Ukraine flag Armor Games stands with Ukraine Ukraine flag
If you’d like to help, please consider giving to Ukraine Crisis Fund

ForumsWEPRCan we try to find some positivity? (Current American Political Landscape)

54 20846
Unbl
offline
Unbl
22 posts
Baron

I am a Donald Trump supporter, but the hatred and name calling from both major political parties and candidates was something I personally hoped would come to pass regardless of the result of the election. Unfortunately, it seems that we are still as divided as before the current president was announced. This saddens me, because even though Americans are very discontent with one another, at the end of the day, we are still supposed to all be on the same side. At this point, I just wish we could all at least settle for the common ground of simply being Americans. Any and all thoughts are welcome.

  • 54 Replies
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Hahiha


I could say that 'The land was Palestinian even before the Jews were settled there.' This kind of argumentation is precisely why this conflict is ever ongoing.

Precisely. But, vae victis, woe to the conquered. The Palestinians will have to deal with that.

Also, the ongoing conflict is the result of Britain's division of the Province of Palestine into Palestine and Israel. Blame the Brits!


According to international law.

Well, we are a permanent member of UN. We can do what we want.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

Precisely. But, vae victis, woe to the conquered. The Palestinians will have to deal with that.

There's also the relatively recent issue of Israel increasingly ousting Palestinians with illegal settlements and other means. And I'm not speaking about the retributions to the fundamentalist Hamas' rockets or the occasional knifing. I mean actual Palestinian population being ousted from their homes and blocked off with walls and military patrols. Trump's actions support such ignoble strategies.

Also, the ongoing conflict is the result of Britain's division of the Province of Palestine into Palestine and Israel. Blame the Brits!

That might indeed not have been the smartest solution, but at least they were trying to find a solution. Trump proposes no solution; all he does is bluntly force through Pence's Christian Zionism, as the good showman and puppet that he is.

Well, we are a permanent member of UN. We can do what we want.

What? I don't... what.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

Well, we are a permanent member of UN. We can do what we want.

You do realize that's not how this works right?

You can do what you want according to whom? There are laws in place, laws you have to respect as well.

Precisely. But, vae victis, woe to the conquered. The Palestinians will have to deal with that.

Really? "They are stronger and they are conquering the weak and the weak will have to deal with it?" Is it really all that you see in humanity? That "the strong shall eat the weak and that's fine because that's the way life works?"

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

The same liberals who want to destroy our country are trying to edge us to animosity with Russia.
Oh, I see. You're referring to the make-believe "liberals" that are just mindless goons with no motives except maximizing destruction and death; the ones that clearly don't exist outside the fairy tales of alt-right hatemongers. Yes, definitely.

Russia is the only hope we have of surviving a war with Communist China, we wouldn't hold out against China and Russia combined. In worsening our relations with Russia, the liberals are hoping to create a war.
1 China isn't communist. It's a capitalist oligarchy.
2 China is not an enemy of the US, and would be extremely reluctant to cut ties with it due to the amount of money it's put into the US economy.
3 The US does not need Russia in any way. For some odd reason, you're conflating neutrality with a war on two fronts.
4 Most liberals in the actual world have enough sense not to do anything with the US-Russia relationship. The same cannot be said of Trump.

England, our "great ally" seems to be stirring up trouble for us. One of their spies was conveniently poisoned, just in time to blame it on the Russians.
See, you're just trying to make a conspiracy out of something that has no reason to be a conspiracy. Spies don't need extra reasons to be assassinated.

Winston Churchill "the hero" instigated war with Germany, playing off France, the Soviets, and America. The Polish were about to cede the Danzig Straight to Germany - effectively preventing war - when the Brits issued their war guarantee.
Uh, no. He didn't. Also, Britain entered the war with Germany (as did France and Australia, all in accordance with their treaty with Poland) years before the US did.

The British are just too happy to play off two countries against one another, and sit back to watch the show.
Why, of course! That must be why they never, ever did anything in that war, and suffered practically no casualties. Everything makes sense now.

[...] with Clinton we would be at war.
No, in fact, you wouldn't. Hilary is no genius, but she clearly knows better than to just start warring with other countries for the lulz.

The Iranian atomic deal did nothing for the United States. We were basically paying them millions of dollars not to do research, and we cannot even inspect to see if the agreement is
being followed. Basically, we are funding their secred research facilities that we may not inspect.
This is just ignorant. The IAEA does regular inspections and those millions of dollars were Iran's own money that was being held in international banks.

Korea is desperate: they cannot survive under the economic sanctions any longer.
Actually North Korea has an uncommonly independent and self-sustaining economy, which is exactly why most sanctions against them have met with little or no success.

I am an American. Americans don't bribe.
But, vae victis, woe to the conquered.
Well, we are a permanent member of UN. We can do what we want.
WARNING: Ability to take seriously has hit Critical Low.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Fishpreferred


1 China isn't communist. It's a capitalist oligarchy.
2 China is not an enemy of the US, and would be extremely reluctant to cut ties with it due to the amount of money it's put into the US economy.C
3 The US does not need Russia in any way. For some odd reason, you're conflating neutrality with a war on two fronts.
4 Most liberals in the actual world have enough sense not to do anything with the US-Russia relationship. The same cannot be said of Trump.

I would say many things to this. First, "capitalist oligarchy" is just another mask for the Communists to hide behind. Their government is nothing different from what they had years ago.
Second, China is actively putting our factories out of business, that is not what a friendly nation does. Third, the US needs Russia if it is to confront the blatant threat that China together with its puppet North Korea poses. Fourt, most liberals are too blind to understand that Russia is a strategic ally for the United States, and it is only with their help that we can secure world stability.


Uh, no. He didn't.

Read this, and preferrably buy the book.


Why, of course! That must be why they never, ever did anything in that war, and suffered practically no casualties. Everything makes sense now.

Britain started a very humble nation, but worked its way up the ladder - a nation of social climbers - siding with the second most powerful country in Europe and fighting against the most powerful, until it reigned supreme. It did this in the Hundred Years War, the Great Northern War, the War of Spanish Succession - where Britain tried to take Spain, which was France's longtime ally -, the War of Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War, etc. Britain has been a climber ever since they conquered Scotland. In World War Two, Britain bit off too much for her plate and suffered heartburn.


Hilary is no genius

All too true.


but she clearly knows better than to just start warring with other countries for the lulz.

Are you implying that our President is looking for a war?


The IAEA does regular inspections and those millions of dollars were Iran's own money that was being held in international banks.

What? Read more upon this subject: the inspections were pre-scheduled and most of that money was ours.


most sanctions against them have met with little or no success

What? Read this.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

I would say many things to this. First, "capitalist oligarchy" is just another mask for the Communists to hide behind. Their government is nothing different from what they had years ago.
In other words, you have no understanding of what communism is. Here, let me help you with that:
A communist society is one that regards all people as equals, and rejects personal wealth in favour of shared work and shared resources. Typical characteristics of communism include having no economy, no corporate entities, no centralized authority, and very little unemployment. If you're wondering why you have never heard of any such country, that's because they typically had no economy, no centralised authority, and were conquered by the first totalitarian monarchy to come by.
Therefore, China is not communist.

Second, China is actively putting our factories out of business, that is not what a friendly nation does.
1 Cornering the market in international trade is not an act of war.
2 It also isn't what a communist nation does.

Third, the US needs Russia if it is to confront the blatant threat that China together with its puppet North Korea poses. Fourt, most liberals are too blind to understand that Russia is a strategic ally for the United States, and it is only with their help that we can secure world stability.
I like how you rephrased your initial claim to make it look like a defense for itself. Now, if you had an actual basis for this claim ...

Read this, and preferrably buy the book.
"Buchanan argues that World War II could have been avoided if the Treaty of Versailles had not been so harsh towards Germany."
So, not anything to do with Churchill.
"[...] the attempt by German Chancellor Heinrich Brüning to found an Austro-German customs union in March 1931 could have prevented Hitler from coming to power."
Still nothing to do with Churchill.
"[...] he maintains that Britain should have just allowed Germany and the Soviet Union to destroy each other and that Britain should have meanwhile awaited the course of events and rearmed fast enough to be able to fight if necessary."
No Churchill, and arguing that it would have been better if Britain had played off two countries against one another, and sat back to watch the show.
"[...] Buchanan argues that the British "guarantee" of Polish independence in March 1939 was a deliberate ploy on the part of its Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax, to cause a war with Germany in 1939."
Here we go. So, we have a source for somebody doing that; just, y'know, not Churchill.

Britain started a very humble nation, but worked its way up the ladder - a nation of social climbers - siding with the second most powerful country in Europe and fighting against the most powerful, until it reigned supreme. It did this in the Hundred Years War, the Great Northern War, the War of Spanish Succession - where Britain tried to take Spain, which was France's longtime ally -, the War of Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War, etc. Britain has been a climber ever since they conquered Scotland. In World War Two, Britain bit off too much for her plate and suffered heartburn.
So?

Are you implying that our President is looking for a war?
No. Wars aren't generally profitable. Any war he starts would have to be a product of poor diplomacy and general incompetence, so all in all, pretty decent odds.

What? Read more upon this subject: the inspections were pre-scheduled and most of that money was ours.
What a nice bare assertion you have there.

What? Read this.
Oh, neat. So, according to this, most sanctions against North Korea have met with little or no success due to North Korea having an uncommonly independent and self-sustaining economy AND its main trade partner, China, not following through on its planned sanctions. Thanks Ntech!
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Fishpreferred


A communist society is one that regards all people as equals, and rejects personal wealth in favour of shared work and shared resources.

You are the one who has no idea of what communism is. In a communist society, everyone is equal, but some are just more equal than others.


1 Cornering the market in international trade is not an act of war.
2 It also isn't what a communist nation does.

China is not cornering the market: with government funds, Chinese factories sell goods at a loss until their American counterparts go out of business, then raise the prices again.


I like how you rephrased your initial claim to make it look like a defense for itself. Now, if you had an actual basis for this claim ...

The basis is right in North Korea, with his finger on a nuclear button that does not work.


Still nothing to do with Churchill.

If you read the book like I did, you would see alot of evidence against Churchill.


Oh, neat. So, according to this, most sanctions against North Korea have met with little or no success due to North Korea having an uncommonly independent and self-sustaining economy AND its main trade partner, China, not following through on its planned sanctions. Thanks Ntech!

You're welcome, but you should be smart enough to figure that if they are not financially unstable, then they must be politically or militarily unstable instead.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

You are the one who has no idea of what communism is. In a communist society, everyone is equal, but some are just more equal than others.
Again, you only demonstrate your ignorance. A Soviet-style regime is not a communism.

China is not cornering the market: with government funds, Chinese factories sell goods at a loss until their American counterparts go out of business, then raise the prices again.
That would be cornering the market.

The basis is right in North Korea, with his finger on a nuclear button that does not work.
Thank you for confirming that there is no basis.

If you read the book like I did, you would see alot of evidence against Churchill.
In other words, "I forgot to check if what I cited supports my claim, so if it doesn't, I'll just demand that my opponent must go out and find the source material before he can verify that it doesn't".

You're welcome, but you should be smart enough to figure that if they are not financially unstable, then they must be politically or militarily unstable instead.
So? Have you forgotten that this line of discussion began with you saying "they cannot survive under the economic sanctions any longer", or are you just hoping that I have?
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Fishpreferred


Again, you only demonstrate your ignorance. A Soviet-style regime is not a communism.

It's communist.


That would be cornering the market.

That would be a government meddling in what is supposed to be free trade, by funding it.


Thank you for confirming that there is no basis.

I take it Kim has died?


In other words, "I forgot to check if what I cited supports my claim, so if it doesn't, I'll just demand that my opponent must go out and find the source material before he can verify that it doesn't".

I have the book on my bookshelf.


So? Have you forgotten that this line of discussion began with you saying "they cannot survive under the economic sanctions any longer", or are you just hoping that I have?

Than explain their moves.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

It's communist.
No, it isn't. They just call it communism because it sounds better than totalitarian military regime.

That would be a government meddling in what is supposed to be free trade, by funding it.
So?

I have the book on my bookshelf.
Great. Then you can easily save us both a lot of hassle by providing direct quotes of the material.

Than explain their moves.
...? Why? That's a total non sequiter.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Fishpreferred


No, it isn't. They just call it communism because it sounds better than totalitarian military regime.

They call themselves communist, so who are you to contradict them?


So?

If a government is meddling in free trade, then we have to level the playing fields for our businesses and companies.


Great. Then you can easily save us both a lot of hassle by providing direct quotes of the material.

Ok. I'll do so in the next post, but it will take some compilation of his arguments.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

They call themselves communist, so who are you to contradict them?
Me, obviously. Anyway, if I call myself God-king Emperor Fish the Exalted, Supreme Ruler of the Cosmos, does it follow that that is what I am? Of course not.

If a government is meddling in free trade, then we have to level the playing fields for our businesses and companies.
No we don't, nor is it an act of war.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Fishpreferred


Me, obviously.

Alright, professor sir. I will trust your credentials and great experience in political science.


No we don't, nor is it an act of war.

We have a responsibility to our citizens not to let them be the victim of trade agressions.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

We have a responsibility to our citizens not to let them be the victim of trade agressions.
Meaning that Trump has done the worst possible thing by instigating trade aggressions with various other countries, including Canada, Mexico, and China. Your argument has failed.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Fishpreferred


Meaning that Trump has done the worst possible thing by instigating trade aggressions with various other countries, including Canada, Mexico, and China. Your argument has failed.

Breaking a bad trade agreement does more than it harms.

Showing 31-45 of 54

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More