Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Wells]

Freaking Germany doesn't stick to 2% rule, nor does Canada... Baltics are rounding errors here.
.

So what? Why does that make letting the rest of the world know we'll renege on our treaties a good thing? Even beyond defense issues, that seriously undermines our ability to craft treaties in the future.

Because if US is the only one holding real "automatic defence" policy... why the hell have NATO at all? Just call it "US defence pact"

Automatic defensive aid is good, even if its under treaty obligation levels, not to mention NATO member cooperation is pretty significant to our own military operation in Europe....

[Shalcker]

That's not inherently a good thing. For instance, when wondering why we can't nuke cities in the middle east. Not knowing what the fuck you're talking about isn't a strength.

ASKING when you don't know is strength. Acting like you know everything all the time is weakness.

But... do you think you UNDERSTAND why nukes don't get used now? Can you actually make an argument against using them against "World #1 threat which isn't Russia"? Let's assume you have everyone else on board to do it to make diplomatic implications irrelevant.

Takes some serious back bending to try to paint being a dumb mother fucker as someone else's fault.

Do you know who was actually answering Trump's questions in the nuke session?

- - - Updated - - -

So what? Why does that make letting the rest of the world know we'll renege on our treaties a good thing? Even beyond defense issues, that seriously undermines our ability to craft treaties in the future.

If it's part of treaty and it's not being followed then other parts are just as suspect, including automatic defence part. After all, the only one who ever invoked it was US...

Why even put obligations there if they are meaningless? Just change NATO charter to "everyone pitches in whatever, US foots the bill either way".

[Spectral]

But... do you think you UNDERSTAND why nukes don't get used now?

Sure. It's not super complicated. There's a consensus that indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is bad. There's an additional consensus that indiscriminate slaughter of civilians leads to blowback.

Not intuitively understanding this is a good example of why Trump is ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

So what? Why does that make letting the rest of the world know we'll renege on our treaties a good thing? Even beyond defense issues, that seriously undermines our ability to craft treaties in the future.

In the case of NATO, I don't think it can plausibly be argued that the United States is the one reneging on a treaty if the stance is that nations that haven't followed the treaty will not receive the benefits of it.

[Shalcker]

Sure. It's not super complicated. There's a consensus that indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is bad. There's an additional consensus that indiscriminate slaughter of civilians leads to blowback.

Not intuitively understanding this is a good example of why Trump is ridiculous.

So, you have no problems of nuking proven terrorist camp then? Other then it being somewhat disproportional? (but then so are many other ways of "dealing with terrorists" nowdays)

[Spectral]

So, you have no problems of nuking proven terrorist camp then? Other then it being somewhat disproportional? (but then so are many other ways of "dealing with terrorists" nowdays)

This isn't "somewhat disproportional". It's a pants on head retarded use of weapons that have significant political and literal fallout. If there's an identified camp, the United States has conventional weapons that are more than capable of causing death to all present.

[Shalcker]

This isn't "somewhat disproportional". It's a pants on head retarded use of weapons that have significant political and literal fallout.

There are miniaturized versions that provide just right firepower to destroy something like deep mountain base without city-buster destruction levels.

Or level a camp and a few miles of desert around it.

If there's an identified camp, the United States has conventional weapons that are more than capable of causing death to all present.

It's about terrorising terrorists, so you go for maximum overkill for maximum effect. At least that's the only reasonable way i can see it.

[Spectral]

There are miniaturized versions that provide just right firepower to destroy something like deep mountain base without city-buster destruction levels.

Or level a camp and a few miles of desert around it.

It's about terrorising terrorists, so you go for maximum overkill for maximum effect. At least that's the only reasonable way i can see it.

I think you're giving Trump far more strategic credit than an examination of his commentary suggests is appropriate. His comments seems much more along the lines of "why bother having these nukes if we can't even destroy some cities?".

[Pangean]

If it's part of treaty and it's not being followed then other parts are just as suspect, including automatic defence part. After all, the only one who ever invoked it was US...

Why even put obligations there if they are meaningless? Just change NATO charter to "everyone pitches in whatever, US foots the bill either way".

Go ahead and point out where in the treaty it requires each nation to meet the 2% spending level. You can't because it's not part of the treaty.

- - - Updated - - -

There are miniaturized versions that provide just right firepower to destroy something like deep mountain base without city-buster destruction levels.

Or level a camp and a few miles of desert around it.

It's about terrorising terrorists, so you go for maximum overkill for maximum effect. At least that's the only reasonable way i can see it.

Concerning bunker busters. See http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post41723153

Re the terrorist camps there lots of non-nuclear weapons that would do the job without resorting to nukes. And if you think the "camps" are in the desert just waiting to be wiped off the map guess again.

[Orbitus]

Does Clinton has to fire herself for dealing with Russians and getting millions from people supporting Uranium One deal?

Going just one way in "Russian connections" and not evaluating them to same standard is somewhat dishonest.

No, because she had NO SAY in the deal. She couldn't stop it. So stop using that tired fucking argument. I have already debunked this bullshit.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...inton-got-pai/

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-...-uranium-deal/

Now, will you leave this bullshit alone? Or do I have to draw it in fucking crayon for you that she had no power to stop the deal?

[Wells]

ASKING when you don't know is strength. Acting like you know everything all the time is weakness.

And not knowing why we don't use nukes is a sign that you're unfit to hold office.

In the case of NATO, I don't think it can plausibly be argued that the United States is the one reneging on a treaty if the stance is that nations that haven't followed the treaty will not receive the benefits of it.

Only if there is some clause requiring one for the other. That being said, even without all member nations meeting their treaty obligations, keeping NATO united and intact is entirely in our best interests.

- - - Updated - - -

There are miniaturized versions that provide just right firepower to destroy something like deep mountain base without city-buster destruction levels.

Or level a camp and a few miles of desert around it.

It's about terrorising terrorists, so you go for maximum overkill for maximum effect. At least that's the only reasonable way i can see it.

Found the problem! You think Trump's questions are wise because you too don't know the fuck you're talking about.

[Orbitus]

i get that you need to create a narrative around your opponent. but this "he can't be trusted with the nuclear codes" line is a load of shit. no president will EVER be able to call up the nuke operators and say "fire them" and have it actually happen, and he sure as shit wouldn't have a button he can press and launch them himself.

it's a ridiculous false narrative that plays on the stupidity of the general public. the only way nukes are ever getting launched is if someone else launches first, that's all there is to it.

When someone asks why we can't use nukes on people he doesn't like, then yes, HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED WITH NUCLEAR CODES.

- - - Updated - - -

Shows what you know. Fox is regularly critical of Trump.

Probably because Trump is too fucking retarded for even them.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump got where he is by questioning basic assumptions of "what is right to do". There is no reason for him to stop doing it as long as he keeps winning by doing it.

And if that reason cannot be conveyed well enough (so that he has to ask it again and again) that's good reason to unearth some old compelling arguments to that end rather then keep going "it's right because that's how we always done it".

No, Trump got where he currently is by borrowing money from Russia, getting bailed out by a prince of the Saudi royal family, TWICE, suing people so he didn't have to pay them, declaring 4 known bankruptcies and letting dozens of other companies go to shit and just eating the losses, and then we get to the good one as to how he got to where he is now. THE GULLIBILITY OF UNEDUCATED PEOPLE. That is why he is the Republican nominee and people want to put his name on their buildings and then they go bankrupt like all his other business dealings.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Probably because Trump is too fucking retarded for even them.

Actually its because the whole "Fox news tells lies" thing is just a scam invented by a side that wants you to listen to them and only them.

People don't even realize just how much they report on things that could be considered "anti-Right wing".

If its news they talk about it.

As opposed to a site like Huff-N-Puff that will never, ever, ever, talk about anything critical to their agenda.

Yet by the same bit of population control which invented the "fox news tell lies" meme, followers of Huff-N-Cuck consider themselves to be the "most informed" even though they're not getting a lot of information.

[Wells]

Wait you think Fox News is an honest outlet?

[fengosa]

I think you're giving Trump far more strategic credit than an examination of his commentary suggests is appropriate. His comments seems much more along the lines of "why bother having these nukes if we can't even destroy some cities?".

The answer to that is simple, nuclear weapons deter attacks against the US. I think any sane person understands they are better used defensively than proactively.

[Leobald]

If you don't know why you don't use nukes on Raqqa or places like that, you probably shouldn't run for President.

[mvaliz]

So, you have no problems of nuking proven terrorist camp then? Other then it being somewhat disproportional? (but then so are many other ways of "dealing with terrorists" nowdays)

asking that question shows your ignorance of the power of modern day nuclear weapons. Nuke a camp? Somewhat disproportional!? A single nuke can take out multiple cities these days. That is the equivalent of firing a full broadside of ship cannons at a mosquito. You'll destroy 2 million times more than just the mosquito.

Also, the moment you use nukes, everybody does - and everyone dies as a result.

- - - Updated - - -

Shows what you know. Fox is regularly critical of Trump.

Because FOX news is for Textbook Republicans. Donald Dump is far from textbook republican, but rather the amalgamation of the hatreds born from white-trash America.. They see now the monster they've created in their feat... No.. Hatemongering. Even dips like Sean Hannity refuse to accept their responsibility.

[Tijuana]

asking that question shows your ignorance of the power of modern day nuclear weapons. Nuke a camp? Somewhat disproportional!? A single nuke can take out multiple cities these days. That is the equivalent of firing a full broadside of ship cannons at a mosquito. You'll destroy 2 million times more than just the mosquito.

Also, the moment you use nukes, everybody does - and everyone dies as a result.

- - - Updated - - -



Because FOX news is for Textbook Republicans. Donald Dump is far from textbook republican, but rather the amalgamation of the hatreds born from white-trash America.. They see now the monster they've created in their feat... No.. Hatemongering. Even dips like Sean Hannity refuse to accept their responsibility.

Trump is obviously more populist than conservative or democrat. No need to insult poor people to make that point really. I mean you can but, why?

[Rafoel]

The answer to that is simple, nuclear weapons deter attacks against the US. I think any sane person understands they are better used defensively than proactively.

Who exactly wants to attack US, but doesn't because of nuclear weapons?

[Tijuana]

Who exactly wants to attack US, but doesn't because of nuclear weapons?

Yeah nobody. Good point. Nukes are only a deterrent against conquest, not necessarily any and all military action. You just know you can't conquer any nuclear nation, so why bother.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Because FOX news is for Textbook Republicans. Donald Dump is far from textbook republican, but rather the amalgamation of the hatreds born from white-trash America.. They see now the monster they've created in their feat... No.. Hatemongering. Even dips like Sean Hannity refuse to accept their responsibility.

You should recognize the distinction between news and commentary.

When Fox, CNN, CBS, ABC, CBS report on something its generally all factual because they all pretty much get the information from local affiliates, or even from a 3rd party news gathering organization like AP.

I mean you don't turn on your local news station and think "ah ma ga its tellin lies" just because its branded by a certain network, do you?

But when the commentators get to talking about things that's where you find your bias showing up, but that's not news its commentary of news.

Even when you look at these "fact checker" sites you'll find they are nearly always checking pundit commentary.

Also don't confuse the majors with the various non-broadcast "sources" that pass themselves off as "news", example: Huffington Post.

While its name and assumption might indicate its a news gathering organization ...its not.

Its a pundit community with a full blown ultra Left bias and there's Right wing equivalents to it out there as well doing the same thing for their side.

In the end it doesn't really even matter anymore because nearly every American has become fully indoctrinated and programmed for one side or the other.

They believe their side because its their side, they disbelieve the other side because its the other side.

The next time you're talking to somebody (in person) who injects a "<media source> tells lies" meme ...ask them to give you 3 specific examples.

They wont be able to, guaranteed ...although they may come back at you later after they've had a chance to google it and find out what "their side" wants them to respond with hehe.