[Snupes]

w0w or someone who can attempt humour

[Rama Set]

Trump on the other hand took some good advice and started using a tele-prompter.

[Pete Svarrior]

actually fair enough, 1985 was mostly denouement, but the point is that i wildly disagree with your description of us-russian relations, and the comparison you and rushy draw between russia and the dprk would only maybe make sense if we were living in the height of the cold war.  but we're not, so it isn't.

Okay, so your argument is "no u". 10/10

there are significant qualitative differences, the most obvious of which are things like red phones, arms control agreements, lots of trade, neither being run by a dictator with absolute control over a brainwashed and isolated population, a lack of ideological predisposition toward annihilate the other, etc.

Oh, okay, so you don't know much about President Prime Minister President Putin. Why didn't you just say so?

If I assume the absolute maximum of good faith on your part, your argument boils down to "Russia big, North Korea no big. Ha, difference!!!" - Yes, good job, the US is acting much less macho towards Russia than it is towards North Korea. That's because they don't want to get their teeth kicked in. No surprise there.

either way, what difference does it make?  let's suppose you're right and russia is a huge threat.  what does one have to do with the other?  i'm not making any argument about what foreign policy toward russia is or isn't good.  my argument was that 1) i don't think trump should have anything to do with directing foreign policy toward the peninsula, and 2) our current foreign policy there is reasonably sound.

Yes, and we were explaining to you why you're wrong using examples which we (or, well, I) had hoped would be more familiar to you. It's difficult because you're apparently in denial not only about the situation between the US and North Korea, but also about the situation between the US and Russia - what with your frantic jumping between calling them ALLIES (I'm honestly not over that), calling them uhh-not-enemies-I-guess, randomly and incorrectly invoking history, etc.; all that just to avoid responding to an argument. I guess we could try again with, oh, I dunno, ISIS, but that'd probably end up going the same way. "History ain't history and current events ain't current events so ha!!!!!"

What a waste of time. I'll leave you with this:

[George]

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483085166/donald-trump-clinton-is-the-most-corrupt-person-ever-to-run-for-president

"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."

Trump is trying to get people to assassinate Hillary.  How dare he.

[garygreen]

Yes, and we were explaining to you why you're wrong using examples which we (or, well, I) had hoped would be more familiar to you. It's difficult because you're apparently in denial not only about the situation between the US and North Korea, but also about the situation between the US and Russia

rushy asserted that since i think the dprk is a threat then i must think russia is a threat.  let's assume you're both right that russia is a threat.  what does that have to with the net-benefits of maintaining a military base in south korea? 

how is russia an example of why i'm wrong that we should maintain a military base in south korea?  ELI5.

what with your frantic jumping between calling them ALLIES (I'm honestly not over that), calling them uhh-not-enemies-I-guess, randomly and incorrectly invoking history, etc.; all that just to avoid responding to an argument.

indeed, allies was the wrong word, and although i wouldn't call immediately admitting that i was incorrect "frantic," i agree, again, that it is the wrong word to use to describe our relationship with russia.  feel free to strike that sentence from my reasoning, because it is incorrect.

that said, you're just beating a dead horse over a relatively superficial error.  an error, absolutely, but not one that really has anything to do with the substance of my argument or the warrants supporting it: the differences between russia and the dprk, and their respective relations with the us, are qualitative, not quantitative.  i am not suggesting that the us and russia are never adversaries; i'm suggesting that the things over which we cooperate make our relationship fundamentally different than the one we have with the dprk.  'don't you know you're wrong?' isn't an argument that can be responded to.

putin is not a dictator, and the russian state operates in a fundamentally different manner than the dprk

So if the Russian state were nothing more than an extension of Putin, how would one explain the reckless decision to invade and annex Crimea in 2014 or the risky military intervention in Syria that Russia launched last year? If Russia were a pure autocracy, such actions would suggest a leader with a personality like Stalin’s or Mussolini’s. But there are no evil geniuses in the Kremlin today. Rather, powerful figures such as Sergei Ivanov, Putin’s chief of staff; Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s chief adviser on political strategy; and even Putin himself are more akin to experienced, competent bureaucrats, generally able to exercise administrative control, even if they act mostly in their own interest.

The reality, as attested by the past two years of chaos, is that despite his image as an all-powerful tsar, Putin has never managed to build a bureaucratically successful authoritarian state. Instead, he has merely crafted his own version of sistema, a complex practice of decision-making and power management that has long defined Russian politics and society and that will outlast Putin himself. Putin has mastered sistema, but he has not replaced it with “Putinism” or a “Putin system.” Someday, Putin will go. But sistema will stay.

russia is fundamentally uninterested in conflict with nato and nato allies

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are safe, however, even if they do not feel that way: the Kremlin has no interest in risking nuclear war by attacking a nato member state, and the sphere of Russian control to which Putin aspires certainly excludes these countries. At the same time that Russia is rebuilding its military, nato is ramping up its own military presence in eastern Europe. The result will likely be a new and open-ended military standoff. Unlike during the Cold War, however, there is little prospect for arms control agreements between Russia and the West anytime soon because of the many disparities in their conventional military capabilities. Indeed, the Russian armed forces are unlikely to become as powerful as the U.S. military or threaten a nato member state with a massive invasion even in the long term. Although Moscow seeks to remain a major player
on the international stage, Russian leaders have abandoned Soviet-era ambitions of global domination and retain bad memories of the Cold War–
era arms race, which fatally weakened the Soviet Union.

What is more, Russia’s resources are far more limited than those of the United States: its struggling economy is nowhere near the size of the U.S. economy, and its aging population is less than half as large as the U.S. population. The Russian defense industry, having barely survived two decades of neglect and decay, faces a shrinking work force, weaknesses in key areas such as electronics, and the loss of traditional suppliers such as Ukraine.
Although Russia’s military expenditures equaled 4.2 percent of gdp in 2015, the country cannot bear such high costs much longer without cutting back on essential domestic needs, particularly in the absence of robust economic growth. For now, even under the constraints of low energy prices and Western sanctions, Russian officials have pledged to continue the military modernization, albeit at a slightly slower pace than was originally planned.

Putin and other Russian officials understand that Russia’s future, and their own, depends mostly on how ordinary citizens feel. Just as the annexation of Crimea was an exercise in historic justice for most of the Russian public, high defense spending will be popular so long as Russian citizens believe that it is warranted by their country’s international position. So far, that seems to be the case. The modernization program could become a problem, however, if it demands major cuts to social spending and produces a sharp drop in living standards. The Russian people are famously resilient, but unless the Kremlin finds a way to rebuild the economy and provide better governance in the next four or five years, the social contract at the foundation of the country’s political system could unravel. Public sentiment is not a trivial matter in this respect: Russia is an autocracy, but it is an autocracy with the consent of the governed.

our relationship with the kremlin is troubled, but we definitely cooperate on significant global events and have shared interests.  'technically not allies' isn't *terribly* far off the mark.

The cease-fire represents the second time that the Russians and the Americans have unexpectedly and successful cooperated in Syria, where the civil war has pitted Moscow (which acts as the primary protector and patron of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) against Washington (which has called for an end to Assad’s rule). In 2013, Russia and the United States agreed on a plan to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons, with the Assad regime’s assent. Few believed that arrangement would work either, but it did.

These moments of cooperation highlight the fact that, although the world order has changed beyond recognition during the past 25 years and is no longer defined by a rivalry between two competing superpowers, it remains the case that when an acute international crisis breaks out, Russia and the United States are often the only actors able to resolve it. Rising powers, international institutions, and regional organizations frequently cannot do anything—or don’t want to. What is more, despite Moscow’s and Washington’s expressions of hostility and contempt for each other, when it comes to shared interests and common threats, the two powers are still able to work reasonably well together.

And yet, it’s important to note that these types of constructive interactions on discrete issues have not changed the overall relationship, which remains troubled[...]

apologies for the wall of text, but it's better than an assertion debate.

[Roundy]

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483085166/donald-trump-clinton-is-the-most-corrupt-person-ever-to-run-for-president

"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."

Trump is trying to get people to assassinate Hillary.  How dare he.

Might as well call her Hitlery Clinton, amirite?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483085166/donald-trump-clinton-is-the-most-corrupt-person-ever-to-run-for-president

"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."

Trump is trying to get people to assassinate Hillary.  How dare he.

Might as well call her Hitlery Clinton, amirite?

Calling a politician corrupt is kind of like calling a dog furry or water wet. Labeling someone the consensus all-time leader in evil incarnate is a little more dangerous.

[George]

He didn't simply call her corrupt, as the article makes clear.  He's blaming her for the creation of ISIS and the deaths of thousands worldwide.  The obvious takeaway is that she would be even more dangerous if she were to win the election.  Gee, how many tens, or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are on the line if she becomes the president?  If she were to be killed now, all those people would be saved!  It sure seems like it's morally justified to kill her now and stop this genocide before it happens, doesn't it?

If Hillary and the media are subtly calling for Trump's assassination, than Trump is calling for Hillary's, and far more blatantly.  I say if because this whole scenario is ridiculous to begin with, but it's interesting to see yet another double standard among Trump fans.

[Rushy]

He didn't simply call her corrupt, as the article makes clear.  He's blaming her for the creation of ISIS and the deaths of thousands worldwide.  The obvious takeaway is that she would be even more dangerous if she were to win the election.  Gee, how many tens, or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are on the line if she becomes the president?  If she were to be killed now, all those people would be saved!  It sure seems like it's morally justified to kill her now and stop this genocide before it happens, doesn't it?

If Hillary and the media are subtly calling for Trump's assassination, than Trump is calling for Hillary's, and far more blatantly.  I say if because this whole scenario is ridiculous to begin with, but it's interesting to see yet another double standard among Trump fans.

When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "She is a corrupt warmongerer" I think the difference stands pretty clear.

Well, I'm glad you asked me that, because some on the other side who are already advocating to deport 11, 12 million people

[...]round them up and, I don't know, put them in buses or boxcars, in order to take them across the border.

Hmm, how many people were estimated to be killed in the Holocaust again? And what was the main method of transportation?

It's true, Hillary has never straight said "Trump is Hitler!" but the theme is there. You even have popular media talkshows such as Colbert accidentally making Trump->Nazi Graphs:

[George]

When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.

Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said, and yes, the difference is pretty clear.  Trump's language is far more extreme, as it always is, because the man lives and breathes hyperbole.  That's arguably been one of his key strengths of his campaign.  There's no sense in downplaying it.  And Hillary's quote is from almost a year ago (for an extra dose of irony, the same Washington Post you allege is part of the anti-Trump/call-Trump-Hitler conspiracy called Hillary out for that line and defended Trump).  Don't you have anything more recent?

It's true, Hillary has never straight said "Trump is Hitler!" but the theme is there.

Now, why does this sound familiar?  Oh yeah, a few of us have tried to argue along these lines when discussing Trump's alleged racism:

What [Trump] is doing, however, is nudging and winking at the bigots out there that make up his base, hinting to them that he shares their concerns about these people, while always leaving himself enough wiggle room to deny any racist intention if called out on it publicly.  But I think any reasonable person can connect the dots and figure out what the subtext is.

You rejected this, of course.  No, Trump has never said "Whites > blacks" and therefore any sign of racism from him is in the eye of the beholder.  Hillary is responsible for everything she implies and insinuates, but how dare you read anything into Trump's words no you're the real racist.  Oh, and here's a gem from the very entertaining response (I want to say it's half-capeshit villain, half-Bond villain) you wrote to that post:

But ultimately the point is, Saddam, I don't care if you call me or Trump or his supporters racist or xenophobes or whatever you want because you can't tell me why. You think about the morality of a policy, not its actual impact, and so therefore your thoughts on the subject are irrelevant. You live in a 'reality has a liberal bias' world. A feels>reals world. So feel free to move to Canada with the rest of the feels peoples while their economy burns to ashes.

And yet here you are complaining about morality and feels.  Getting soft on us, Rushy?  This is the real world, and hard, logical effects are what's important, not your romantic sentimentalism.  Having Trump killed is the surest way of guaranteeing that he'll never sit in the Oval Office, so why bother criticizing Hillary for sending assassins after him?  She's just trying to get shit done!  And wouldn't it be hilarious (Hillarious?) if Trump really was assassinated?  Talk about a yuge, yuge cucking for his fans!  You've talked before about watching the spiraling despair of Bernie's fans on reddit as it became more and more obvious that he had lost.  I bet that would be nothing compared to the mass suicides being planned on r/TheDonald.

You even have popular media talkshows such as Colbert accidentally making Trump->Nazi Graphs:

That was a fucking joke, Rushy.  Did you seriously think it was "accidental"?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.

Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said

Umm... is he wrong?

[Lord Dave]

When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.

Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said

Umm... is he wrong?

She's not a plague carrier.  Nor is the US currently at war with anyone who was an ally before she was secretary of state.  Nor is her husband dead.

So... no. 
Also, Trump was very clear that she was a terrific asset.  That was before he was running for president but he said it.

[Rushy]

Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said, and yes, the difference is pretty clear.  Trump's language is far more extreme, as it always is, because the man lives and breathes hyperbole.  That's arguably been one of his key strengths of his campaign.  There's no sense in downplaying it.  And Hillary's quote is from almost a year ago (for an extra dose of irony, the same Washington Post you allege is part of the anti-Trump/call-Trump-Hitler conspiracy called Hillary out for that line and defended Trump).  Don't you have anything more recent?

Trump isn't actively trying to compare Hillary to Hitler. There's only one man on the planet that killed 11 million people primarily using boxcars to shuffle them around, Saddam. I'll let you take a few minutes to think on who that man is.

Trump is saying Hillary is dangerous, corrupt, warmongering, etc. That's bad, yes, but it's a far cry from making comparisons between her and what is possibly the most evil man to have ever lived.

You rejected this, of course.  No, Trump has never said "Whites > blacks" and therefore any sign of racism from him is in the eye of the beholder.  Hillary is responsible for everything she implies and insinuates, but how dare you read anything into Trump's words no you're the real racist.  Oh, and here's a gem from the very entertaining response (I want to say it's half-capeshit villain, half-Bond villain) you wrote to that post:

"You said my [completely different] argument earlier was nonsense, therefore you're being a hypocrite when you say my argument is nonsense now!"

Saddam, even if this were true, arguing that I'm a hypocrite isn't an argument at all. If a smoker tells someone "don't smoke, it's bad for you" does that now mean smoking must be good for you?

And yet here you are complaining about morality and feels.  Getting soft on us, Rushy?  This is the real world, and hard, logical effects are what's important, not your romantic sentimentalism.  Having Trump killed is the surest way of guaranteeing that he'll never sit in the Oval Office, so why bother criticizing Hillary for sending assassins after him?  She's just trying to get shit done!  And wouldn't it be hilarious (Hillarious?) if Trump really was assassinated?  Talk about a yuge, yuge cucking for his fans!  You've talked before about watching the spiraling despair of Bernie's fans on reddit as it became more and more obvious that he had lost.  I bet that would be nothing compared to the mass suicides being planned on r/TheDonald.

This is probably one of the most cringeworthy things you've ever posted.

That was a fucking joke, Rushy.  Did you seriously think it was "accidental"?

Propaganda under the guise of comedy is still propaganda. Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, etc. spend their entire lives peddling propaganda to their audience. There have been many, many studies to the effect (e.g. this sociology paper) showing that humor is extremely effective as a persuasion technique. The combination of humor and "news" contributes to thousands of people who genuinely believe these comedians are good sources of information.

Colbert hilariously compared Trump to Hitler. Now when you think of Hitler/Swastikas, your mind brings up Trump. That's not an accident. These are men who educate themselves in the psychology of an audience. They do what they do very much on purpose, much as anyone else does. Make people laugh, trust you, and then slip in some manipulation along the line. No big deal, right?

[George]

You're still downplaying what Trump says on a daily basis while exaggerating the impact of what Hillary once said a year ago, still insisting on double standards where Trump means no more than what he literally says as a rule, but Hillary can be blamed for any meaning you wring out of her words, and still backtracking on your previous "I am above your silly morals" edgelord stance to feign outrage now.  I'm focusing on the hypocrisy of your reasoning because it's not atypical of much of Trump's support, especially on the Internet - a quickly slapped-together set of flimsy, inconsistent principles meant to disguise the fact that this election is all just a big joke to you.  Yeah, I know that this is kind of like the George Scott fallacy (I wonder how many people here will get that reference), but it needs to be said.  You don't support Trump the politician; you support Trump the meme.  You, along with God knows how many of Trump's fans, just want him to be elected because you think it would be hilarious to see the President of the United States tell journalists he doesn't like to fuck off at press conferences, to see him grab his crotch and roll his eyes while a rival politician gives a speech opposing his latest plan, to hear about diplomatic meetings that were broken off in anger because he kept leering at the women in attendance, etc.  You're obviously entitled to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but there's no sense in pretending it's about anything more than entertainment value to you.

[Blanko]

ITT: Saddam knows other people better than they know themselves

[Rushy]

If I felt like putting more effort into my reply to that fabulous Saddam meltdown, then I'd go find the IRC log where Saddam said something to the tune of "If I want a serious argument I'll make posts on the forum."

ITT: Saddam knows other people better than they know themselves

Saddam is just mad that his argument blew up in his face and he knows it.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

You're still downplaying what Trump says on a daily basis while exaggerating the impact of what Hillary once said a year ago, still insisting on double standards where Trump means no more than what he literally says as a rule, but Hillary can be blamed for any meaning you wring out of her words, and still backtracking on your previous "I am above your silly morals" edgelord stance to feign outrage now.  I'm focusing on the hypocrisy of your reasoning because it's not atypical of much of Trump's support, especially on the Internet - a quickly slapped-together set of flimsy, inconsistent principles meant to disguise the fact that this election is all just a big joke to you.  Yeah, I know that this is kind of like the George Scott fallacy (I wonder how many people here will get that reference), but it needs to be said.  You don't support Trump the politician; you support Trump the meme.  You, along with God knows how many of Trump's fans, just want him to be elected because you think it would be hilarious to see the President of the United States tell journalists he doesn't like to fuck off at press conferences, to see him grab his crotch and roll his eyes while a rival politician gives a speech opposing his latest plan, to hear about diplomatic meetings that were broken off in anger because he kept leering at the women in attendance, etc.  You're obviously entitled to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but there's no sense in pretending it's about anything more than entertainment value to you.

That's really all I have to say about this.  I mean that sincerely - I'm not saying that I've won the argument and this is the final word on the subject or anything, just that my argument has reached its conclusion, and to say anything more would be repeating myself.  You may have a fantastic response to this, but I won't have one for you.

Spot on.

[İntikam]

As a Turk from Turkey i want Trumps win. Because recently almost of American presidents was bad, liar and killers . This man will not change anything. America currently supporting the terrorism, ISIS, al qaida and Boko haram. What will Trump do? Probably creates a new terror organisation as MISIS. 

Trump like a thread for otherside of the world. We know that to hold a thread is more effective from to realize the thread. So i want to Donald's winning the election. Then we can fight against all of American interests on the Middle East. Maybe this election can safe the world.

Trump should to win. Then  we see what can he do? Can he do what did say? yeah man choose him.

[juner]

Oh good, Hill dog gets to skate on federal charges. It was funny to see the FBI Director call her a retard though.

[George]

Of course Hillary won't be charged.  If she were, then she'd have the right to respond to the charges, and she'd have to go in front of a judge, both of which could very easily lead to the whole charade coming to a very sudden halt.  This was never about actually prosecuting her and letting the system handle things; it was about creating an air of perpetual scandal hovering over Hillary's head.  I imagine the Republicans will be upset that the FBI ended things a few months too early, though.  Maybe they'll take the Benghazi approach and launch a congressional "investigation" of what happened, begin a new one when they find nothing seriously incriminating, and so on.  Gotta keep the neverending scandal narrative going.