Professor Toffee
On and on, over the hill and the craic is good
Yeah Trump hasn't had the opportunity to engage in mass carnage yet, but the signs are he would relish it
Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Probably, though it does come down to a choice between the butcher you know and the one that you don't.
Looking good as a write-in.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
You'll never see me justifying the deaths of innocents, but I can tell you what each belligerent's justification is and how fair they match up with each other. And then tell you how this relates to Donald Trump.
Here is Russia's defence again: they are only bombing in a country for which they have State permission.
Recap:
Syria is accused of violent suppression of its own people (which they deny) and thus come under attack from a rebel force and is suffering heavy losses, including civilians. The government is on the edge of existence. This rebel force is supported by a US-led coalition. Russia offers to assist Syria by way of air strikes on zones where the rebels are based. They warn this will inevitably result in civilian casualties. But Syria either lose or accept the offer. After one year of Russian intervention the rebel threat has lessened, but there's still no end to the conflict in sight.
It's all abhorrent. Anything that wilfully ends the lives of others is abhorrent. But merely denouncing it as such doesn't much aid understanding.
We could rank how horrible the different players are in terms of what their defence is and how many civilians they've killed, with the following figures all reasonably well sourced but we still have to guesstimate as most sources are biased one way or the other...and there's still plenty of fog out there. As we don't know otherwise, we have to assume those civilians killed were 'collateral damage'.
Assad & Syrian government killed circa 100,000 civilians. Defence: their actual defence of the country, government and Aleppo.
Rebel forces/ISIS have killed circa 100,000 civilians. Defence: they wish control of Aleppo, the government and eventually Syria. Also of note: US-led coalition (including Saudi Arabia) have partly-armed these forces.
US and US-coalition air strikes have killed circa 1000 civilians. Defence: the Syrian government are accused of committing crimes against humanity, as such the US wish to affect regime change.
Russian air strikes have killed circa 3000 civilians. Defence: they have State permission and wish to end the conflict by defeating the rebels/ISIS.
I've put the main local players at 100k civilian deaths each as even anti-Assad organisations max out the civilian death toll from Assad forces at 140k, whereas the total civilian death toll is comfortably above 200k. I'm also classing the rebels/Free Syrian Army/Al-Nusra/ISIS as one group as they are ostensibly all on the same side fighting the same side. Things get very muddy if we delve deeper here, there is plenty of 'inter-rebel' conflict too.
In terms of who has the most justification for the killing of innocents (an awful concept to comprehend, but a neutral analysis requires it), I'd say it's Russia.
And that's why a Trump Presidency could be interesting, as he will work with Russia, not against them. For without US-led intervention, Russia's state-sponsored actions may have already ended the conflict, resulting in far fewer civilian deaths than we've had so far.
Hope that's a bit clearer now.
Do you see trump as a dove then ? Because the choice is trump or Clinton , there isn't another option (third party candidates aren't a choice for office ) .
Ultimately it's hold your nose and vote on this whatever your choice but for anybody with liberal ideals there isn't a choice at all is there ?
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
It's hard to tell what he'd do, as he's an Independent in all but name. He's not a party leader so much as a charismatic leader. So what do they tend to do? Rule with some idea of a destiny they've been chosen to carry out, I suppose. He sounds isolationist now, but I wouldn't bet against the reality of a Trump presidency being anything but that.
His talk to "bomb the swear filter out of Isis " or "take out the families " of terrorists whilst after a Turkey attack pledging to "fight fire with fire " whilst accusing the US government of being weak and describing water boarding as "peanuts " and praising putin and Assad for fighting Isis in Syria all indicate me he might be a tiny bit hawkish I'll be honest .
This is a man who advocates torture and warcrimes whilst praising Putin and assad.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
I actually dont think he's got an ideal in him - beyond making money. He's a massive ego who just wants to tick off the box "U.S. President" from his lifetime goals list. He'd delegate everything and go round the world opening up new Trump Towers for four years.
As long as he can get that Hotel built in Moscow that those pesky Russians keep turning him down for, whats a middle east conflict between comrades. Trump likes to see the big picture.
I'll be honest I find the prospect of him as President terrifying but different strokes .
bring back the catt
Player Valuation: £8m
The 'might' of the USofA, you think they would have a better choice for presidency.
I mean, I'm sure the electorate will be voting for the nominee who's inadequacies offend them less.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Which of course is a massive distinction between someone who proposes further drone strikes (which take out family members, friends and people who happen to be nearby) on terrorists, who supports bombing the swear filter out of Isis, and who praises the Saudis and the UAE for (fighting on the side of) al-Qaeda in Yemen.
Here's some high quality concern trolling from National Review, no friend to Trump or Clinton.
Republican incumbents could benefit disproportionately from swing voters turning against Clinton, even if these new details do not fatally undermine her electoral prospects. If, however, Clinton survives and is inaugurated, she will face a hostile political climate like no newly elected president has faced in decades. Whereas Trump could rebrand the GOP as a progressive and xenophobic party with little appeal to the upcoming generation, Clinton could have as deleterious an effect on the Democratic Party’s brand over the course of four years of scandals, investigations, and tawdry allegations. Perhaps Democrats should be cautious about what they wish for.
The awfulness of Trump (and he is just awful) should not blind you to the awfulness of Hillary. He's a loose cannon who will hit on your daughter.
She is a mafia boss and longtime insider/fixer whose husband will hit on your daughter. Those who ridicule religious faith in times like this might reconsider their stance.
God Bless America. Please.
Republican incumbents could benefit disproportionately from swing voters turning against Clinton, even if these new details do not fatally undermine her electoral prospects. If, however, Clinton survives and is inaugurated, she will face a hostile political climate like no newly elected president has faced in decades. Whereas Trump could rebrand the GOP as a progressive and xenophobic party with little appeal to the upcoming generation, Clinton could have as deleterious an effect on the Democratic Party’s brand over the course of four years of scandals, investigations, and tawdry allegations. Perhaps Democrats should be cautious about what they wish for.
The awfulness of Trump (and he is just awful) should not blind you to the awfulness of Hillary. He's a loose cannon who will hit on your daughter.
She is a mafia boss and longtime insider/fixer whose husband will hit on your daughter. Those who ridicule religious faith in times like this might reconsider their stance.
God Bless America. Please.
You can't see a difference between a drone strike that subsequently kills civilians and advocating 'taking out ' terrorists families ? Or supporting the Saudis and strenuously recommending water boarding , to use Trump's words
-Trump told supporters: “Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. It works.” The Republican frontrunner then added “… and if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us”.-
You don't see a difference in those two things ? Whether killed because they're targeted deliberately or not civilians are still dead I get that but for a Presidential candidate it to advocate murdering families or what is torture for tortures sake is surely horrifying to any right minded person .
Let's face it this is what Trump says at a presidential rally so what would he be saying in a conference room when planning his strategy.
Ballyfermot
Player Valuation: £750k
American governments can be fond of a good shooting down of a passanger plane themselfs. One instance killing 290 Iranians.
Last edited:
- Status