Jump to content

FTRouslan

Member Since 13 May 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 04:00 AM
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Brexit lol

Today, 01:37 AM

View PostBuglamp, on 29 June 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

Trump is clearly more isolationist, that's about all we can tell for sure since he's pretty vague much of the time. Their positions aside, just their public personas are very different and will say different things about the US if they're our elected leader.

Donald Trump isn't an isolationist.

View PostBuglamp, on 29 June 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

Trump also doesn't have good chances to win. The party he wants to run as isn't even sure they want him. People are deluding themselves into thinking he master-planned the republican primary, he really just got lucky they had poor candidates and too many of them. The Republican primary is starting to produce candidates who will be hopeless for the general election and they're probably not going to produce a president for awhile. They're also already scrambling to control the damage Trump may do to their down ballot.

Not sure what to make of this except:

1) Of course the party leadership doesn't want to run him. Adhering to Republican Party principles would end the gravy train for them. The Republican Party in Congress has purposely bent the knee to the Obama administration on issues of national integrity, over and over again, because it benefits Wall Street. Amnesty, bailouts, excessive government spending, unlimited funding for Obamacare, Common Core, etc., come straight from the mouthpiece of the US Chamber of Commerce.

2) The "Lucky Hitler" argument fell apart after he dismantled 16 other candidates, one by one, upsetting many tried-and-true political science principles. Attacks by all of the Karl Roves of the day ultimately failed. Hundreds of millions of donor money were wasted. The GOP tried to structure the primary in order to elect Bush with only 25% of the votes. Instead, Donald Trump shattered the roadmap and set records in the process.

3) The down-ballot candidates are only in danger because they're lukewarm Republicans who elicit no support from their base. Several incumbents, like Ayotte, McCain, and Rubio, are facing strong primary challenges. Ironically, if they had stayed true to their values, or joined the Trump train early on, they wouldn't be in nearly as much of a political mess.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to run losing candidates, because if Donald Trump wins with a Republican-majority Senate, then the GOP establishment will have no choice but to either acquiesce to Donald Trump, or suffer the fate of former Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

View PostBuglamp, on 29 June 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

I'd still say Trump has some clear advantages and Clinton isn't very charismatic and gets downright awkward at times, but Trump has already given the democrats piles of ammunition to use against him during the primary - including suggesting he'd ask US soldiers to commit war crimes - which may be true of many politicians but it's just not what you say on a news channel. His handling of the lawsuit against his university(lol) is also making him more enemies.

The Republican establishment has already used up every single attack they could against Donald Trump. The DNC is completely out of ammo. Yet Donald Trump is getting started.

View PostBuglamp, on 29 June 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

Clinton's foreign policy speech was also better than any she's done for awhile, so she might be srsing for the general. I'm inclined to believe those who say she preserved resources due to a(relatively) easy primary.

On the contrary, Hillary Clinton is doing incredibly poorly, given how easily she won the Democratic Primary and given the viciousness of the GOP primary.

View PostBuglamp, on 29 June 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

I wouldn't put Trump's chances at 0, but it's probably below 30% at this rate.

Given the fact that pollsters need to sample 50% Democrat voters to even keep Hillary Clinton ahead in the polls, Donald Trump will be running effectively unopposed by October if the Democrats don't replace Hillary Clinton. She has no chance.

View PostBuglamp, on 29 June 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

I'll admit a bias for Clinton though, I want a real politician and I don't want a more libertarian or isolationist future for the US.

There was chance for long-lasting peace in the Middle East in 2009, when Hillary Clinton begin her tenure as Secretary of State. Within three years, several governments were toppled in US-supported coups, a new radical terrorist group was on the rise thanks to US weapon shipments, and millions of people were either killed or displaced. This has further resulted in political chaos in Europe.

The US-approved Mohammed Morsi government released hundreds of terrorists, some who would go on to plan the Benghazi attack, before the Egyptian Army finally had enough and took over the government again. And the beginnings of a terrible nuclear deal, which places Iran under zero effective restrictions, was underway during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. What successes can Hillary Clinton count, besides minor token accomplishments that are far overshadowed by the death and destruction she has rained on the world?

If by "real" politician, you mean "failed" politician, then sure. Hillary Clinton is your best bet.

In Topic: Brexit lol

Today, 01:06 AM

yeah you're here to masturbate and tell everybody how much of a socialist you are, not to debate. the picture was hardly even relevant, as always. same goddamn horseshit for months.

fuck off

In Topic: Brexit lol

Today, 12:58 AM

View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 29 June 2016 - 12:28 AM, said:

Honestly, I'm fucking disgusted by the argument on the second page. Both of you are acting like fucking manchildren, throwing around ad hominems, talking almost exclusively in memes, purposefully missing someone elses point, making ridiculous generelizations, killing active discourse.

This has reached a point where it is just getting embarrassing. I won't pick sides, but when you niggers think "get a job" "lmao fucking liberals" "i mean i honestly can't imagine how much i'd have to hate myself to support this shit" "r/communism xD" are fucking arguments, then maybe you need to fuck off to /pol/ or a similiar shithole where people appreciate the lowest level of discourse.

I know both of you to be smart debaters, shit like this makes my blood boil. And don't even fucking start with some "it's just banter chill you sperg xD" bullshit, I couldn't care less.

Talking to both of you in skype clearly reveals you're capable of structuring a fucking sentence or formulating a coherent argument. Use your brain or it might deteriorate.

It wasn't an argument. After a certain point, I stopped trying to have a conversation because it's impossible to have one with somebody who can only discuss politics with /r/fullcommunism or /leftypol/ memes. Now  isn't hyperbole. Go browse /r/fullcommunism and tell me I'm wrong.

How many more times is it possible to make a point about the policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, only to be greeted with an elementary understanding of the theory of surplus value, which is totally inapplicable to the topic?

It's a total waste of time, I agree with you.

In Topic: Brexit lol

Today, 12:51 AM

View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 29 June 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

honestly, I have no idea what to make of this post. are you being sarcastic? are you being genuine? are you trying to show off some sort of superiority?

I despise farage, I despise UKIP and I think britain leaving the EU was a horrible choice, for both the brits and the remaining EU countries.


I am 100% serious in my support for Nigel Farage and UKIP. And the destruction of EU can't happen sooner for the PIGS countries impoverished by disastrous EU policies. The European Union should have never extended beyond France, Germany, and the Low Countries. It should have never evolved beyond the Maastricht Treaty. And it should have never been allowed to be unaccountable to the people.

View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 29 June 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

I never even mentioned the NATO.

Exactly! Remember this comment that you made?

View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 28 June 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

world politics is all funny n shit until putin comes along and annexes your homeland while isolationist nation states just sit by and watch you get purged.

Leaving the European Union has nothing to do with leaving NATO, abandoning all intentions of trading, completely closing off borders, etc. This is why I don't understand where your fear of British isolationism comes from. How is asserting national sovereignty "isolationism"? Advocating for self-interest doesn't mean that mutually beneficial agreements can't be made with the consent of both parties.

Boris Johnson might be a different story. I don't particularly know him or like him. But a UKIP-lead United Kingdom, with Nigel Farage as PM, would certainly not be isolationist under the policies that Nigel Farage has advocated for decades.

View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 28 June 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

What are you referring to when you are talking about a European superstate?

http://www.reuters.c...e-idUSKCN0ZC0BQ

http://static.pressp.../DokumentUE.pdf

States will no longer be able to field their own armies, decide their own fiscal policy, decide their own foreign policy, adopt their own national bank, etc. Terrifying document, especially given that the current structure of the European Union political system has little or no accountability to the people of Europe.

View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 28 June 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

What are you referring to when you say the EU "punishes" certain countries, when in actuality


Stop it right there.

My comment was referring to European Union's response to Brexit.

Remember when President Obama threatened to move the United Kingdom to the "back of the queue", despite their century-long alliance? Are you paying attention to the harsh terms that the European Commission wants to impose on the United Kingdom for leaving, despite the possible negative effects on native German industries?

The European Union will begin to crumble if they don't impose harsh terms on the United Kingdom for leaving, which proves that it never had the interests of the British people, or really, the European people, at heart.

View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 28 June 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

Britain has had a special treatment, meaning they had to pay less than they usually would. It has been this way for decades, I really do hope you know that.


"Special treatment"? You mean, special treatment for the financial industry by retaining the pound, right?

I'm sure the UK fishing industry didn't enjoy "special treatment" when they were denied access to their own fishing waters, so other EU countries could fish them. I'm sure the average working-class British worker didn't enjoy "special treatment" when their wages were pushed down thanks to unchecked immigration.

The working-class voters of the United Kingdom voted in their self-interest. Even British-minority districts, like Luton, voted overwhelmingly to remain. Many Remainers could do nothing to support their position except ruin the meaning of words like "racism", "xenophobia", etc. And nothing offered by the European Union is irreplaceable by a half-decent transition to independence, given the fact that the United Kingdom contributed more to the European Union than it received.

Already, the the stock markets are beginning to recover after the undeserved panic created by the upset, thanks to all of the bets hedged for Remain. The sky isn't falling. The world isn't about to end. And I think that the world will be better off with Brexit.

View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 29 June 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

I will just ignore your general comment regarding "muh millenials", I don't think it's something worth replying to.


Just a thought I wanted to share, especially after seeing all of the arguments in favor of disenfranchising older people I've seen circulating in social media.


View PostYVNG_CARL_YVNG, on 29 June 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

I'm kind of baffled to be honest, still unsure about whether you're being serious or not. I just hope at the bottom of my heart that the comment regarding Farage was a joke, because I actually thought it was pretty funny.



It's a joke. I don't actually have an altar. It would be nice, though.

In Topic: Brexit lol

Today, 12:26 AM

View PostBreadstick, on 29 June 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:

i posted a picture about how the candidates are the same thing and you thought it'd be a good response to suck trump's dick lmao. fuck it's so embarrassing to glorify a candidate in this political climate

Posted Image

Neither candidate are the same thing you low-information fuck. They are, effectively, polar opposites. Trump wants to preserve liberal democracy. Clinton wants to hand over control to an oligarchy of corporatists. Are you even paying attention? Stop polluting threads with this garbage.

You never offer anything meaningful to any thread where you regurgitate out-of-context /r/fullcommunism memes. You've been doing this for months. We get it. You want to seize the means of production. We get it. You're incapable of having a grounded discussion about politics. We get it. You don't know what you're talking about.


View PostBreadstick, on 29 June 2016 - 12:01 AM, said:


i don't mind killing threads on aj but i do mind people supporting policies that kill workers through exploitation :(

V/\


Total waste of time talking with a real life duelist.

<