If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)

[Liberty]

Richard Branson's lunch with Donald Trump:

 

https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/meeting-donald-trump

 

Some years ago, Mr Trump invited me to lunch for a one-to-one meeting at his apartment in Manhattan. We had not met before and I accepted. Even before the starters arrived he began telling me about how he had asked a number of people for help after his latest bankruptcy and how five of them were unwilling to help. He told me he was going to spend the rest of his life destroying these five people.

 

He didn’t speak about anything else and I found it very bizarre. I told him I didn’t think it was the best way of spending his life. I said it was going to eat him up, and do more damage to him than them. There must be more constructive ways to spend the rest of your life. (Hopefully my advice didn’t lead to him running for President!)

 

I was baffled why he had invited me to lunch solely to tell me this. For a moment, I even wondered if he was going to ask me for financial help. If he had, I would have become the sixth person on his list!

 

I left the lunch feeling disturbed and saddened by what I’d heard. There are a lot of frightening things about this election; not least that policy has been pushed so far down the agenda. What concerns me most, based upon my personal experiences with Donald Trump, is his vindictive streak, which could be so dangerous if he got into the White House. For somebody who is running to be the leader of the free world to be so wrapped up in himself, rather than concerned with global issues, is very worrying.

[LC]

That story is an example of my exact misgivings with Trump

[cwericb]

Ditto, and this seems typical of the man. When reading things like this I really have trouble following the reasoning of intelligent people who still support him.

[Liberty]

Don't know about you, but if I heard something like this about the CEO of one of my companies, I would sell.

 

I also wonder if Trump helps everyone who comes to him for financial help... Bet he doesn't. Clearly thinks he's special and above everyone else, so I'm sure he doesn't think a comparison can be made.

[arcube]

+1.

Don't know about you, but if I heard something like this about the CEO of over if my companies, I would sell.

 

I also wonder if Trump helps everyone who comes to him for financial help... But he does think he's special and above everyone else, so I'm sure he doesn't think that's comparable.

[Packer16]

The biggest issue here is they both are probably the worst both party's have to offer and somehow the system that gave us these losers needs adjustments.  When your best argument is the other guy/gal is crazy there is something wrong.  I am not sure if the winner will be winner for long as we will be seeing many impeachment attempts (probably with legitimacy).  I think if there was choice dump these losers & start again, it would win in a landslide.  I am going to spend my time & effort on something more fruitful then this disaster.

 

Packer

[arcube]

+1 Again. 

The biggest issue here is they both are probably the worst both party's have to offer and somehow the system that gave us these losers needs adjustments.  When your best argument is the other guy/gal is crazy there is something wrong.  I am not sure if the winner will be winner for long as we will be seeing many impeachment attempts (probably with legitimacy).  I think if there was choice dump these losers & start again, it would win in a landslide.  I am going to spend my time & effort on something more fruitful then this disaster.

 

Packer

[LC]

The biggest issue here is they both are probably the worst both party's have to offer and somehow the system that gave us these losers needs adjustments.  When your best argument is the other guy/gal is crazy there is something wrong.  I am not sure if the winner will be winner for long as we will be seeing many impeachment attempts (probably with legitimacy).  I think if there was choice dump these losers & start again, it would win in a landslide.  I am going to spend my time & effort on something more fruitful then this disaster.

 

Packer

 

So you'll be voting third party?

[Liberty]

Trump travels in time to debate George Bush and Ronald Reagan :

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/790233621806190592/video/1

[Liberty]

That's kind of a long list.

 

[rkbabang]

The biggest issue here is they both are probably the worst both party's have to offer and somehow the system that gave us these losers needs adjustments.  When your best argument is the other guy/gal is crazy there is something wrong.  I am not sure if the winner will be winner for long as we will be seeing many impeachment attempts (probably with legitimacy).  I think if there was choice dump these losers & start again, it would win in a landslide.  I am going to spend my time & effort on something more fruitful then this disaster.

 

Packer

 

+1.  I voted in every election from 92-08 and even though I always voted 3rd party, I always had one of the major party candidates in mind that I hoped would win.  Clinton in 1992, Dole in 1996, Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008, Romney in 2012 (I didn't vote at all, but I hoped he would win).  I really don't have a preference this time.  They are just both so awful in different ways.  I just can't imagine anyone going to the polls and voting for either one of them.  I really can't.

 

The most frightening, and sad, thing about this election is that someone is going to win.

[rkbabang]

If you look at the industry that has sprung up around death and destruction and you realize that most of the politicians are bought and paid for by it, it is overwhelming to think about.  It baffles me that most people just don't care.  Is it tribalism? Racism? Xenophobia? Or just plain old lack of empathy?

 

Talking about empathy. I am biased. But if Russia decides to invade Lithuania, I'd rather NATO retaliated. And I'd rather NATO kept retaliation options strong (which in your mind is new nuclear Cold War).

 

Yeah, my most emphatic choice would be that Russia woke up from living under nationalist dictator, became a modern democracy with less corruption and all Russians and the rest of the world lived in peace.

 

But that's not an option right now and it's unlikely to be an option the things are going for quite a while.

So my second best option is something that might lead to WW3.

 

OTOH, assume we disarm NATO and do nothing when Russia invades Lithuania. Don't you think that would lead to the same or even larger scale conflict later? I don't know. Maybe appeasing aggressors and hoping they will come to their minds at some point is the solution... especially if you're USA and don't care much that parts of Europe get trampled. Tough to say.

 

I think we are closer regarding Middle East: the issue there is that there are pretty much no good actors involved and IMO there are no solutions at this point. So probably no action is better than involvement. Even though it breaks my heart when people die there. And I'm sure some of the fighters/rebels/etc. feel that they are doing the right thing for better future of their families, citizens, countries.

 

Edit: BTW, most Lithuanians believe that NATO will do nothing if Russia invades. So looking from that side appeasement and no-WW3 is probably more likely no matter who gets elected in USA. Which may or may not comfort you.

 

Should someone have stopped the US when we invaded/bombed  Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Syria? Somalia? Pakistan? Yemen?

Why your empathy for Lithuanians, but not Iraqis?  Skin color? Religion? Politics (Hillary wants those other countries bombed, but doesn't want Lithuania bombed)?

 

Pretty selective empathy.  Are not they all humans?

 

I have nothing to do with who Russia invades, just as I have nothing to do with who some organized crime group murders, but the US kills people in my name with money taken from me.

 

What possible moral standing does the US have to tell any country that it shouldn't invade another?  "Do what we say not what we do?"  We are now the policemen of the world?    What kind of policeman murders whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants with impunity, yet tries to stop others from doing the same?  Oh wait, I guess that kind of is the American version of policing isn't it?

 

I might agree with you if the US kept its military at home without a single foreign base and no ships further than 100 miles from our coasts, that we might have some standing to tell other countries that they shouldn't be aggressive. But as it is, we are setting the example, and a bad one at that.  We just come off as hypocrites and murderous bullies.  Get your own house in order before telling others what they should do.

 

[Jurgis]

rkbabang, once you start claiming that US is "murderous bullies", there's nothing to discuss. Although I believe that US should not have been involved in some of ME conflicts because the outcome was rather predictably bad and because civilian population has suffered, IMO the motives have been always been noble. And therefore I won't condemn US for pretty much any recent military action. And if you don't understand US obligations to NATO, then again there's nothing to discuss. Have a good one.

[rkbabang]

the motives have been always been noble

 

Yeah, I guess that is where we disagree.

 

[Cardboard]

"the motives have been always been noble"

 

Do you really believe that?

 

IMO, it should be further corrected to: the motives have been almost always for the pursuit of American interest.

 

Cardboard

[rkbabang]

"the motives have been always been noble"

 

Do you really believe that?

 

IMO, it should be further corrected to: the motives have been almost always for the pursuit of American interest.

 

Cardboard

 

Yes.  If Russia invades Lithuania (note it hasn't happened yet) it will undoubtedly be to serve Russian interests.  This is not the same (or even close) to being equivalent with "noble".

 

If anyone has the view that the US and its allies are these noble shining white knights come to bring order to the world with their noble intentions while every other country are demons intent on evil, you might consider that you may have been influenced just a little bit by your county's propaganda.

 

The Pentagon Accounts for More Than Half of the Federal Government’s $1 Billion PR Budget

Meet The 2nd Largest PR Firm In The World: The U.S. Government

 

I'm sure if the US does go to war with Russia after Hillary is elected, most Americans will be properly "educated" by the media on what an evil nutcase Putin is and why he needs to be stopped, and they will support Hillary's actions 100%.  Support the troops!  God bless America.  USA, USA, USA!#1!!!

 

[Jurgis]

I'm sure if the US does go to war with Russia ..., most Americans will be properly "educated" by the media on what an evil nutcase Putin is and why he needs to be stopped

 

Since you haven't lived under Russian occupation for 20+ years, I'm gonna go with you and that rightwing poster being naive rather than me.

 

Putin is evil nutcase. And anyone believing otherwise is just someone living in their pink cuddly shell which is very far away from Russia. Or bought by Putin propaganda ... like certain presidential candidate. (Oh, noes, Russia does not have propaganda machine, only Hillary does... )

[rkbabang]

I'm sure if the US does go to war with Russia ..., most Americans will be properly "educated" by the media on what an evil nutcase Putin is and why he needs to be stopped

 

Since you haven't lived under Russian occupation for 20+ years, I'm gonna go with you and that rightwing poster being naive rather than me.

 

Putin is evil nutcase. And anyone believing otherwise is just someone living in their pink cuddly shell which is very far away from Russia. Or bought by Putin ... like certain presidential candidate.

 

I'm talking about foreign policy not domestic.  I am certainly glad that I do not live inside of Russia.  But who has slaughtered more people outside of their own countries in the last 8 years Putin or Obama?  It is easy to think of Obama and the US in general as being noble and good when you are comfortably living in your pink cuddly little shell which is very far away from Iraq, Afghanistan,  Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, or Yemen.

 

[Jurgis]

But who has slaughtered more people outside of their own countries in the last 8 years Putin or Obama?  It is easy to think of Obama and the US in general as being noble and good when you are comfortably living in your pink cuddly little shell which is very far away from Iraq, Afghanistan,  Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, or Yemen.

 

Care to provide stats? Please do count Ukraine, Georgia and Syria from Russian side.

 

But yeah, if I was living in a country run by a repressive regime, I would support USA invading my country to get rid of said regime. Even accounting for collateral damage. The real problem is not USA. The real problem is that the new regime is usually not much better and that most of damage comes from internal infighting.

 

 

[rkbabang]

But who has slaughtered more people outside of their own countries in the last 8 years Putin or Obama?  It is easy to think of Obama and the US in general as being noble and good when you are comfortably living in your pink cuddly little shell which is very far away from Iraq, Afghanistan,  Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, or Yemen.

 

Care to provide stats? Please do count Ukraine, Georgia and Syria from Russian side.

 

But yeah, if I was living in a country run by a repressive regime, I would support USA invading my country to get rid of said regime. Even accounting for collateral damage. The real problem is not USA. The real problem is that the new regime is usually not much better and that most of damage comes from internal infighting.

 

I don't have the stats, that wasn't a rhetorical question.  I don't know.  My point in asking is that the question can even be asked at all.  If the number on the Obama side is > 0 (which it is almost certainly in the thousands, even if less than Putin), he is a murderer and your tax money went to finance his war crimes.

 

I would never dream of trying to justify Putin's military actions outside of Russia the way you justify the US's actions.  "Collateral Damage" when talking about human lives is one of the most sickening terms I can imagine.  Again, these are human beings whose lives you are so callously dismissing.

 

And thinking that the US has any interest in "liberating" people from repressive regimes, who is the delusional one?  There is no such goal in any of the military actions at least in my lifetime.  The goal is to secure the flow of oil and to spend money on war.  Even if it means killing innocent people to cause blowback to have an excuse to spend even more.  War is the health of the state.  I don't think I am the naive one here.

 

Let me guess: They hate us because of our freedoms?

 

[rkbabang]

What is so tiring about these discussions is the tribalism involved.  If this was 2008 every left winger on this board would be agreeing with me about how awful Bush's wars are.  They simply can't entertain those views now that their team has had the Oval Office for 8 years.  If Trump were to win by some unfortunate miracle the lefties will go back to analysing every bomb that drops again. Which would be a good thing, don't get me wrong, I just wish their principals didn't change everytime the Oval Office changes sides.

[Jurgis]

I would never dream of trying to justify Putin's military actions outside of Russia the way you justify the US's actions.  "Collateral Damage" when talking about human lives is one of the most sickening terms I can imagine.  Again, these are human beings whose lives you are so callously dismissing.

 

So in your world it is better if a dictator kills thousands or millions of people and others should not intervene because they might kill some civilians during intervention? Interesting empathy... I'm pretty sure millions of Koreans and hundreds of thousands in Balkans would disagree with you.

 

Sure, it doesn't always work. Unfortunately. Welcome to real life.

[Jurgis]

What is so tiring about these discussions is the tribalism involved.  If this was 2008 every left winger on this board would be agreeing with me about how awful Bush's wars are.  They simply can't entertain those views now that their team has had the Oval Office for 8 years.  If Trump were to win by some unfortunate miracle the lefties will go back to analysing every bomb that drops again. Which would be a good thing, don't get me wrong, I just wish their principals didn't change everytime the Oval Office changes sides.

 

Oh, please. You don't even know the real left. Let me tell you a secret: all my real left friends completely agree with you on Obama/Hillary/Bush/etc. wars. I should welcome you and your C-buddy to the real left. We love you guys. Sometimes.

 

I never said I was real left. You just want to engage in tribalism and paint left with single brush, don't you?

[Cardboard]

"What is so tiring about these discussions is the tribalism involved.  If this was 2008 every left winger on this board would be agreeing with me about how awful Bush's wars are.  They simply can't entertain those views now that their team has had the Oval Office for 8 years.  If Trump were to win by some unfortunate miracle the lefties will go back to analysing every bomb that drops again. Which would be a good thing, don't get me wrong, I just wish their principals didn't change everytime the Oval Office changes sides."

 

+1.

 

This is like the Iraq war. Powell made a very convincing presentation that they had WMD's and we knew that Hussein was dangerous after having invaded other countries, killed his own people with chemical weapons and did a ton of atrocities to anyone who was opposed or seen as opposed to him. So invading got a lot of support along with the fear of more terrorism and their association with Hussein apparently possessing WMD's.

 

However, even a regular citizen like myself knew before the war that the country was divided into three religious groups who did not get along very well and that removing the dictator would create a messy power situation.

 

We now know that the decision to invade was a poor one and mainly due to faulty intelligence but, was there more to this? Did they really have faulty intelligence? Bush applying the Johnson strategy of Guns and Butter comes to mind.

 

Now years later, we have Obama and Clinton removing or trying to remove dictators in the Middle East (and I assume that the change of power in Kiev was part of their plan). And Libya and Syria turned out into a massive mess due again to Sunni, Shiite rivalry.

 

Do people ever learn anything or there are too many powerful individuals benefiting from such disasters?

 

Cardboard 

[rkbabang]

What is so tiring about these discussions is the tribalism involved.  If this was 2008 every left winger on this board would be agreeing with me about how awful Bush's wars are.  They simply can't entertain those views now that their team has had the Oval Office for 8 years.  If Trump were to win by some unfortunate miracle the lefties will go back to analysing every bomb that drops again. Which would be a good thing, don't get me wrong, I just wish their principals didn't change everytime the Oval Office changes sides.

 

Oh, please. You don't even know the real left. Let me tell you a secret: all my real left friends completely agree with you on Obama/Hillary/Bush/etc. wars.

 

I never said I was real left. You just want to engage in tribalism and paint left with single brush, don't you?

 

I have no doubt that there are a small group of hard core principle leftists in the United States who really are anti-war.  I am talking about the mainstream left, the Democratic Party mostly.  There are far fewer of what you call "real left"ists in the US than there are hard core libertarians (and that is saying something).