[Woody]

To be fair the US has been arming and training factions that turn out to be enemies for awhile now.

Currently the US is sending money to potential enemies all across the globe.  I think the reasoning if we supply them with enough weapons and money they will not eventually use them against us or our allies.

It is well known the US trained and funded Al-Queda and the Taliban.  That was happening when Regan was in office and continued to happen after.  US foreign policy really seems destructive and great at creating enemies for the future.

[garygreen]

He must have accidentally said ISIL instead of "moderate rebels".

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/06/remarks-president-progress-fight-against-isil

here's the full quote: "Meanwhile, we continue to ramp up our training and support of local forces that are fighting ISIL on the ground.  As I’ve said before, this aspect of our strategy was moving too slowly.  But the fall of Ramadi has galvanized the Iraqi government.  So, with the additional steps I ordered last month, we’re speeding up training of ISIL [Iraqi] forces, including volunteers from Sunni tribes in Anbar Province."

he accidentally said isil instead of iraq.  he mentions isil 46 times in the course of these remarks, including sentences like this: "And that includes the work that brings me here today -- our mission to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group ISIL.  This is a cause, a coalition, that’s united countries across the globe -- some 60 nations, including Arab partners.  Our comprehensive strategy against ISIL is harnessing all elements of American power, across our government -- military, intelligence, diplomatic, economic, development and perhaps most importantly, the power of our values."

good quote mining tho.  top notch.

i like how gen. hayden says it best: (starting at 8:07 in case the time stamp link thing doesn't work)

[Lord Dave]

I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

[Rushy]

I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.

[Lord Dave]

I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.

I think he could.  Iran isn't at war with us, after all.

We tore the Middle East to big pieces.  I fear Trump would tear them into smaller ones, stomp on them, then burn them.  All because the fallen bits spelled "tiny hands".

[Rushy]

I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.

I think he could.  Iran isn't at war with us, after all.

We tore the Middle East to big pieces.  I fear Trump would tear them into smaller ones, stomp on them, then burn them.  All because the fallen bits spelled "tiny hands".

I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.

However, Hillary would likely worsen the situation, not Trump. Her extreme necessity to please the Saudis seems to result in decimating the Saudi's enemies, which includes Iran.

[Lord Dave]

I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.

I think he could.  Iran isn't at war with us, after all.

We tore the Middle East to big pieces.  I fear Trump would tear them into smaller ones, stomp on them, then burn them.  All because the fallen bits spelled "tiny hands".

I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.

However, Hillary would likely worsen the situation, not Trump. Her extreme necessity to please the Saudis seems to result in decimating the Saudi's enemies, which includes Iran.

Yeah but how long do you think it would be before Trump demands Israel pay protection money?  Israel is pretty tough but at the end of the day, if the US said they wouldn't assist them, they'd get far worse than mortars and rocks across the wall.

As for decimating the Saudi's enemies, why is that bad?  You said it yourself, most of them have horrible human rights.  So why not destroy them?  It's what Trump would do.

[Rushy]

Yeah but how long do you think it would be before Trump demands Israel pay protection money?  Israel is pretty tough but at the end of the day, if the US said they wouldn't assist them, they'd get far worse than mortars and rocks across the wall.

Israel should be expected to pay their fair share. And regardless, it wouldn't matter, if anything I think we pay Israel to not devastate the area rather than paying them to protect themselves. They have nuclear weapons. Iran, Egypt and Jordan know better than to start shit again.

Also, between Iron Beam and Iron Dome, Israel is functionally invulnerable to air and missile attacks. The nearest country that can saturate those two systems is Russia.

As for decimating the Saudi's enemies, why is that bad?  You said it yourself, most of them have horrible human rights.  So why not destroy them?  It's what Trump would do.

The problem is that the Saudis are much worse than Iran when it comes to human rights. If anything, we should side with Iran and decimate the Saudis instead. Then again, attacking the holiest Islam nation on the planet probably isn't a fantastic idea.

[sandokhan]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

[Rushy]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

Yes, I definitely trust some random app's poll numbers versus major polling outlets.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

Yes, I definitely trust some random app's poll numbers versus major polling outlets.

Major polling outlets run by the liberal media and Putin.
Follow the money, man.  That app guy?  Totally didn't get money from anyone.  Or advertise his app.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.

You know, one of those human rights you talk of is 'the right to life' killing a load of civilians in order to tear apart a country with poor human rights is somewhat hypocritical.

[Rushy]

I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.

You know, one of those human rights you talk of is 'the right to life' killing a load of civilians in order to tear apart a country with poor human rights is somewhat hypocritical.

You're right.

All things considered, if I really wanted the middle east torn apart bit by bit I'd vote for Hillary.

[Lord Dave]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Trump literally has no idea what the first amendment is.

Of course, slander isn't legal so he can easily get a retraction or something done if he takes it to court.

[Rushy]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Trump literally has no idea what the first amendment is.

Of course, slander isn't legal so he can easily get a retraction or something done if he takes it to court.

Hmm, but he is right. The media doesn't have the legal ability to spread written or spoken lies. The problem is that punishing media outlets for spreading false information is nearly impossible. A long and arduous court battle will maybe get them a slap on the hand and by then the damage is already done.

The effect of this massive propaganda platform is plain to see. Just say "Al Gore thinks he invented the internet" and suddenly half of the country thinks it's true. Even more than a decade later, a lie about Gore has stuck around. That's real power. The ability to warp the very fabric of reality through mass media.

[Lord Dave]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Trump literally has no idea what the first amendment is.

Of course, slander isn't legal so he can easily get a retraction or something done if he takes it to court.

Hmm, but he is right. The media doesn't have the legal ability to spread written or spoken lies. The problem is that punishing media outlets for spreading false information is nearly impossible. A long and arduous court battle will maybe get them a slap on the hand and by then the damage is already done.

The effect of this massive propaganda platform is plain to see. Just say "Al Gore thinks he invented the internet" and suddenly half of the country thinks it's true. Even more than a decade later, a lie about Gore has stuck around. That's real power. The ability to warp the very fabric of reality through mass media.

True but ya gotta prove its a lie. 

As for the power: I see that less as the media lies and more people are fucking stupid.

[garygreen]

as i understand it (not a lawyer), everyone is allowed to lie (first-amendment-wise), but no one is allowed to slander or libel.  could be wrong tho.

[Rama Set]

I think you're right Gary. As long as the lie can not be proven to be damaging or harmful in some way, it is not prohibited. At least in Canada it's like that. Hence why people aren't prosecuted for saying Santa Claus is real.

[Rushy]

Instead of just "lying" I did mean more specifically libel and slander. Lies targeted at specific people in order to discredit them. Even then, it's virtually impossible to punish media outlets for doing this and as I said before, even if you do manage to prove it in court (which is exceedingly rare) the punishment is lenient and the damage will already be done. Essentially this means that the media can slander or libel whomever they wish without reasonable repercussion. This is obviously a problem for everyone and muddies an already complex political environment.

In other news, Trump loves Putin and Stalin, but will also start world war 3 by nuking Russia. This makes sense because I'm Joe Biden.

[Rama Set]

This sounds like tough love and like all things Trump does, he tries to do it in the most ostentatious fashion. Joe Biden is the man.