Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[YoUDeeMan]

I've asked you to post concrete reasons why you believe they are a threat...and you continue to ignore that request.

I do think I've posted that Russia has that nuclear arsenal it has. Otherwise, here are some other takes on the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opini ... .html?_r=0

JFC, JSO....do you read your own shit?

"Deterring Russia is essential. But this initiative seems like a reversion back to what the Pentagon has traditionally done — prepare to fight big wars with ever more costly weapons against adversaries like Russia. Threats from the Islamic State and other terrorist groups are messier and harder to predict. America must be able to confront both, but it is unclear that Mr. Carter’s plan gets the balance right."

The article you posted, in addition to the above, state that NATO, led by the US, is putting 5,000 troops on Russia's border...IN VIOLATION OF OUR TREATIES.

Of course, Obama, says that it isn't a violation because we are rotating the troops, so it isn't a permanent force.

Russia isn't the threat...WE ARE. The fact you can't understand that is troubling, except then I remember that you are a backwoods guy raise in Louisiana school system.

OBAMA is pressing the Pentagon to say Russia is the biggest threat. The Pentagon isn't coming up with that on their own. They want to spend THREE TIMES the amount of money we are spending now in the area. Military industrial complex, much?

You are out of your league here, JSO. Stick to fishing. Of course, maybe that is what you are doing.

[YoUDeeMan]

The Forbes article?



Better read that again, JSO.

Nukes? As a response to Western aggression.

Man, you are failing all over the place.

The rest? Again, Western aggression.

Oh, 2015.

[YoUDeeMan]

The Free Thought article?

You didn't really read that one, did you?

Of course not. OK...now you really are trolling.

JSO....biggest troll there is.

[DSUrocks07]

And BTW you have to really, really have your head in the sand at this point to not realize that the Russians want to see Trump in the White House instead of Clinton. Whatever the reasons may be, it's clear that that's the case. If you don't accept that you're just in denial.

Now, you may be fine with that. But it's absurd at this point to deny that it's the case.

I'll tell you why Putin wants Trump in the WH


because he knows Trump isn't going to be up his ass over things we should not be involved in in the first place. Trump won't try to overthrow Assad and he won't challenge the Russian influence in the Levant - Hillary will - and that entire place has exactly ZERO strategic significance for us

it is as you said - the islamists there arent a threat- but the woman you are shilling for will not only continue to shed blood and treasure over there but she will also continue to be embarrassed by Sergey Lavrov just as Obama was- because it is the statist Democrats (thy name is Hillary) who will continue to insist that we must place anarchic islamist power vacuums over stable dictatorships in the name of "democracy"

I dont see Trump giving two shits about that

what ought to bother you about Trump instead is the fact that he is a fiscal liberal- closer to Bernie Sanders than to Clinton. He's a doctrinaire high tariff protectionist. In light of all this, if you were intellectually honest youd be voting Gary Johnson




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JSO McCarthy over there...



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

The point, Cluck, is that the people responsible for defending the United States consider Russia to be the biggest threat. You can believe some people writing comments critical of their conclusion while describing it. Or you can believe them.

And you can think this is of no concern (Forbes article):

A nuclear arsenal on hair trigger. Between the two of them, Russia and America control over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. However, Moscow is far more dependent on its nuclear arsenal for security, because it cannot afford to keep up with U.S. investments in new warfighting technology. So Russian military doctrine states that it might be necessary to use nuclear weapons to combat conventional attacks from the West. Many Russians think that attacks on their country are a real possibility, and that their nuclear deterrent — which consists mainly of silo-based missiles in known locations — might have to be launched quickly to escape a preemptive strike. Moscow staged a major nuclear exercise during last year’s Ukraine crisis in which it assumed missiles would have to be launched fast on warning of a Western attack. A senior Russian officer has stated that 96% of the strategic rocket force can be launched within minutes.

It's not like it could be a problem if they decide they need to launch because they think there might be a preemptive strike. Not at all. "A nuclear arsenal on hair trigger." Why, WHO would be concerned about THAT? Of COURSE Islamist road side bombs are of WAY more concern!

[DSUrocks07]

[youtube]http://youtu.be/yRLHa4Njhn4[/youtube]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Good news.

Would have been opposite ruling if Scalia was alive.

The Supreme Court denied a request Wednesday from North Carolina to allow provisions of its controversial voting rights law to go back into effect.

In a 4-4 split, justices left undisturbed a lower court opinion that struck down the law.
The Supreme Court's order means provisions of the law -- concerning a tightening in voter ID requirements, cutbacks on early voting and the preregistration of 16-year-olds -- will remain off the books for November's election.

The court's order is a major victory for challengers to the law, including civil rights groups and the Department of Justice, which argued that it had a disparate impact on minority voters. In July, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that provisions of the law targeted "African-Americans with almost surgical precision."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/politics/ ... index.html

[YoUDeeMan]

The point, Cluck, is that the people responsible for defending the United States consider Russia to be the biggest threat. You can believe some people writing comments critical of their conclusion while describing it. Or you can believe them.

And you can think this is of no concern (Forbes article):

A nuclear arsenal on hair trigger. Between the two of them, Russia and America control over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. However, Moscow is far more dependent on its nuclear arsenal for security, because it cannot afford to keep up with U.S. investments in new warfighting technology. So Russian military doctrine states that it might be necessary to use nuclear weapons to combat conventional attacks from the West. Many Russians think that attacks on their country are a real possibility, and that their nuclear deterrent — which consists mainly of silo-based missiles in known locations — might have to be launched quickly to escape a preemptive strike. Moscow staged a major nuclear exercise during last year’s Ukraine crisis in which it assumed missiles would have to be launched fast on warning of a Western attack. A senior Russian officer has stated that 96% of the strategic rocket force can be launched within minutes.

It's not like it could be a problem if they decide they need to launch because they think there might be a preemptive strike. Not at all. "A nuclear arsenal on hair trigger." Why, WHO would be concerned about THAT? Of COURSE Islamist road side bombs are of WAY more concern!

Way to go, Trollman!

No, the point is that you took an article and made up your own fear.

And, you forgot this one quote...and it is rather important:

"So Russian military doctrine states that it might be necessary to use nuclear weapons to combat conventional attacks from the West."


JSO IQ quiz question:

How many American lives have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

Bonus question: how many lives world wide have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?




Nuclear attack...

Next you will be telling me that Lex Luther will break the San Andreas Fault.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO IQ quiz question:

How many American lives have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

Bonus question: how many lives world wide have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

When you look at risk, it's the probability that something will happen times the probability that a randomly selected individual will die if it happens.

Here's a question for you: Which of the two does our military consider to be the greater threat?

I think you know the answer.

Right now, Islamic extremists do not constitute an "existential" threat to the United States. They are an irritant. A pest. Russia is an existential threat. It's a way more serious threat to our actual existence.

This conversation reminds me of a probability calculation I once read during the height of the AIDS crisis. It was that the probability that you will die because an asteroid hits the Earth is greater than the probability that you will die of AIDS.

Why is that? After all, lots of people have died of AIDS and nobody's ever died of an asteroid strike?

It's because if an asteroid of a certain size or larger hits the Earth it will kill all of us. And there actually is a certain probability that an asteroid of a certain size or larger will indeed hit the Earth. That's the way it works.

[kalm]

JSO IQ quiz question:

How many American lives have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

Bonus question: how many lives world wide have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

When you look at risk, it's the probability that something will happen times the probability that a randomly selected individual will die if it happens.

Here's a question for you: Which of the two does our military consider to be the greater threat?

I think you know the answer.

Right now, Islamic extremists do not constitute an "existential" threat to the United States. They are an irritant. A pest. Russia is an existential threat. It's a way more serious threat to our actual existence.

This conversation reminds me of a probability calculation I once read during the height of the AIDS crisis. It was that the probability that you will die because an asteroid hits the Earth is greater than the probability that you will die of AIDS.

Why is that? After all, lots of people have died of AIDS and nobody's ever died of an asteroid strike?

It's because if an asteroid of a certain size or larger hits the Earth it will kill all of us. And there actually is a certain probability that an asteroid of a certain size or larger will indeed hit the Earth. That's the way it works.

Is there a time frame on "existential threats?" Were existential threats the argument to begin with?

The military has been spending a lot of time preparing for the affects of climate change too. It's not an immediate threat but it could trigger some nasty shit.

[CID1990]

JSO IQ quiz question:

How many American lives have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

Bonus question: how many lives world wide have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

When you look at risk, it's the probability that something will happen times the probability that a randomly selected individual will die if it happens.

Here's a question for you: Which of the two does our military consider to be the greater threat?

I think you know the answer.

Right now, Islamic extremists do not constitute an "existential" threat to the United States. They are an irritant. A pest. Russia is an existential threat. It's a way more serious threat to our actual existence.

This conversation reminds me of a probability calculation I once read during the height of the AIDS crisis. It was that the probability that you will die because an asteroid hits the Earth is greater than the probability that you will die of AIDS.

Why is that? After all, lots of people have died of AIDS and nobody's ever died of an asteroid strike?

It's because if an asteroid of a certain size or larger hits the Earth it will kill all of us. And there actually is a certain probability that an asteroid of a certain size or larger will indeed hit the Earth. That's the way it works.

Obama and Hillary disagree with you. Russia is not our geopolitical adversary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DSUrocks07]

When you look at risk, it's the probability that something will happen times the probability that a randomly selected individual will die if it happens.

Here's a question for you: Which of the two does our military consider to be the greater threat?

I think you know the answer.

Right now, Islamic extremists do not constitute an "existential" threat to the United States. They are an irritant. A pest. Russia is an existential threat. It's a way more serious threat to our actual existence.

This conversation reminds me of a probability calculation I once read during the height of the AIDS crisis. It was that the probability that you will die because an asteroid hits the Earth is greater than the probability that you will die of AIDS.

Why is that? After all, lots of people have died of AIDS and nobody's ever died of an asteroid strike?

It's because if an asteroid of a certain size or larger hits the Earth it will kill all of us. And there actually is a certain probability that an asteroid of a certain size or larger will indeed hit the Earth. That's the way it works.

Obama and Hillary disagree with you. Russia is not our geopolitical adversary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To piggyback on your point.

Militarily, the US should be prepared for all threats, you know that whole "both foreign and domestic" thing.

But diplomatically? Why in the bluest of blue hells would someone think that when you outclass another rival to the point where the only counter to you is nuclear, that you would INTENTIONALLY ANTAGONIZE that rival?

People like JSO McCarthy believe that we should, when we SHOULD be more concerned about nations with little to nothing to lose if they decided to strike at "the Great Satan" in the name of Islam, or if theyre just a bunch of psychotic fucktards.

Why would Putin risk nuclear war and lose everything in such a conflict?

We call Putin a "dictator" but Ergodan "a dear friend", we demand the leader of a sovereign nation step down in the name of "democracy and freedom", but downplay the vote of a group of people to join another nation willingly.

Everything about Obama's foreign policy positions, Hillary has promised to continue, she cleared stated that she's running as "Obama's third term". So I guess more Republicans dont have as big a problem with Obama as they would have us believe.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[YoUDeeMan]

JSO IQ quiz question:

How many American lives have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

Bonus question: how many lives world wide have been lost to radical Islam versus a nuclear attack?

When you look at risk, it's the probability that something will happen times the probability that a randomly selected individual will die if it happens.

Here's a question for you: Which of the two does our military consider to be the greater threat?

I think you know the answer.

Right now, Islamic extremists do not constitute an "existential" threat to the United States. They are an irritant. A pest. Russia is an existential threat. It's a way more serious threat to our actual existence.

This conversation reminds me of a probability calculation I once read during the height of the AIDS crisis. It was that the probability that you will die because an asteroid hits the Earth is greater than the probability that you will die of AIDS.

Why is that? After all, lots of people have died of AIDS and nobody's ever died of an asteroid strike?

It's because if an asteroid of a certain size or larger hits the Earth it will kill all of us. And there actually is a certain probability that an asteroid of a certain size or larger will indeed hit the Earth. That's the way it works.

If I say, "Fvck Allah" to a large group of radical Islamists armed with knives, or say the same thing to a large group of skinheads armed with guns, which group is the bigger threat to me?

[CID1990]

No worries

President Clinton will just send them an EVEN BIGGER reset button and then we'll all slob each others knobs in friendship


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Obama and Hillary disagree with you. Russia is not our geopolitical adversary.

If they disagree with the proposition that Russia is our biggest threat they disagree with our military. The thing about the military assessed that Russia is our biggest threat is not debatable. It was very publicly done and widely reported.

It's also happened more than once. Here is an article from July 2015 reporting Joseph Dunford as saying it during Joint Chief confirmation hearings:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/ ... st-threat/

Here's a November 2015 article reporting Army Chief of Staff Mark Miley saying it:

https://www.army.mil/article/158386/mil ... reat_to_us

Here's a February, 2016, article reporting that Ashton Carter said it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opini ... ussia.html

If y'all want to disagree with what our military says military, fine. But it's what our military says.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iQR8zxhJbQ[/youtube]

[Ivytalk]

Obama and Hillary disagree with you. Russia is not our geopolitical adversary.

If they disagree with the proposition that Russia is our biggest threat they disagree with our military. The thing about the military assessed that Russia is our biggest threat is not debatable. It was very publicly done and widely reported.

It's also happened more than once. Here is an article from July 2015 reporting Joseph Dunford as saying it during Joint Chief confirmation hearings:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/ ... st-threat/

Here's a November 2015 article reporting Army Chief of Staff Mark Miley saying it:

https://www.army.mil/article/158386/mil ... reat_to_us

Here's a February, 2016, article reporting that Ashton Carter said it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opini ... ussia.html

If y'all want to disagree with what our military says military, fine. But it's what our military says.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iQR8zxhJbQ[/youtube]

John, you just can't recognize when it hits you in the face, and CID is a master from the international relations perspective. Obama screwed up the Russia-US relationship, and so will your gal Hildabeast.

And speaking of Trump -- as you do ad nauseam- we have generations of Trumps in politics yet to come! Don Junior, Eric, and Ivanka. Who needs Bushes or Kennedys? Another dynasty right here! 'Murica!

[SeattleGriz]

No worries

President Clinton will just send them an EVEN BIGGER reset button and then we'll all slob each others knobs in friendship


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. This time she will mean it. No overcharging of anything!

[kalm]

'Yeah kid...sorry about your hands and eyesight and all that, but I really need Henry's endorsement!'





https://theintercept.com/2016/09/03/hil ... s-victims/

Que JSO to point out there's no real causal relationship or observational connection here.

[CAA Flagship]

No worries

President Clinton will just send them an EVEN BIGGER reset button and then we'll all slob each others knobs in friendship


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

No worries

President Clinton will just send them an EVEN BIGGER reset button and then we'll all slob each others knobs in friendship


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Ha! It is her clitorski! Da? Nyet?"

[Ibanez]

When you look at risk, it's the probability that something will happen times the probability that a randomly selected individual will die if it happens.

Here's a question for you: Which of the two does our military consider to be the greater threat?

I think you know the answer.

Right now, Islamic extremists do not constitute an "existential" threat to the United States. They are an irritant. A pest. Russia is an existential threat. It's a way more serious threat to our actual existence.

This conversation reminds me of a probability calculation I once read during the height of the AIDS crisis. It was that the probability that you will die because an asteroid hits the Earth is greater than the probability that you will die of AIDS.

Why is that? After all, lots of people have died of AIDS and nobody's ever died of an asteroid strike?

It's because if an asteroid of a certain size or larger hits the Earth it will kill all of us. And there actually is a certain probability that an asteroid of a certain size or larger will indeed hit the Earth. That's the way it works.

Obama and Hillary disagree with you. Russia is not our geopolitical adversary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1980 called, they want their foreign policy back.

[CID1990]

Obama and Hillary disagree with you. Russia is not our geopolitical adversary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1980 called, they want their foreign policy back.

I will use that quote forever.

It sums up the Obama policy in one neat package.

Also ironic because the relationship is what it is BECAUSE of that policy. JSO would like to see us continue to double down on it.

but but but military leaders say Russia is the enemy

DUH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

No worries

President Clinton will just send them an EVEN BIGGER reset button and then we'll all slob each others knobs in friendship


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't like Lavrov because... well, he's an adversary. But I respect the hell out of him. He is an old-time diplomatic master... right up there with Dean Acheson. I can only imagine one caption for this photo-

"Just smile and laugh... smile and laugh... then let's eat this amateur for breakfast."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

If they disagree with the proposition that Russia is our biggest threat they disagree with our military. The thing about the military assessed that Russia is our biggest threat is not debatable. It was very publicly done and widely reported.

It's also happened more than once. Here is an article from July 2015 reporting Joseph Dunford as saying it during Joint Chief confirmation hearings:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/ ... st-threat/

Here's a November 2015 article reporting Army Chief of Staff Mark Miley saying it:

https://www.army.mil/article/158386/mil ... reat_to_us

Here's a February, 2016, article reporting that Ashton Carter said it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/opini ... ussia.html

If y'all want to disagree with what our military says military, fine. But it's what our military says.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iQR8zxhJbQ[/youtube]

John, you just can't recognize when it hits you in the face, and CID is a master from the international relations perspective. Obama screwed up the Russia-US relationship, and so will your gal Hildabeast.

And speaking of Trump -- as you do ad nauseam- we have generations of Trumps in politics yet to come! Don Junior, Eric, and Ivanka. Who needs Bushes or Kennedys? Another dynasty right here! 'Murica!

Dude I'm not a master... not even close. I'm an amateur observer at best.

I just use common sense, and I study history. The Russian psyche is one of the most academically studied geopolitical phenomena in the world. It is pretty much foreign policy malfeasance not to know and understand them in the post-Soviet context intimately - especially Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Trump is reaching out to the black community. Don't know how much it will.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... date-hope/