The1rstSaint Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 I wonder sometimes how the world would be if social media hasn't turned into the indestructible force it is now. We would all not have to be fueled with hate that's for damn sure. May be off topic but I also feel we wouldn't have been stuck with these two canidates, well maybe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenlow73 Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 There was more than two candidates. And it's not over yet because the EC doesn't meet until December 19 and votes from states must be certified by December 16 and with Jill Stein asking for hand recounts, the three states she's asking for recounts won't have them certified by then and it will be up to the Supreme Court to rule if they will allow those votes past the deadline for certification. So, it's possible that Trump may lose EC votes not because of Faithless Electors but by recounts delaying certification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 The majority of the population are fucking idiots. How could you vote for another crooked Clinton? Even if Trump turns out to be a total fuckup, at least we threw a wrench in the establishments plans (unless Trump was the plan all along lol..) At risk of going conspiratorial on you; what better way for the establishment to ride out the anti-establishment wave than with Trump -- not to say Clinton wouldn't be preferred, but would Trump make many people in positions of wealth and influence especially unhappy? doubtful. A surge of identity politicking that has nothing to do with wealth -- so a perfect perpetual distraction between groups large enough to cancel each other out that goes absolutely nowhere. Lots of loud anti-establishment rhetoric, but minimal action -- the swamp isn't getting drained so much as the stagnant sewage filled water is being swapped for more of the same. Military spending is going to remain pretty much unchanged, so the US military will continue to be viable as a poorly compensated force used to protect business interests (even if they take a bit of a break from actually doing it). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambo Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 In my opinion based off the stuff trump has said and been accused of he is a racist and i believe he has assaulted women also i feel he has been a very shady business man and he will be the only US president ever with no political or military experience All rich white people are "racist" to some degree or another. They're not racist against skin color so much as a culture. Be it black, brown, or white, they don't want a guy covered in tats with baggy jeans and a cadillac on 24's they bought with a welfare check in their community. Trump is racist but he wants to put Ben Carson on his cabinet? Hillary isn't racist? You really believe that? Hillary isn't shady business person? You realize the Clinton's wanted to go to North Korea and the Congo to collect a check (bribe money)? You ever do your research on the Clinton Foundation? They get into office and they own a million favors for all the bribe money they've collected over the years. @erik Trump will obviously make most rich people happy. I do believe Trump is anti-war because he isn't invested in war. War is bad for tourism. Terror is bad for tourism. he thrives off tourism. Hillary tried to declare a no-fly zone in Syria because of Russia. wtf is she thinking? it's not your country. best thing I've heard Trump say was that he wants America to stop playing "world police". Let Russia carpet bomb the rebels off the face of the earth for all we care, it doesn't impact the citizens of America. I'm happy with the result, regardless of what the agenda was. Not going to war with Russia is the best possible outcome for U.S. Presidency. War is bad. War vs geographical powerhouses / global super-powers is even worse. You wanna bomb ISIS locations? that's one thing. you want to piss off Putin and permanently damage relations... that's another. no need for it. let them do whatever they want. they didn't stop us from illegally invading Iraq and that was one of their allies in the middle-east. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 @erik Trump will obviously make most rich people happy. I do believe Trump is anti-war because he isn't invested in war. War is bad for tourism. Terror is bad for tourism. he thrives off tourism. Hillary tried to declare a no-fly zone in Syria because of Russia. wtf is she thinking? it's not your country. best thing I've heard Trump say was that he wants America to stop playing "world police". Let Russia carpet bomb the rebels off the face of the earth for all we care, it doesn't impact the citizens of America. I'm happy with the result, regardless of what the agenda was. Not going to war with Russia is the best possible outcome for U.S. Presidency. War is bad. War vs geographical powerhouses / global super-powers is even worse. You wanna bomb ISIS locations? that's one thing. you want to piss off Putin and permanently damage relations... that's another. no need for it. let them do whatever they want. they didn't stop us from illegally invading Iraq and that was one of their allies in the middle-east. Do you actually believe an open war with Russia was on the cards? If so, their propaganda is working well, Russia wants nothing to do with the US in a war (pretty much no chance of winning, and any hostility makes Europe hurry up their ending dependence on Russian natural gas which kills the Russian economy dead), from a US perspective there's no reason to care what relations you have with Russia as long as it isn't open hostility -- they don't have anything the US needs, they don't buy much the US makes, and they're not a plausible military threat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambo Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Do you actually believe an open war with Russia was on the cards? If so, their propaganda is working well, Russia wants nothing to do with the US in a war (pretty much no chance of winning, and any hostility makes Europe hurry up their ending dependence on Russian natural gas which kills the Russian economy dead), from a US perspective there's no reason to care what relations you have with Russia as long as it isn't open hostility -- they don't have anything the US needs, they don't buy much the US makes, and they're not a plausible military threat. I don't think Putin would ever roll over and play dead if Hillary, a woman, was President and started ordering the shooting of Russian aircrafts out the sky in Syria. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwad12345 Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 I don't think Putin would ever roll over and play dead if Hillary, a woman, was President and started ordering the shooting of Russian aircrafts out the sky in Syria. You really think Putin would risk WWIII over an Arab dictator? If the extremely temperamental Nikita Khrushchev would not start WWIII at the height of the cold war, during the cuban missile crisis, when the two sides were fairly even militarily, do you really think someone as cool-headed as Putin would? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiankaBonghi Posted December 5, 2016 Report Share Posted December 5, 2016 You really think Putin would risk WWIII over an Arab dictator? If the extremely temperamental Nikita Khrushchev would not start WWIII at the height of the cold war, during the cuban missile crisis, when the two sides were fairly even militarily, do you really think someone as cool-headed as Putin would? It is not just about an "Arab dictator". It is about energy supplies to Europe, if Putin lose Syria, it is literally like he lost a World War, maybe worse since it will probably mean the end of Putin's Russia as we know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwad12345 Posted December 6, 2016 Report Share Posted December 6, 2016 It is not just about an "Arab dictator". It is about energy supplies to Europe, if Putin lose Syria, it is literally like he lost a World War, maybe worse since it will probably mean the end of Putin's Russia as we know it. Lol. Im going to read probably way too far into what you wrote and assume you are talking about the proposed Qatar-Turkey pipepline. Some questions How many bcm (billion cubic meters) do you think that would amount to? Enough to potentially affect the European market in such a way that Putin would go armageddon over it? Who the fuck would finance this fantasy? Europe has already created several alternatives to Russian gas and more are on the way. Russia as we know it has neither crumbled nor gone nuclear yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiankaBonghi Posted December 6, 2016 Report Share Posted December 6, 2016 Lol. Im going to read probably way too far into what you wrote and assume you are talking about the proposed Qatar-Turkey pipepline. Some questions How many bcm (billion cubic meters) do you think that would amount to? Enough to potentially affect the European market in such a way that Putin would go armageddon over it? Who the fuck would finance this fantasy? Europe has already created several alternatives to Russian gas and more are on the way. Russia as we know it has neither crumbled nor gone nuclear yet. I dont know i am not Putin. But couple the Qatar -Turkey pipeline with the sanctions and low oil price for a couple of years and Russia collapse, it doenst even mean you have to use nuclear weapons by the way, big nations have big minds, the wars will be fought in third world countries (already in Syria or Iran and any other shit place) where the US and Russia can settle themselves. Now im not Putin, but if i know my nation is going to collapse, as a military superpower i wont go down without a fight. What are the other energy alternatives of Europe by the way? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwad12345 Posted December 6, 2016 Report Share Posted December 6, 2016 I dont know i am not Putin. But couple the Qatar -Turkey pipeline with the sanctions and low oil price for a couple of years and Russia collapse, it doenst even mean you have to use nuclear weapons by the way, big nations have big minds, the wars will be fought in third world countries (already in Syria or Iran and any other shit place) where the US and Russia can settle themselves. Now im not Putin, but if i know my nation is going to collapse, as a military superpower i wont go down without a fight. What are the other energy alternatives of Europe by the way? A pipeline from Qatar to Turkey (and on to Europe) would probably take 10 years to be realized. If you think oil and gas prices are going to stay lower than this (it is at a many months high now) Russia has bigger problems. As for other alternatives the newest are Algeria, Azerbaijan and potentially Israel/Cyprus. Hell, even Iran, Russia's ally, has held talks with the EU. Then of course there is LNG from the US and other countries. All of this misses the more salient point that Russian dependence in Europe is really restricted to the mostly poorer Eastern European countries and a pipeline from Qatar would not affect that in the slightest. It would just make gas a bit cheaper for Southern Europe. If you want to fix Russian dependence you dont need more supply, you need better distribution of supply throughout Europe. See projects like the North-South corridor and the Energy Union. And finally, on the point of Russia and the US fighting, I was responding to someone else who thought the US and Russia would start shooting each others' planes out of the sky. You responded to my post on that so I thought you accepted that premise. I'm glad to see you at least don't think it will go that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiankaBonghi Posted December 6, 2016 Report Share Posted December 6, 2016 A pipeline from Qatar to Turkey (and on to Europe) would probably take 10 years to be realized. If you think oil and gas prices are going to stay lower than this (it is at a many months high now) Russia has bigger problems. As for other alternatives the newest are Algeria, Azerbaijan and potentially Israel/Cyprus. Hell, even Iran, Russia's ally, has held talks with the EU. Then of course there is LNG from the US and other countries. All of this misses the more salient point that Russian dependence in Europe is really restricted to the mostly poorer Eastern European countries and a pipeline from Qatar would not affect that in the slightest. It would just make gas a bit cheaper for Southern Europe. If you want to fix Russian dependence you dont need more supply, you need better distribution of supply throughout Europe. See projects like the North-South corridor and the Energy Union. And finally, on the point of Russia and the US fighting, I was responding to someone else who thought the US and Russia would start shooting each others' planes out of the sky. You responded to my post on that so I thought you accepted that premise. I'm glad to see you at least don't think it will go that far. Algeria is not new, been there forever and can barely cover some needs of France Italy and Germany, Azerbaijan also is not a big producer, you are not talking about alternatives, you forget how energy hungry is EU and how retarded was Germany to disavow her nuclear energy potential, the oil reserves in the north sea are also almost done. By the way you just named another reason of why the war in Syria is already a mini world war 3, Iran pipelines have to pass through Syria too as an alternative to unreliable Turks. I dont know if i mentioned it already somewhere, but there is a giant gas field called Leviathan in the mediterranean coasts between Cyprus/lebanon/syria and a small chunk of it is in the Israel territorial water, just another reason they are beating the fucking shit of eachothers. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwad12345 Posted December 6, 2016 Report Share Posted December 6, 2016 Algeria is not new, been there forever and can barely cover some needs of France Italy and Germany, Azerbaijan also is not a big producer, you are not talking about alternatives, you forget how energy hungry is EU and how retarded was Germany to disavow her nuclear energy potential, the oil reserves in the north sea are also almost done. By the way you just named another reason of why the war in Syria is already a mini world war 3, Iran pipelines have to pass through Syria too as an alternative to unreliable Turks. I dont know if i mentioned it already somewhere, but there is a giant gas field called Leviathan in the mediterranean coasts between Cyprus/lebanon/syria and a small chunk of it is in the Israel territorial water, just another reason they are beating the fucking shit of eachothers. Going by internationally recognized EEZs, actually there is nothing in Lebanon, a little in cyprus and a lot in Israel. Not a lot compared to Azerbaijan though (which is not a small producer). If you want to talk about the Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt has the most but they are not going to export to Europe. Now if Turkmenistan ever comes online (which it won't) that would be a massive producer. Again, Italy, France and Germany on not dependent on Russia - the Baltics are dependent on Russia. To the extent that there is any dependency at all, it is Russia that is dependent on Germany - This is why it is desperate to conclude Nord Stream 2. France and Italy are marginal buyers. But the funniest thing you said was about Syria being more reliable than Turkey. I have to admit that made me laugh. You do know Iran already has a pipeline to Turkey right? Again, all of this is meaningless, you don't need more supply to break dependency, you need better distribution of supply. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiankaBonghi Posted December 7, 2016 Report Share Posted December 7, 2016 But the funniest thing you said was about Syria being more reliable than Turkey. I have to admit that made me laugh. You do know Iran already has a pipeline to Turkey right? Wait i just said Syria as an ally of Iran is more reliable than Turkey, and you are laughing?? i do not compute sorry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwad12345 Posted December 7, 2016 Report Share Posted December 7, 2016 Wait i just said Syria as an ally of Iran is more reliable than Turkey, and you are laughing?? i do not compute sorry. I am going to disregard the fact that that is not what you said and move along to the point. Iran already has a pipeline to Turkey, the question is how to connect the infrastructure to the Southern Gas corridor. A pipeline from Iran to Europe through Syria is a hilarious fantasy, anyone actually proposing it must have a sense of humor. But let me get back to the reason I started posting. Someone suggested that if clinton was elected she would start shooting Russian planes out of the sky, I said even if that happened (which it wouldn't) it would not escalate into WWIII. Let's put it to the test. Has anyone else shot down a Russian plane recently? Over Syria? Yes and Yes. What did Russia do? Slap on some sanctions and forgive them after 7 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiankaBonghi Posted December 7, 2016 Report Share Posted December 7, 2016 Iran already has a pipeline to Turkey, the question is how to connect the infrastructure to the Southern Gas corridor. A pipeline from Iran to Europe through Syria is a hilarious fantasy, anyone actually proposing it must have a sense of humor. Still not computing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shockg Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Still not computing. Does it ever? I highly doubt anything computational is happening up there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 I don't think Putin would ever roll over and play dead if Hillary, a woman, was President and started ordering the shooting of Russian aircrafts out the sky in Syria. Even in the unlikely event that was to actually happen (there are a number of steps between a Hillary presidency and Russian aircraft being shot down -- the actual declaration of a no fly zone for one, the Russians then being silly enough to put aircraft through it for two, and the US then shooting them down for three) based on responses past events what do you think Putin is going to do, the Turks shot a Russian jet out of the sky a year ago and nothing of consequence happened. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenlow73 Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Ii ceases to amaze me how many politicians are idiots. I was watching the clip of the final chance to oppose Trump being elected and Biden tells everybody that if a letter is not signed by both a Senator and a House Rep it wouldn't be entertained. One by one they came up and every single one of them only had their own signature. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiankaBonghi Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 I want to punch Rubio in the face, i am even willing to pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Putin crushed Turkey economically , just because he didn't respond with military action didn't mean he didn't affect nearly every single Turk indirectly. I would imagine that given what he actually did the average Turk would have rather had Putin gone for eye for an eye. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwad12345 Posted January 13, 2017 Report Share Posted January 13, 2017 Putin crushed Turkey economically , just because he didn't respond with military action didn't mean he didn't affect nearly every single Turk indirectly. I would imagine that given what he actually did the average Turk would have rather had Putin gone for eye for an eye. I'm going to have to completely disagree with you. The impact was fairly marginal although a few sectors were hurt hard. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiankaBonghi Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 I'm going to have to completely disagree with you. Who are you again? one of them Atlantic Council analysts? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwad12345 Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 Who are you again? one of them Atlantic Council analysts? lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingEpicity Posted January 15, 2017 Report Share Posted January 15, 2017 Who are you again? one of them Atlantic Council analysts? Nailed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.