Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 55   1  2  Next >>   
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:08:46


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
http://goo.gl/VfU6Wp

To be frank, Trump disbanding NATO and starting peace talks with Russia and North Korea is less destructive than Clinton's probable Foriegn Policy. America under the last four presidents has become the boogeyman country folk talk about when arguing against lessened military intervention and spending, and Trump is less likely to continue on that path. A big problem though, is his trade policy, since protectionism raises the likelyhood of wars. And no, I'm not pro-trump, just saying he's better here.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:25:21


Benjamin628 
Level 59
Report
Clinton is a terrorist
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:31:13


[WOLF] The Conservative
Level 56
Report
I see Trump as the bigger threat to national security. Clinton, as much as she screams she isn't, is clearly usually a Clintonite democrat ( Similar to moderates ). She would most likely pursue a status quo policy with a less pacifist position towards Iran and the middle east.



Actually, besides John Kasich and Gary Johnson, I would feel confident trusting her with national security. My only concern is that she would fight ISIS with ground troops and get us in Syria. However, Iraq has hung over the head of Obama since he began office and I think it will do the same to Hillary.



I'm divided on Trump. I like his " Lets be buddies! " approach towards Russia. Peace talks with North Korea is a great idea, but it won't make a difference in the end unless we plan on abandoning the south. His threats of leaving NATO are idiotic. Leaving NATO is even more stupid. It literally would not accomplish shit and encourage Russian aggression. The European union has proven it is a pussy when it comes to fighting the Russian bear.

Edited 6/8/2016 20:33:35
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:31:53


The Lord
Level 52
Report
Trump is clearly the best alternative. A vote for anyone but him is a vote for Clinton the Terrorist.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:34:18


OxTheAutist 
Level 58
Report
The European union has proven it is a pussy when it comes to fighting the Russian bear.
wtf, since when was the EU a military union? When is it supposed to fight russia, hm?
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:36:53


[WOLF] The Conservative
Level 56
Report
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy


^ Defense is apart of the EU purpose. Now, Ukraine wasn't in the EU when the conflict started but t h e invasion was a clear threat to European stability

Edited 6/8/2016 20:38:16
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:41:19


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
I hate the UN but leaving it would only cause instability and allow a Chinese-Russo domination of the world's most powerful military and Influential world organization.

Just hand Germany a seat on the Defense Council, that ought to keep things well and good.

Leaving NATO is even more stupid. It literally would not accomplish shit and encourage Russian aggression

NATO is not some defensive alliance, it's been expanding and attacking since the Soviet Union collapsed, and it supported a coup in Ukraine to get farther towards Russia. Russia has done far less aggression towards NATO, and as for Georgia and Ukraine, those were acts of aggression from NATO intially that turned into actual war.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:43:06


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
^ Defense is apart of the EU purpose. Now, Ukraine wasn't in the EU when the conflict started but t h e invasion was a clear threat to European stability

And a coup that overthrew the leader and started a government that supports Neo-Nazis wasn't a threat to stability?
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 20:47:22


[WOLF] The Conservative
Level 56
Report
The original coup was also a threat, no conflict there. NATO has needed a degrade since 1991, I have said that for awhile. But disbanding is just asking for WW3 on a golden platter
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 21:02:05


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Asking for WW3 how? Why would Russia attack Europe? Why the fuck would Russia attack Europe when they just got free of the threat of war with Europe?
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 22:28:53


[WOLF] The Conservative
Level 56
Report
Hmm, I don't, maybe it's because they have one of the most aggressive and Nationalist leaders since Khrushchev. I highly doubt Russia would Invade Europe the day after NATO dissolved but there definitely would be " Coups " in the Baltic states, Belarus, Finland, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and maybe even Poland. It wouldn't happen in day but over the course of years but eventually USSR Incarnate would pop up except only a lot stronger.

Edited 6/8/2016 22:29:39
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 22:35:47


[REGL] Pooh 
Level 59
Report
How did HRC do as Secretary of State, in charge of foreign policy?

Unable to end a war in Iraq? Destabilization of the Middle East through the Arab Spring? The rise of ISIS?

Hopefully the parallels between Trump and Hitler are not predictive. Hopefully he's smart enough not to drop a bomb.

HRC will have noone to blame but herself for a Trump victory.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 23:03:36


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
I see Trump as the bigger threat to national security. Clinton, as much as she screams she isn't, is clearly usually a Clintonite democrat ( Similar to moderates ). She would most likely pursue a status quo policy with a less pacifist position towards Iran and the middle east.
Conservative, u r really ignorant here. Clinton has never had a foreign policy success as Sec. of State or a senator but u think she will do well this time!?!?!?!?! And why would continuing the status quo be good? The status quo is ISIS u knob!!!!!

Actually, besides John Kasich and Gary Johnson, I would feel confident trusting her with national security. My only concern is that she would fight ISIS with ground troops and get us in Syria. However, Iraq has hung over the head of Obama since he began office and I think it will do the same to Hillary.
How could you feel confident entrusting her anything after Benghazi, Libya, and Iraq? Is 3rd time the charm? Or r u just a cuckservative?

I'm divided on Trump. I like his " Lets be buddies! " approach towards Russia. Peace talks with North Korea is a great idea, but it won't make a difference in the end unless we plan on abandoning the south. His threats of leaving NATO are idiotic. Leaving NATO is even more stupid. It literally would not accomplish shit and encourage Russian aggression. The European union has proven it is a pussy when it comes to fighting the Russian bear.
Yeah, good idea. Let's fight Russia when they have no impact on us. WEEEEEEEE! Mebbe if we try hard enough we can cuaz ww3 ahead of schedule! About leaving NATO: first of all, realize he won't. It is just a negotiating position where he has more leverage to make other NATO members pull weight - faced with no USA or contributing more, they will choose the latter. Second of all, even if he did leave - who cares? NATO hasn't done shit in a decade and won't do shit for decades more. Unilateral action is easier.


TL;DR I'm pretty sure Conservative is a cuckservative
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 23:04:02


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
Get with it and jump on the #TrumpTrain, ffs!
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 23:21:28


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
For all her faults, Clinton at least has some executive and legislative history. She understands how modern politics work (as disgusting as they are). Sure she has failures but we can't even speak of Trump's failures because he was too busy being a reality TV personality.

The man has zero experience in any facet of governing and has declared corporate bankruptcy how many times now? If he sticks to what he has said he will quickly alienate all US allies and leave the country isolated. No bueno.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 23:32:55


Zephyrum 
Level 60
Report
Wait...

Leave NATO? Do his best to disband it?

...TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT! *starts buying "make america great again" caps*
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 23:35:51


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
China won't let Russia have a coup in either Kazakhstan or Mongolia.

As for Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic States, and Finland: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermarium

Prometheism is already achieved, so intermarium could be accomplished pretty easy. Of course , you'd have to get the members to leave the EU, to be a real Intermarium and not Western Europe's puppet, but either way, Russia can't expand. Also, states surrounding Russia are at a much greater risk of being overthrown by NATO than by Russia.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 23:44:58


[WOLF] The Conservative
Level 56
Report
" Conservative, u r really ignorant here. Clinton has never had a foreign policy success as Sec. of State or a senator but u think she will do well this time!?!?!?!?! And why would continuing the status quo be good? The status quo is ISIS u knob!!!!! "

^ Nice one, let's if you can type like a troll anymore. Also, name a foreign policy success of Trump ( Damn his speech on the matter made me sick ). Gosh, you really do make everything a personal bash don't you?




" Yeah, good idea. Let's fight Russia when they have no impact on us. WEEEEEEEE! Mebbe if we try hard enough we can cuaz ww3 ahead of schedule! About leaving NATO: first of all, realize he won't. It is just a negotiating position where he has more leverage to make other NATO members pull weight - faced with no USA or contributing more, they will choose the latter. Second of all, even if he did leave - who cares? NATO hasn't done shit in a decade and won't do shit for decades more. Unilateral action is easier."


^ Oh look! He can act like a troll for a second time! Brilliant! Let's see if this young circus bear can do it again later!. You just said NATO has been by far more aggressive after the fall of the USSR but now your saying " NATO hasn't done shit in a decade " Like I said, contradictory statements In your arguments are never good. Please fix it, it annoys me.




" TL;DR I'm pretty sure Conservative is a cuckservative "


^ Oh look! He's done it again!. Damn, I really do think the wacos are good for him. Probably safer too, considering all that brain power it takes to talk about this threatens his tiny brain. Probably also explains his inability to come up with any ideas besides what I hear immature, stereotypical and loud mouth 13 year olds say.



I have responded in kind to your troll rhetoric and immaturity. So please, stop it next comment, I'm not used to it ;)

Edited 6/8/2016 23:45:56
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 23:54:27


Жұқтыру
Level 55
Report
Trump may be less antagonistic to Russia, and he claims that he wants to end the "false song of globalism", while Clinton wants antagonism against Russia (she promised to set up a no-fly zone in Syria for Russian skycraft). That's it. In 20 countries polled over Trump against Clinton, only Russia liked Trump more. Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Brazilians, they all hate him. And their leaders hate him, as well.

*Trump is still for America abducting any foreigners they want without any kind of trying and hold them and torture them without any proof.
*Trump is for greatening the military budget.
*For, as official policy, going on with obsessive NSA spying in other countries.
*For sending footsoldiers to the Mashriq.
*For lowering foreign help spending.

Peace talks with North Korea is a great idea, but it won't make a difference in the end unless we plan on abandoning the south.


Actually, now that the Together Democracy has the National Gathering's majority, I think relations will cool down a bit, from when the New Frontier party ruled. They plan on re-opening the Kaesong Industrial Site, and they (along with all parties except for the New Frontier) are trying to push the Americans out of Korea. So yes, America should "abandon" the south.

His threats of leaving NATO are idiotic. Leaving NATO is even more stupid.


It won't really affect anything. America will end it's formal alliance and just be an informal ally of other NATO countries.

The European union has proven it is a pussy when it comes to fighting the Russian bear.


Russia doesn't pose a threat to the EU; some EU countries like Hungary have lifted most sanctions as it hurt their economy too much for the sanctions. Let's be real: Russia is not going to invade Latvia or something, when there are way better other, safer targets, like resource-rich (and currently on America's blacklist) Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine.

I highly doubt Russia would Invade Europe the day after NATO dissolved but there definitely would be " Coups " in the Baltic states, Belarus, Finland, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and maybe even Poland.


Russia is nowhere near as powerful as you believe. The risks of invading the EU are way too high. Britain and France are both proven core weapon countries, recall. Belarus and Armenia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia, they like Russia (and China's much more likely to do something like that in Mongolia, it would be bad relations with China if Russia did it). As for Georgia, they did invade it in 2008. And NATO did nothing. Nor did NATO do anything in 1992, in Pridnestrovia, or in 1991, in Georgia. Nor many other conflits, that just were not in its interest; not worth it, like the Tajik Civil War (where the Students and other violent Islamic extremists tried to take over the government and were semi-successful). Thankfully, NATO didn't escalate those wars.

USSR Incarnate would pop up except only a lot stronger.


I doubt, even if Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and all the others unified, that it would even be more powerful than America. Maybe as powerful as India, but do you realise how small these countries are?

What you're saying is in the same category of likelihoods as Iran rebuilding the old Iranian Kingdom all the way to modernday Albania and India. They're just nowhere near powerful enough.

The USSR today holds up of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and to be Tajikistan. Now, Russia is trying to reel Ukraine back in, but it's failed quite a bit, partially from foreign "support" of the ultranationalist Ukrainian government, and it's economy is pretty bad. Now imagine that with Poland or Latvia, some stable economy that's part of the EU.

How did HRC do as Secretary of State, in charge of foreign policy?


Quite loads of that isn't her blame.

Destabilization of the Middle East through the Arab Spring?


She did not begin the Arab Spring, though she is to blame for quite loads of what's happening in Syria and Bahrain.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/8/2016 23:59:52


[WOLF] The Conservative
Level 56
Report
^ Juq,I'm not gonna fight you for three reasons



1 Your not open minded enough to change your opinion if proven wrong


2 Arrogance


3 I am currently debating Smedly which is good practice for when I go to debate tomorrow with my debate club. He's very helpful actually and it's perfect because he isn't as good as most people I debate. Kinda like keeping up on the basics of what not to do, you know?
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 00:06:46


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
So you're not going to argue X, because he's not "open minded" enough and he is arrogant, but then say that you're much better than me. Yeah, I have a list for you:

1: You're arrogant

2: Not open-minded enough, I want you to believe me right off the bat like you want with X

3: X is much better and more fun to talk to

4: You felt eager enough to argue The Lord, but not X, so hypocritical

Edited 6/9/2016 00:10:15
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 00:24:24


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
luls conservative calls me a troll but doesn't refute anything gg.
Complains about Juq's arrogance, has this on his bio luls: I'm a Libertarian who is probably one of the most cultured people WarLight.


@Richard Sharpe
What does experience matter? The system is wacked. Look where the status quo and experience have got us - more corruption, 18 trillion in debt, involved all around the world, ISIS and Islam everywhere, .5% GDP growth. Experience is good, but all of Clinton's is bad - Iraq, Libya are her biggest foreign policy involvements, and look at how that went. Why do people want more of the same?

Edited 6/9/2016 00:40:25
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 00:30:26


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Islam everywhere


It's called separation of church and state. The government should have zero care or role in religious matters, period. It's a core tenet of our republic and government.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 00:47:08


[WOLF] The Conservative
Level 56
Report
"So you're not going to argue X, because he's not "open minded" enough and he is arrogant, but then say that you're much better than me. Yeah, I have a list for you:"

I choose not to debate him this one time because I'm busy debating you. I thought this would give you a warm happy feeling lol. Where did I say I was better? Please name a place. I can be arrogant but it's not my general disposition. Most people will tell you that I admitt when I'm wrong.



"
1: You're arrogant

2: Not open-minded enough, I want you to believe me right off the bat like you want with X "

^ Dude, you literary just copied me XD. I pride myself on open mindedness, it's kinda my thing. Although, your right I should take your ideas more seriously if I want to be truly open minded, it's just hard.


" 3: X is much better and more fun to talk to "

^ Well yeah, if I was his bitch I would enjoy his company too lol.


" 4: You felt eager enough to argue The Lord, but not X, so hypocritical "

Your confusing Being a hypocrite with just having enough energy. I named my reasons for not wanting to debate Juq based on the past. I have very little experience with Lord so I have no reason not to debate him. Therefore, since Lord and Juq are different people with different views and I have different experience with, it's not hypocrisy. If I refused to debate Juq and then started a new debate with Koala that would be very hypocritical because I have the same problem with both of them. That's hypocritical. Ok, gosh, I'm going back to the days of explaining everything to you. I was hoping to avoid that dam it!

^ ( Btw, since your having trouble identifying arrogance, that last part was arrogant. I was just telling you so next time when your typing, you'll know what to use instead of me explaining something again. In the end, it just saves time for me )

Edited 6/9/2016 00:48:30
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 00:56:34


[WOLF] The Conservative
Level 56
Report
Look I'll be serious for a second. Here's my problem with you. I don't think your that arrogant ( well, a little ) it's more like I just find you rude. You kinda diss anyone off the bat who doesn't agree with you. Ever notice I only start going personal when someone else fires the cannon? Which still doesn't make it right. I honestly think you and Juq are very smart people , but I don't respect you. I disrespect you because you both act in ways I don't condone. Now of course I make the same mistakes, but I try not to.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 01:32:28


DomCobb
Level 45
Report
Stay on topic people...
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?

The one who takes office of president, although I would prefer Clinton (barely).
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 03:01:29


Paugers
Level 41
Report
Anyone who supports Clinton is a traitor to our nation.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 03:32:57


Major General Smedley Butler
Level 49
Report
Darn it Paugers, stop trying to convince me to support Clinton. You love her and everything, since she's a democrat, in support of the KKK, and a traitor to the US like you, but I'm a different kind of traitor.
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 04:25:29


The Hysterical Koala
Level 57
Report
Why do you guys even bother having political discussions here, given how many trolls and arrogant pr***s run rampant?

Politics is one of the main issues you avoid for a reasonable discussion. I have seen exactly one political "discussion" not turn into a mud slinging contest like here.

If you want a real conversation, this is not the place for it - unless by a "conversation" or "debate" you mean that you want to find other people who agree with you, and to smash to smithereens all who disagree. Because you are oh so clearly superior and anyone who disagrees is a gibbering fool who does not understand how the world works, let alone kindergarten.

Edited 6/9/2016 04:26:49
Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?: 6/9/2016 05:36:19


The Lord
Level 52
Report
I don't think I've ever used my freedom of speech* to argue with Conservative.
*provided and protected by the State™
Posts 1 - 30 of 55   1  2  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service