretty rough place, and I can only see those people getting stronger going this direction as they'll have more money and more control over who comes and goes.


I assume he plans on "making them pay for it" by cutting off the $400ish million we  give them each year in economic and military aide. Which is a hugely dumb idea.

Sure, it will allow him to say he's "making" them pay for it, but a big chunk of that money goes to Mexico because we've got a giant border and they don't have the resources to defend/patrol it for us. If we cut off that aide, I imagine one of the first things Mexico does is end their patrols along the border (because why should they give a crap if people go north and send money home).

I guarantee that the cartels give kickbacks to the Mexican government.
Trump knows this and will use drones to knock out cartel production facilities and caravans.
I'd also wager he's tight with the big players in Mexican resort towns.
He's going to find a way to give the Mexican government the shaft.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-26-2017, 10:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I guarantee that the cartels give kickbacks to the Mexican government.
Trump knows this and will use drones to knock out cartel production facilities and caravans.
I'd also wager he's tight with the big players in Mexican resort towns.
He's going to find a way to give the Mexican government the shaft.

I see two problems with this course of action; Trump would need Mexico's permission to conduct cross border operations and I believe using military drones for law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus act.

[Dill]

(01-27-2017, 12:53 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I see two problems with this course of action; Trump would need Mexico's permission to conduct cross border operations and I believe using military drones for law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus act.

Aha, but you are missing all the positives, Oncemore.

Everytime Trump says this stuff, Talk radio goes into a frenzy of praise for how he is keeping his promises, and acting not just talking. He is "getting it done" and Libtards don't get it. If people just give hate a chance they'll see the results.

On the downside, though, the fantasy will go down in flames sometime in the near future as more and more world leaders refuse to cooperate and look for other options/markets/trade partners.

Trump and Bannon need to prepare a narrative which places coming failures on Obama. That will drag out the horrorshow for another year.

[Rotobeast]

(01-27-2017, 12:53 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I see two problems with this course of action; Trump would need Mexico's permission to conduct cross border operations and I believe using military drones for law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus act.

Oh, there will be problems.
The oaf won't worry about that, beforehand.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-26-2017, 02:20 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Trump is going to accidentally make us weaker in the world. While in Trump world we are getting stronger.

Pulling out of NAFTA doesn't mean it crumbles it means they have a chance to modernize the deal and another country will reap the rewards left by the giant void of the USA pulling out. We live in a global society no matter how much Trump and all his anti-patriots want to try to resist it.

Other countries are going to feel the need to become more independent because America won't have their back. I hope our allies build up their militarily and defense systems making it a more balanced world while taking away a lot of the USA's power. Next time our ass backwards society elects another incompetent they will be more independent from our BS and able to stand up to him.  It sent way to many ripples across the world just because one nation failed to handle their obligation to democracy and elect a responsible and fit leader.

Eventually if we ever get out of this funk we would be able to cut our military budget and spend more on our own problems.

I think that would be a really good thing.  

And c'mon on NAFTA.  The left has been bitching about that since day 1.  

[Benton]

(01-26-2017, 10:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I guarantee that the cartels give kickbacks to the Mexican government.
Trump knows this and will use drones to knock out cartel production facilities and caravans.
I'd also wager he's tight with the big players in Mexican resort towns.
He's going to find a way to give the Mexican government the shaft.

that could be taken as an act of war on Mexico.

I wouldn't be shocked if trump starts wwiii. But every prepper and Sci fi writer is going to be horribly disappointed when it's over the us bombing its main source of cheap labor on an effort to prove how much it appreciates the population whose jobs it gave up years ago.

[CageTheBengal]

(01-27-2017, 10:23 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think that would be a really good thing.  

And c'mon on NAFTA.  The left has been bitching about that since day 1.  

Agreed.

I'm fine with reducing our power in the world and letting our allies get stronger so USA doesn't hold so much of the burden. I think there is a right and a wrong way to go about that though. Trying to be a hard ass won't work, well it might but why are we going to encourage a country to be stronger and more independent only to have them pissed at us once they do? That's the key imo is how to make this happen without severing ties with allies.

It's a tricky situation that I'm not sure ether side has wanted to change at times. Other countries have room in their budget because USA has there back with their military might but on the flip-side I think we've been enjoying being big brother USA for a long time holding a lot of cards.

[Dill]

(01-27-2017, 12:44 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Agreed.

I'm fine with reducing our power in the world and letting our allies get stronger so USA doesn't hold so much of the burden. I think there is a right and a wrong way to go about that though. Trying to be a hard ass won't work, well it might but why are we going to encourage a country to be stronger and more independent only to have them pissed at us  once they do? That's the key imo is how to make this happen without severing ties with allies.

It's a tricky situation that I'm not sure ether side has wanted to change at times. Other countries have room in their budget because USA has there back with their military might but on the flip-side I think we've been enjoying being big brother USA for a long time holding a lot of cards.

That is going to irritate the realists. The US had many advantages from the "protections" it offered others, and much more control than anyone else of world markets and trade routes. I wonder if they are right--the reduction of US power and influence will mean more chaos, and room for bad actors.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-25-2017, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They very easily could have cost her Florida, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

See, this is my problem with it. Third party voters didn't cost Hillary anything. Hillary cost herself by not making herself a more appealing candidate to those third party voters.

People treat votes like they're something that belongs to the two main parties. "They very easily could have cost her"... they could have determined it, but they didn't cost her anything.

If Hillary spent less time focusing on Trump, and spent more time talking about issues (and visiting states that she thought she had in the bag), she probably would have easily won.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-27-2017, 12:53 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I see two problems with this course of action; Trump would need Mexico's permission to conduct cross border operations and I believe using military drones for law enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus act.

Like when Obama sent SEALS over the border to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan?

Like when Obama used drones to blow up US Citizens without a trial?



Not saying it's good, but Democrats spent the last 8 years making pretty much anything and everything Trump might do over the next 4 years, if not legal, at least clouded enough to not be outright illegal. It was a bit frightening then, and it's a bit frightening now. The only difference for most people is it's no longer "their" President doing it.

[CageTheBengal]

(01-28-2017, 01:02 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: See, this is my problem with it. Third party voters didn't cost Hillary anything. Hillary cost herself by not making herself a more appealing candidate to those third party voters.

People treat votes like they're something that belongs to the two main parties. "They very easily could have cost her"... they could have determined it, but they didn't cost her anything.

If Hillary spent less time focusing on Trump, and spent more time talking about issues (and visiting states that she thought she had in the bag), she probably would have easily won.

Here's the bottom line. If you didn't want Trump to be president Hillary was the only creature on this earth that could've prevented that from happening. All other emotions and thoughts are irrelevant if you truly disliked Trump and thought he was dangerous. 

[Dill]

(01-28-2017, 01:02 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: See, this is my problem with it. Third party voters didn't cost Hillary anything. Hillary cost herself by not making herself a more appealing candidate to those third party voters.

People treat votes like they're something that belongs to the two main parties. "They very easily could have cost her"... they could have determined it, but they didn't cost her anything.

If Hillary spent less time focusing on Trump, and spent more time talking about issues (and visiting states that she thought she had in the bag), she probably would have easily won.

I agree 3rd party voters did make much difference. But I am not sure what more Hillary could have done, except campaign more in PA and Michigan and Wisconsin. But the polls were telling her that firewall was secure. It made sense to concentrate on Florida and NC.

She thumped Trump in the debates while he looked immature and easily managed. Yet people didn't care about that. So what could she have said about issues that she didn't say?

Trump did so many things what would have killed any other politician--and yet people preferred him, and his vulgarity, to experience and competence.

I think Hillary's number one opponent was right wing news media, which were in play long before the election. They drove the faux Benghazi scandal which uncovered her emails. They circulated fake news and innuendo about corruption which reduced her supporters by just enough percentage points, while the same innuendo, and Trumps far worse actions, had little affect on the Republican base.

With the biggest economy and most powerful military in the world and rising employment, a critical mass of American voters wanted to make America great again and elected a demagogue ignorant of domestic and foreign policy to take them there.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-28-2017, 01:10 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Like when Obama sent SEALS over the border to kill Bin Laden in Pakistan?

Like when Obama used drones to blow up US Citizens without a trial?



Not saying it's good, but Democrats spent the last 8 years making pretty much anything and everything Trump might do over the next 4 years, if not legal, at least clouded enough to not be outright illegal. It was a bit frightening then, and it's a bit frightening now. The only difference for most people is it's no longer "their" President doing it.

We've had an agreement in place with Pakistan to conduct cross border operations since we agreed to give them F16s in 2006. Code name Peace Drive I. 

Those were combat operations, not law enforcement operations. Neither violates the Posse  Commitatis Act. 

Why didn't you bring up legal monkey business classifying the enemy as "unlawful combatants" so we can deny them due process and hold them indefinitely without charges or a trial? Or the enhanced interrogation programs?

PS I can't believe I forgot to mention we invaded Iraq IOT start a completely unnecessary war based upon lies. But, yeah it's all the Democrat's fault for whatever Trump does in the future. 

[Benton]

(01-28-2017, 01:19 AM)CageTheBengal Wrote: Here's the bottom line. If you didn't want Trump to be president Hillary was the only creature on this earth that could've prevented that from happening. All other emotions and thoughts are irrelevant if you truly disliked Trump and thought he was dangerous. 

what if you didn't want Hillary or trump?

[Dill]

(01-28-2017, 01:10 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Not saying it's good, but Democrats spent the last 8 years making pretty much anything and everything Trump might do over the next 4 years, if not legal, at least clouded enough to not be outright illegal. It was a bit frightening then, and it's a bit frightening now. The only difference for most people is it's no longer "their" President doing it.

20 years ago that might have been the only difference for most people.

But Trump is not just "their" version of Obama or Clinton--the lack of impulse control coupled with lack of foreign policy knowledge and personality dysfunction make the situation qualitatively different. Even Pence and Cruz don't represent the danger Trump does.

Even Republicans are realizing that now.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-28-2017, 01:52 AM)Benton Wrote: what if you didn't want Hillary or trump?

Exactly. Neither of them made themselves appealing enough to vote for. 

It isn't my fault for "costing" them anything, it is their fault for not being a better candidate. Votes are (or at least should be) earned, not obliged... because at the end of the day, I have to live with the knowledge I voted for that person, and I don't want them to just be the slightly less awful option.