then focus on China until they withdraw. With how China turned out, the world would probably be better off with their government deposed as well, really.

I have the knack of misunderstanding brief quotes, so I better ask - are you saying the world would be better off without the Chinese economy success, political structure and ideology simply because they pose a threat to US dominance or do not conform to US values and ideologies? If so that's an imperialist mindset that seems to say our way or no way.

Why do you think the US has the right to depose of any government at will, whenever they want. Like @Hodgman wrote earlier (and he wasn't exaggerating) American presidents through history have committed some of the worst crimes against humanity. And that is the mindset that caused it

We've all seen US leaders stand before the world and knowingly feed us utter bullshit about Iraq and Afghanistan in the leadup to those wars. It's common knowledge but of little consequence - official these were mistakes, even though they've been shown to be malicious and deliberate. Is it still too soon to be open about the fact that Libya was lies too? Perhaps after Obama steps down they can be open about it, but brush it off as a simple mistake, as they always do. Obama lied on Libya and Syria. Bush 2 lied on Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela... Clinton 1 lied on Kosovo and Iraq (and presided over the deliberate deaths of 500000 Iraqi children, mind you). Bush 1 lied on Iraq. Ford lied on Indonesia. Nixon lied on Chile (that other 9/11...). Eisenhower and Johnson lied on Vietnam...etc...

. and that they earn more than £35kpa, which has already caused teachers to be deported... )

Any Citations for the "earn more than £35kpa claim"?

. not that that matters as we'll slowly lose EU grant money for science anyway unless the government helps out, but we don't like experts now so screw those guys...)

Uk as a net contributor to the EU to the tune of £8 Billion would more than make up for it

The war was the disaster, not pulling out. Unfortunate for the Vietnamese getting slaughtered. Would they have been better off with US not intervening at all?

Both parts were a disaster. How the war was handled, and how the withdrawl was done. I'd think both other options were preferable, either we go in to help South Vietnam take the country/establish a democracy, or we just not get involved. The issue was we got caught up in a quagmire constantly defending against civilian resistance.

Nuking North Korea... really? You think that would have been a good idea? Sh*t like that was a "good idea" (if we ignore the fact you are killing thousands of people for little to no gain) when the US was the only nuclear power. Today its called "suicide"...

Nuking North Korea's leadership in Pyongyang would have been a great option. There's no definitive source, but estimates generally say Kim's dynasty has killed around 23 million people between imposed famine and concentration camps. As communist parties are usually led by a public idolized figure (Kim Il Sung), it presents the perfect target for nukes if we know their location.

If this was done as soon as China started entering the war (They mainly entered by land), they would have probably shocked them into a retreat knowing that their leadership could be the next target, and their nuclear program was way behind.

I wouldn't say we needed to nuke China to beat it in a scenario where they keep attacking without North Korea's help either, as they severely lacked military hardware/equipment to fight a sustained war.

I have the knack of misunderstanding brief quotes, so I better ask - are you saying the world would be better off without the Chinese economy success, political structure and ideology simply because they pose a threat to US dominance or do not conform to US values and ideologies?

Not that they don't conform to US values, but that they don't conform to Western values, and that China's policies are extremely dangerous to free expression.

If so that's an imperialist mindset that seems to say our way or no way. Why do you think the US has the right to depose of any government at will, whenever they want.

I'm an imperialist I guess, then. It's done wonders for countries where it's followed through the full course of political/moral restructure and Westernization like Japan/South Korea/ (post-ww2 western) Germany/Hawaii/

The right to depose a government is based on the Western idealogy of granting people freedoms we typically enjoy regardless of where they are, and it's something I feel we should strongly strive to achieve.

Quoting seems to be doing weird things, so:

I have the knack of misunderstanding brief quotes, so I better ask - are you saying the world would be better off without the Chinese economy success, political structure and ideology simply because they pose a threat to US dominance or do not conform to US values and ideologies? If so that's an imperialist mindset that seems to say our way or no way.

Why do you think the US has the right to depose of any government at will, whenever they want. Like @Hodgman wrote earlier (and he wasn't exaggerating) American presidents through history have committed some of the worst crimes against humanity. And that is the mindset that caused it

Deposing Mao and getting somebody who was more pragmatic in earlier might have saved many millions of lives, and accelerated the resurgence of China to its more normal historical position in the world economy. Nipping the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century in the bud in 1952 would have been a worthy goal - too bad Truman didn't have the stomach to let MacArthur really fight the war properly.

If so that's an imperialist mindset that seems to say our way or no way. Why do you think the US has the right to depose of any government at will, whenever they want.

I'm an imperialist I guess, then. It's done wonders for countries where it's followed through the full course of political/moral restructure and Westernization like Japan/South Korea/ (post-ww2 western) Germany/Hawaii/

The right to depose a government is based on the Western idealogy of granting people freedoms we typically enjoy regardless of where they are, and it's something I feel we should strongly strive to achieve.

The right to depose a government lies with the people that government governs or represents. A foreign entity has no right, regardless of its own values, to depose a government that is not their own.

Japan and [Western] Germany were results of a World War so that doesn't apply. Unlike say, Iran. Hawaii is still very disgruntled at how it was colonized and there's nothing point to or say that they would have been unhappy and miserable if left completely alone. South Korea was also a result of WW2.

In short, those examples aren't good ones because of how and why there were westernized: a result of a world war. Again, unlike Iran who had a democracy and the US decided to overthrow it. Which led to what we see in Iran now.

1. Well, the "fugitive" thing is a non mother tongue thing... sorry about that. I meant refugees, of course. Happens sometimes when you are writing in a foreign language.

Oh, ok!
A lot of people deliberately use words like "criminals" or "illegals" instead of "refugees" or "asylum seekers". A fugitive is a criminal who is fleeing from the police - so I thought you were slandering the refugees, in a typical far-right manner :lol:

To be super pedantic, a fugitive is anyone who flees from something, regardless of what that something is.

So if you leave your country to escape an invading bloodthirsty theocratic military force, you are indeed both a refugee and a fugitive.

Literally everyone I know votes by party not by person.

Probably a regional thing. Around here there are public vocal jokes made every year about the 'straight party' options required to be on the ballot, and there are widely circulated quips about how only idiots and lemmings would use them.

I figure the biggest benefit is that those who pick a single party at the top of the ballot and then walk out of voting will skip any ballot issues and non-partisan races. For us that means school boards, city councils, judges, bond issues, and more. That's a good thing, because if you aren't educated about the issues you shouldn't be voting on them.

You made me curious which one my family fell under (idiot or lemmings) so I asked a cousin why he votes for only Republicans. He fell under lemmings I think as he simply said that he is conservative and thinks they will handle issues better than Democrats so he simply votes for Republicans as a whole. I don't think he visits this site so I don't think I'll be getting any calls over outing his comments.

My family thinks I'm odd. I'm conservative, but I blame all politicians for the state of the country so I've not voted for any one in 17 years because of that view. When they start working together and stop acting like children..then I will exercise my right to vote.

How can I vote for people that thought the Democratic sit-in for gun control was a great thing? To me it just showed that Democrats are at that fringe edge of competence and senile dementia (or ADD). "We will sit here until something is done about gun control. We will not work until then." *goes home that night* *comes in next business day like nothing happened*.

Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are no better at this point. Them bashing Ted Cruz for wanting to do the honorable thing and stand up for his wife and father after Trump attacked them instead of supporting Trump. In my view, as a conservative, it seems they should be praising him for sticking up for his family instead of condemning him. The media are rabid saying, "Cruz is thinking of himself instead of the good of the nation." Except as a politician you attack my policies, my views, and my actions, not my family. No job is worth ignoring attacks on family. No promise is worth keeping at the sake of letting someone attack your family. Hell the promise isn't worth anything since Trump even made it clear numerous times that if he had lost he had no intention of honoring the promise. So yes, Republicans are showing that same fringe edge.

so I've not voted for any one in 17 years because of that view.

Well, that is bad. If you don't vote (...especially if many do that), it is the rule of few. I am voting even though right now I know that I am voting wrong. Been voting "conservative" for 28 years, now I vote "Anti-EU" although I am as much "pro-EU" as one can be. But it is the only thing I can vote, and the only leverage I have against the politicians is that one vote. There is no "middle", no "conservative" that I could vote.

Voting wrong is in most cases still better than not voting at all. It is the only thing you can do to show your politicians that they are on the wrong path. Only if another party starts gaining percentage points in the two-digit range, they start to think that maybe, only maybe they might do something wrong.

Yes, there is the risk that you vote for someone you didn't want, and surprise, they actually win. Well,that's bad, but it is still better than doing nothing and letting the minority that votes decide for you. Besides, people have died so you have the right to vote, which is by itself a reason not to throw that right away.

Back to the original question, Trump and how much he can make the world worse: I've read on teletext that he wants to turn NATO into an non-reciprocal thing. As in, everybody has to help the US of course, but if someone else is attacked, Trump will first decide if they are worthy. Now that's a really good plan. Make friends early, eh :)

Meanwhile Erdogan's witch hunt against Gülen (is that his name?) supporters is international. It's like 1933, only we now have young-male-Turk mobs, not the SA in the streets. Oh, and they make videos with their smart phones (hey, and why not make a fun video of some good violence, nothing to be afraid of, nobody will go to jail or be expelled!). There's even a hotline to denounce people so the attacks can be coordinated. The paroles are like "show me them so I can bathe in their blood". Very civilized. And that AKP guy on Maybritt Illner of course denied everything (what else).

Arghhh Gian-Reto you had to start one of these threads! They turn GD-Net Lounge into a war zone that I can't stay away from! :D

IMO, the trump candidacy is the culmination of tea-party politics running away with the republican party. I don't count him among them, but he took the discontent they seeded and capitalized on it in ways their own members didn't.

Among the proletariat, sentiment such as "I like that he speaks his mind" is a code-phrase for "He says the things I think, but know better than to say myself." Beyond that, he doesn't say things that true, he says things that are what his supporters want to hear. They don't wan't change for the better because its new and uncertain, they want things to go back to the way things were -- the way in which they themselves were comfortable.

The man himself has zero substance as a presidential candidate. No qualifications. No Ideas worth having. No indications that he's done anything other than pander.

On the other side of the red-blue divide, the DNC and their media buddies pressed their thumbs on Hillary's scale -- its been the plan since Bill left office to install her and no scandal and no popular movement was going to derail that once their mind was made up that the time is now to go for it. No strong Democratic nominee was fielded against her from within the party -- Bernie was an outsider running on the DNC ticket only because it was the only practical way to gain the necessary access to debates, polls, and voter booths to mount a campaign that stood a chance. He couldn't have run in another party, no one but the Green's have access to all 50 states, and the greens are too far left to not split the more-progressive base.

Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is so far just a strategic delay, though I'm certain he'll continue his endorsement if he can't make a real run at it himself as an independent. Given the DNC's track record so far, there's no way the super-delegates will swing. If he decides not to run independent for whatever reason, he won't pull his endorsement and he'll continue to push the party to the left on more issues.

So far, this election cycle is firming up to be a capsule-review of everything that's wrong with how this two-party system works. Assuming the next president serves two terms, I have the great fortune of looking forward to being at least 40 years old before having the opportunity to vote for a worthwhile president, or the impetus to vote for one at all. If Hillary wins, I'll remember 5 presidencies under only 3 families with the Bush's and Clinton's claiming lordship of 28 of my then-forty years. If I could make any change to our political procedure it would be 1) term limits for congress and 2) a provision to prevent any single family from occupying the presidency again in any fewer than 8 terms (and frankly, I'd like it to skip a generation) -- presidential dynasties are harmful, and you can't tell me there's no better qualified candidate anywhere among the ~200 million citizens of a suitable age to seek the office.

I'm among those who hope for a Sanders' independent run, so long as he can get ballot access. I don't think its the case that if he ran it would guarantee a Trump win (though he'd become the scapegoat if Trump did win a 3-way race). I don't think that there's that much overlap between Bernie supporters and reluctant Hillary supporters, and the record turn-outs support that. The fact that by the numbers he lost by such a small margin, despite every advantage given Hillary, speaks volumes.

This is pretty much the reasoning for Trump. Trump was an end result of the Tea Party. On the other side, let's be honest, was anyone other than Clinton going to take that nomination? Everyone knew where that was going.

I've never supported any of the candidates since the primaries as all we had were that ridiculous line of idiots in the Republican party with Donald J. Trump, the King Asshole out of all of them while on the other side we had a guy who looked as if he had walked straight out of a gravestone (and sounded a lot like an American version of Arwind Kejriwal, just look him up if you don't know him) and good ol' Hillary Clinton who's been clamoring for office since she was born. The first words she said as a child were definitely "President".

Do I vote third party as a protest vote? Yea, 'cause that's worked so much in past elections.

You guys really need preferential voting. There's no reason *not* to vote for a minor party that you prefer here - -

Without a viable third party vote, you're basically a two-party dictatorship :P

Actually, you want STV for president and MMP for congress.

It may not turn out being such a great time living in the USA if you're Mexican (or any latino) or black, although I believe that the effect will overall be relatively moderate.

And here's the reason why the Republicans are circling the drain. They still genuinely think that this position is ok. (I know Samoth is not from the US, but this quote is exactly their position)

Trumps whole schtick is "make America great again", which translates to "hey, let's got back to the 50s, when America was great" if you were a white, straight man.

Instead of realising how far on the wrong side of history they've swung, the republicans are doubling down on their idiocy, with their frankly creepy obsession with bathrooms, same-sex marriage* and their sure and certain knowledge that government should stay out of your life, unless you're a woman, in which case your body is very much their business.

Oh yeah, and coal is clean, border walls are totally viable and porn is a public health crisis (guns are fine though!).

Source

Seriously, they are now such a joke that one of the speakers at the RNC was the asshole from Duck Dynasty.

Despite the fact that their own party told them in 2013 that this was why they lost the election to Obama, they've basically ignored that advice and decided that the problem was they weren't backward and insane enough.

The sad thing is that he'll probably win because the Democrats are so stunningly inept they actually thought Hillary was a good candidate.

As I've said before, in any sane political system, you'd have a choice between a centre-right, big-business, war friendly candidate like Hillary and a left wing, tax and spend candidate like Bernie.

That at least is a choice. Now you just have either racism, narcissism, and insanity (guess who) or diet evil.

*yes, homosexuals are people and have the same rights are actual people. I know, it's horrible, but it's 2016. Accept it and move on.

Donald J. Trump is racist, sexist, filthy human being who I am really hoping loses this election miserably. The only reason I'm voting for Hillary Clinton is because of how much Trump scares me. Maybe it's because I'm a brown guy living in America that I find this so scary. My real problem is that people who support Trump are either unwilling to acknowledge that they basically support a bigot or are unable to. I'm not sure what's scarier. The US is polarized. Partially it's because of globalization. Long gone are the glory days when a high school diploma let you sail past life. Getting any decent paying job requires throwing a lot of money into a college degree. It's a problem that will not go away, not even under the holy savior jackass that is Donald Trump.

See Hillary may be a liar. She may be greedy. She may be a warmonger. But at the minimum, I don't have to worry about Hitler 2.0 starting up in the US. So yea, lesser of the two evils is Clinton in my eyes. And this is coming from someone who usually tends to be center right (i.e. I prefer conservative fiscal policies, but socially liberal).

Republicans had the White House for two terms; the country went to shit.

Democrats had the White House for two terms; the country went to shit.

I'm sure they are all great people by themselves wanting to go in making a difference, but the problem is Congressional ego.

If the President is Democrat, then Republicans refuse to work with them.

If the President is Republican, then Democrats refuse to work with them.

Obama nominated a person for the Supreme Court; Republicans refused to meet him or vote on it.

Democrats did the same thing.

They have gotten so bold as to not even bother lying about working with the President. Each party has been blatant about saying if the the other party wins the White House they won't work with them.

Let's not forget (unless they changed in recent years) if you aren't registered to vote and contact your Congressman, they will actually tell you they can't help you since you aren't a registered voter. This actually happened to my mom when I was younger and she mailed our Indiana Congressman at the time.

Not seeing any reason to vote for adults just to watch them go to Washington, D.C. to turn to Congressional children.