PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

How is Hillary a war monger?

Well, a lot of the rationale behind her being a war monger is in the video I embedded. I really like John Pilger because he has made a career out of being a media critic. He has risked his life entering zones like East Timor to bring the truth about certain areas of the world and call public attention to it.

Hillary had a number of weapons manufacturers provide her with campaign contributions. I wonder why? I think 9 out of 10 of the major manufacturers. Looks like these companies know who to bet on for going to war.

Henry Kissinger has been working as an advisor for Obama and apparently Clinton, and was looking like he would have been an advisor for Clinton. Now, if you don't know much about Kissinger, he is a really great chap. I rank him right up there with Stalin and Hitler as the worst mass murderers in history. In fairness, Trump apparently had a meeting with him. This is a guy that needs a security force everywhere he goes. Why? Because there are people around the world in every country that try to make a citizens arrest to force him answering for his many crimes (including VARIOUS instances of genocide).

She pushed for what happened in Libya, and has held a stance of aggression against Russia. There has been a huge buildup of Nato all around Russia. Now, if you subscribe to the notion that Russia is the one that is flexing its' muscle and Nato is merely trying to contain him, then I guess there is nothing to this. Hillary has apparently been one of the ones pushing for this.

Fun Fact: More people around the world die when there is a Democrat in power. I personally had no idea, and find myself leaning towards the Democrats much more with what they SAY they are going to do. I like how Obama was all about peace, and even won the Nobel Peace Prize because of what he said he would do. Then again, Hitler won it. Then again, Kissinger won it too for helping to put an end to the Vietnam war - after he sabotaged the peace talks in France 4 years prior, and after he and Nixon developed the "Mad Man" initiative where they secretly and illegally bombed the hell out of Cambodia - a neautral and peaceful nation - to make a statement at Russia before pulling out. What did Obama do? By definition, he is guilty of war crimes. How? For instance, using uranium-tipped ammunition (guns, missiles and bombs) which were used in Fallujah, resulting in extraordinary high birth defects (lots of articles and youtube videos done by a host of different organizations, but nobody gives 2 craps it seems). I am not sure I take this stance yet, but many point to this being a genocide of the Iraqi people.

Now, don't take this as I am being a Republican - I hate them too. There seems to be a war every time a Republican comes to power. They also seem more backwards in their domestic policies.

Both parties are essentially war mongers - US foreign policy is one built around imperialism and the power to influence as many nations as possible. The whole Libya fiasco, Saudi money and the fact that 9 out of 10 of the major weapons manufacturers have provided her with campaign contributions makes me believe they know who to back to make themselves money.

The truth is, that neither candidate was fit to run for office, IMO. How can you honestly have a president who campaigned under a banner of racism, xenophobia, well thought of as a misogynist, and who has ZERO experience in politics - domestic or international?

In foreign affairs, the Democrats have had quite the insidious-type of policies where they use sanctions, destabilize governments and even orchestrate coups - very often in freely-elected responsible and democratic governments, sometimes not (has more to do with international support of the USA and US conglomerates). Republicans have do this to an extent too, but also actively declare and go to war.

I don't think Trump will be a good president, but I am curious to see what he does internationally since he used his own cash (I guess?) to campaign. Obama was by far the best candidate last elections, but did he make the world a better place? The world is closer to a major war than it has ever been, there are more nations with sanctions against them then there has ever been, and the gap between rich and poor in the USA is the greatest it has ever been.

I don't think the Republicans would have done any better. Maybe even worse. That is why I have little faith that either party will do good domestically or internationally, and that there is really no democracy in the USA. Lobbyists and the companies/interests they represent hold much more sway over policies than the people, and that has been true for a very long time - probably since the Vietnam war, maybe even before then.

I don't align myself with the left or the right. I am pretty much down the middle, and can be easily swayed either way. I don't see any candidate or party as doing good in this world, or even for the people they are supposed to represent. It seems Hillary is very much a war monger, but unfortunately I would be surprised if Trump won't be one as well. That is just the nature of US foreign policy, and they will continue to have a stranglehold as the nation that exports the most terror in this world, but tell you they are fighting for freedom and justice all over the world.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Oh Wimbledon, nice to see a post you made without some veiled insult.

Yeah the US is in a pickle with China, but continuing to go down this road of operating with a large and growing larger deficit isn't going to help the situation. Yes automation has changed manufacturing, but it was inevitable. That's why you need at least a two pronged solution of lowering taxes on business and some foreign tariff to level things out a bit. You can try to get tougher on China abusing trade regulations as well. This is a more proactive plan then maintaining the status quo and further selling out to the globalists multi-national corporations with TPP.

Ross Perot was right about NAFTA 20 years ago, simply continuing with these agreements isn't going to change the trend that we've witnessed. Encouraging the free market with minimal government intervention and making it easier for small businesses to compete, will help with innovation and job creation.

Free markets with minimal government intervention will do sod all to compete with the third world, where labour will always be to low for the US to compete with, the German model is better, specialization in high profit highly technical products but that requires massive state intervention, healthcare, education (mandated apprenticeships) etc

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your Northern Canada example is flawed, as wages and living are heavily subsidised by the government. Is that the solution to keeping American businesses going? Increasing taxes on everyone to subsidise wages?

As for jobs, they'll go down because you're increasing the cost of doing business. Companies won't be able to afford doing business at the current rate if they can't capitalise on foreign workers, so domestic cuts will occur to balance the amount of domestic jobs they have to add.

I mean, I agree you have to reverse the trend, but the way you (and Trump) are suggesting is short sighted and just frankly wouldn't work. It's basically a left-wing fantasy (that Trump has tricked the right into believing to a dangerous degree).

Not paying the debt is not an option. China is more powerful than the US, and if you think it's bad having a gun held to their head, wait until China pulls the trigger. Regardless of the imaginative and inspiring endpoint - American made! Jobs for everyone! - the reality is that moves against China and free trade are going to make America much, much worse for many many years. If Trump heads down that path, he'll never get close to seeing a better America. Certainly not in this term or the possible next, and unlikely in his lifetime.

Americans, especially the working class, don't seem very happy with the current rotten state of the economy. You think they'll stomach another decade or two? You think that if Trump makes this move and the economy starts to tank (and it will, no question), that he'll get re-elected? I don't. And I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to follow in his footsteps.

What if the States just told China to shove it? Here's 20 cents on the dollar and that's all you're getting.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by New Era

Easy for you to say, you're not an American nor have to deal with the outcomes of his policies.

I do agree that he was elected fairly and deserves a chance prove he is capable of governing. That starts with his decisions in following the traditions of the country, how he insures he is isolating himself from conflicts of interest, selection of his transition team, and then selection of his cabinet. So far, he is not instilling much confidence in any of his actions nor decisions.

Yeah in the scrutinizing eyes of the people who are still bitter that their candidate lost. Tell me, what inspires confidence in Hillary? She hasn't done one positive thing since being involved in government and seems certifiably compromised or incompetent, neither is acceptable or instill much confidence.

Have you figured out what the difference between a wage and earnings is yet? It should be called the gender earnings gap, that's more accurate. If I'm spending more hours working then my colleague, shouldn't my earnings be larger if we're both being paid the same wage? Sounds fair to me.

I should have mentioned earlier your link to the joint economic committee democratic staff report is pretty biased too. You crap on me for a forbes article then post links to a woman's advocacy group and a democratic committees report. Yeah I know that the dems, feminists and left leaners believe this myth, the last two presidential democrat nominees both sloganeered off this same persisting myth.

Don't leave me here doing the two step shuffle by myself, I need a partner to tango with. You can admit defeat on this issue and we can move on to policy, character and experience of the two presidential nominees. I'll even let you have the experience issue because it will be hard to argue. Is no experience better then bad experience, tough to say either way. I'm still confident that I'll take you out back behind the woodshed in the other two.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

What if the States just told China to shove it? Here's 20 cents on the dollar and that's all you're getting.

Same reason you cant tell your bank to shove it, they wont lend you any more money afterwards and the US needs to borrow money desperately.

This is deficit financing, not debt financing.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

From what I've read, "Pizzagate" is an elaborate joke/hoax based on the premise that the Clintons and several other bigshots in Washington are involved in a pedophile sex trafficking ring based out of a pizza joint that sits atop secret underground tunnels dug by Satanists (or possibly the Devil himself) and the Illuminati. The Clinton Foundation is a front for this operation. A charity in the neighbourhood of the pizza joint is involved with Haitian orphans, and that's where the victims come from.

So just remember that you are arguing with someone who believes this is true. Photon already mentioned it, but at the time I didn't get what he was referring to. This is it.

The troubling thing is this isn't the only time that child sex rings have been linked to the Washington big shots. Look into the Franklin cover up and boys town Nebraska plus all that stuff with Jeffrey Epstein and his famous orgy island. Where there is smoke there is fire, and this is how these elites get down.

The "pizza" and other food phrases are code words for victims. I'm not talking about underground satanist tunnels, that's just nonsense to dismiss the actual crimes taking place.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Well let's start with the gender wage gap myth, that was such a big part of both Hillary and Obamas platforms.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ha...rticle/2580405

That isn't what this article says. The author is not the one who is providing the data, and she is making assumptions based on her cherry picked evidence from a Freak-a-nomics podcast. If you actually listened to the podcast, rather than just reading the erroneous information in the Examiner article, you would have heard Ms. Goldin state that the gender pay gap does exist, that the numbers quoted are accurate, but she goes on to explain why it exists (participation rates, employment choices, special needs like extended health care issues, flexibility in hours, etc.). The author of the Examiner article actually twists Ms. Goldin's words to match her particular frame rather than understanding what Goldin was saying. In fact, if you bothered to actually follow through on Ms. Goldin's research you'd find out that she still firmly believes there is a gender pay gap and stated as much in this interview.

Also, tell me what sites specifically you get your news from? So I know where to focus my search because you seem intent on dismissing all the information out there because it doesn't align with some msm tidbit you came across.

Do you know what empirical data is? Start there. You are presenting anecdotal evidence of your claim, when the empirical data proves otherwise.

FYI I don't use breitbart or reddit as the source of my news. Swing and another miss. Everything has bias to a certain degree.

Bias is a perception issue, not a process issue. The vast majority of mass media follows journalistic standards and complies with a specific series of processes which allow for validation of data and removal of bias. Facts don't lie. Facts don't project bias. The reader, interpreting information from their perspective, is where bias is injected into media. Unless a story is developed with misinformation or disinformation as the basis of data by the author, the facts should stand on their own. This is where empirical data provides the factual basis for the story. No bias exists when the data can be proven to be consistent and reliable when verified and proven reliable.

There is a bunch of stuff out there on the net on pizzagate other then those sites.

Really? A Google search does not present a single reliable source of information for anything called "pizzagate." The only credible media source referencing something called "pizzagate" is in reference to food fight between Manchester United and Arsenal in the UK. How did you put it? Swing and a miss?

Try not being too biased with mainstream media fluff, you might actually learn something sometime.

Try to understand what makes a site credible. What you call credible is embarrassing. How about something that isn't based on anecdotal evidence, hearsay or a narrative? Not only that, you don't even digest the information properly, instead trying to present misinformation and disinformation as factual, when it just isn't.

Maybe there are reasons that the msm doesn't cover certain things, and maybe sometimes those things are legit.

Yeah, they don't cover them because they are based on hearsay and have no facts behind them. Opinion and tabloid journalism is not factual in nature.

You can't possibly believe they don't lie and try to form your world view.

Oh please, please try and educate me on agenda setting theory within the mass media! I am looking forward to this. I can't wait to hear what you think you know about the agenda setting power of the mass media and how it works. If you actually did know anything about the agenda setting power of the mass media you would have a very different perspective than the one you espouse. The agenda setting of the mass media this election cycle was horrific and played into the hands of one candidate.

The Clintons have a history of sexual misconduct and dealings with people with a similar history.

Proof please. That's a serious claim and you need to back it up. You say you want to engage in serious debate, well put on your big boy pants and start backing up your claims with credible sources of information.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

What if the States just told China to shove it? Here's 20 cents on the dollar and that's all you're getting.

Well.... aside from the complete devaluation of the US dollar (making the things they NEED to import unaffordable and their excess resources worthless) and the many ripple effects that would hit countries all over the world?

War. I'd guarantee it, and it would be a very bad situation for the US to get into (and would be pretty horrible for the rest of us given the two parties at the head).

Hard to say what allies the US are going to have if they start blocking trade.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

I should have mentioned earlier your link to the joint economic committee democratic staff report is pretty biased too.

The joint economic committee, a bipartisan congressional committee, is biased?

George Carlin was right.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well.... aside from the complete devaluation of the US dollar (making the things they NEED to import unaffordable and their excess resources worthless) and the many ripple effects that would hit countries all over the world?

War. I'd guarantee it, and it would be a very bad situation for the US to get into (and would be pretty horrible for the rest of us given the two parties at the head).

Hard to say what allies the US are going to have if they start blocking trade.

War wouldn't happen. The economic cost would be massive though. The US could tell any lender nation to pound sand without any critical military consequences. China may puff its chest, but the US would wipe the floor with them, and they know it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

War wouldn't happen. The economic cost would be massive though. The US could tell any lender nation to pound sand without any critical military consequences. China may puff its chest, but the US would wipe the floor with them, and they know it.

You think? With total respect, I think you're way off in both the likelihood of war and the chance America has of coming out of it on top.

Tensions are already high between the two, and the deterrence theory only works as long as the other doesn't do anything to make you think it's not working (telling them to "shove it" would be that).

China is equivalent to the US in military power, they've come a long way and honestly completely hold their own in power. They are not a nation the US stands any chance at all of pushing around.

In addition, the US is already in a proxy war with Russia. While Russia and China aren't inseparable, you can bet Russia would join in along with North Korea (and the insane Philippines, but who knows what relevance that would have).

The US would get absolutely obliterated if they make any big moves against China or Russia in the next 5 years. That's not even considering the idea of things going nuclear.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That seems wrong... The USA is just miles ahead of any other power in every sense other than sheer numbers, and they're second in that department. I think Captaincrunch might be the resident expert on military matters here, would be worth him weighing in on that.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by New Era

That isn't what this article says. The author is not the one who is providing the data, and she is making assumptions based on her cherry picked evidence from a Freak-a-nomics podcast. If you actually listened to the podcast, rather than just reading the erroneous information in the Examiner article, you would have heard Ms. Goldin state that the gender pay gap does exist, that the numbers quoted are accurate, but she goes on to explain why it exists (participation rates, employment choices, special needs like extended health care issues, flexibility in hours, etc.). The author of the Examiner article actually twists Ms. Goldin's words to match her particular frame rather than understanding what Goldin was saying. In fact, if you bothered to actually follow through on Ms. Goldin's research you'd find out that she still firmly believes there is a gender pay gap and stated as much in this interview.



Do you know what empirical data is? Start there. You are presenting anecdotal evidence of your claim, when the empirical data proves otherwise.

Bias is a perception issue, not a process issue. The vast majority of mass media follows journalistic standards and complies with a specific series of processes which allow for validation of data and removal of bias. Facts don't lie. Facts don't project bias. The reader, interpreting information from their perspective, is where bias is injected into media. Unless a story is developed with misinformation or disinformation as the basis of data by the author, the facts should stand on their own. This is where empirical data provides the factual basis for the story. No bias exists when the data can be proven to be consistent and reliable when verified and proven reliable.

Really? A Google search does not present a single reliable source of information for anything called "pizzagate." The only credible media source referencing something called "pizzagate" is in reference to food fight between Manchester United and Arsenal in the UK. How did you put it? Swing and a miss?

Try to understand what makes a site credible. What you call credible is embarrassing. How about something that isn't based on anecdotal evidence, hearsay or a narrative? Not only that, you don't even digest the information properly, instead trying to present misinformation and disinformation as factual, when it just isn't.

Yeah, they don't cover them because they are based on hearsay and have no facts behind them. Opinion and tabloid journalism is not factual in nature.

Oh please, please try and educate me on agenda setting theory within the mass media! I am looking forward to this. I can't wait to hear what you think you know about the agenda setting power of the mass media and how it works. If you actually did know anything about the agenda setting power of the mass media you would have a very different perspective than the one you espouse. The agenda setting of the mass media this election cycle was horrific and played into the hands of one candidate.

Proof please. That's a serious claim and you need to back it up. You say you want to engage in serious debate, well put on your big boy pants and start backing up your claims with credible sources of information.

Your "empirical evidence" is misleading and neglects many other factors. You don't seem to understand how this 77 cents woman earn to the dollar men earn stat is arrived at. Yes that number is accurate when you just look at earnings on the whole of every man compared to every woman in the workforce, but it doesn't take into account that men earn more because they work more, not because of sexual discrimination. Women make other choices, think about bearing and raising children. They tend to work not as long of hours and take more vacations. Anecdotally, do you know more stay at home mom's or dad's? You still haven't offered an answer as to why this flagrant discrimination in WAGES isn't being litigated? Or abused by the corporations for that matter, if they could pay woman less why would they hire a man, they are all about that bottom line after all.

Name on recent example where an equally qualified woman makes a lower wage then a male counterpart in the same position?


I asked where you got your news from, and you proceed to tell me about anecdotal and empirical evidence. What are these credible sites you keep alluding to?


Hahaha the mainstream media doesn't have bias, did you watch the campaigns leading up to the election? You are trying to say that all the mainstream media gives a completely neutral and unbiased perspective based on the facts all because of journalistic standards? That's funny because most of it is owned by the same handful of major corporations.
You can cherry pick stats and misinterpret data to fit your perspective and call it facts, most media does this, mainstream and alternative. Look no further then what you are attempting to do with this wage gap myth. Wow, how could you even argue Hillary wasn't given special treatment. Did you watch the debates?You are so bitter about Trump winning that you are trying to convince yourself that the msm favoured him over Hillary, nothing could be further from the truth. They helped him unintentionally by being so over the top biased towards her, that the people saw they were trying to manipulate them into voting for that neo-con shill.

" Try to understand what makes a site credible. What you call credible is embarrassing. "

What site have I called credible? I don't get my news from a single source, I try to look at all perspectives, motives and intent before I form my own opinion. The links I posted were sites I was hoping you would find credible, but you just stick to the establishments view, if it isn't CNN, MSNBC then it must not be legit news. What a joke.

"Proof please"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13...sly-known.html

Bills sexual escapades are pretty well documented, he has faced numerous public allegations. You seem like one of those people that require a citation for the obvious.

What do you make of Anthony Weiner? Seems like a good guy to have around.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You think? With total respect, I think you're way off in both the likelihood of war and the chance America has of coming out of it on top.

Tensions are already high between the two, and the deterrence theory only works as long as the other doesn't do anything to make you think it's not working (telling them to "shove it" would be that).

China is equivalent to the US in military power, they've come a long way and honestly completely hold their own in power. They are not a nation the US stands any chance at all of pushing around.

In addition, the US is already in a proxy war with Russia. While Russia and China aren't inseparable, you can bet Russia would join in along with North Korea (and the insane Philippines, but who knows what relevance that would have).

The US would get absolutely obliterated if they make any big moves against China or Russia in the next 5 years. That's not even considering the idea of things going nuclear.

You're seriously underestimating the military gap between the US and everyone else. China pushes tensions because of their economic stake. If it came down to it, they'd lose, and it wouldn't be close.

As for the bolded, not even close. The only metric they compete in is manpower, for obvious reasons. And the US isn't pushing an attack onto the mainland of a nuclear armed country anyway.

[PepsiFree]

Good read for those underestimating China:

http://www.businessinsider.com/chine...?client=safari

A big advantage highlighted in the article is that China could mobilise from one position, while the United States have forces spread out all over the world.

They're considered very close in power, and the allies of the US are not as powerful as the ones China has (and the US would have to give up a significant number of strategic positions to focus on China).

It would be a disaster for the US.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

It could be hyperbole, joking or he could be lying. I judge people by their actions, not by what they say when they are joking around and not knowing they are being recorded. He apologised for it and said he has changed, what else do you want?

I am glad the comments about his own daughter were just a joke. That makes it cool, I guess.

[zamler]

China would wreck the U.S. in all out war the United States would not be able source any spare parts.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Good read for those underestimating China:

http://www.businessinsider.com/chine...?client=safari

A big advantage highlighted in the article is that China could mobilise from one position, while the United States have forces spread out all over the world.

They're considered very close in power, and the allies of the US are not as powerful as the ones China has (and the US would have to give up a significant number of strategic positions to focus on China).

It would be a disaster for the US.

Did you actually read any of the report that article is referencing?

It basically saying they're getting better, and are aiming to be a regional power.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

Did you actually read any of the report that article is referencing?



It basically saying they're getting better, and are aiming to be a regional power.

Absolutely, but I think you misunderstood it a little bit.

"Building a regionally powerful military" doesn't mean that can't globally compete with the US or that it isn't aiming higher. It's of a high quality, their cyber warfare capabilities are of a significant danger to the US, and (again) their allies are extremely dangerous.

Sure, if the US/China war was fought on US soil between only those two, the US would destroy them. That's an impossible scenario.

[RougeUnderoos]

The losers of a war between China and the US would be everyone on earth.

Why are we even talking about this?

Oh yeah, they just elected a sabre-rattling nutcase who doesn't know any more about international relations and how the world works than I do. Possibly less. But he does know more than the Generals, so I guess it's a wash?