The future

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Locked
User avatar
LittleNelly
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:07 am

Re: The future

Post by LittleNelly »

Rockie wrote:
The US/Russia and NATO do not have the policy but there are stated caveats to their use that you are ignoring. Infinitely more important than the policy though is that up until now the leadership of those entities has not been in your words, crazy. They know that when nukes come out the conflict becomes unsurvivable for everyone. So the nukes stay in.

"Crazy" and "nuclear weapons" together are a grave threat that vastly increases the likelihood of their use.

"Stable" and "rational" are what keeps nukes off the table, not "no first use" policies. The US has up until now had stable and distinctly non-crazy leadership. Now no one can be sure about the US given Trumps' rhetoric, temperment, and demonstrated total ignorance of geopolitics. He makes the world a more dangerous place.
Ok, state what these "caveats" are? The United States and NATO are clear that PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear strike is on the table. This applies to not just if they are attacked with nuclear weapons but if they face large scale inter-state conventional attack. I clearly stated their policy is that they could launch a nuclear first strike against a conventional threat. I clearly stated this is a defensive measure, it has nothing to due with using them for whatever reason you want.The point of this is to discourage anyone from launching a conventional attack against them(little things like terrorism dont count, Im referring to inter-state warfare)

And stop twisting my words, I clearly connected the "crazy" factor with the aspect of someone making the decision to launch a nuclear strike in the face of conventional attack. Not someone with mental illness.

Here is a common scenario from the cold war era to illustrate what I mean by "crazy". Soviet forces seize west Berlin and push into west Germany quickly overrunning the much smaller NATO forces. US policy states they will respond with tactical nuclear weapons. The only way they can defend western europe. The US president has to actually decide if he will follow through on this knowing the soviets will respond with their nuclear weapons leading to a strategic nuclear exchange. In his head it comes down to 'Do I want to end the world just to keep western europe out of Soviet hands'.

Thats my point, deciding to possibly bring about the end of civilization over that is a CRAZY decision. The problem was tactical nuclear weapons was the only way that NATO could defend against soviet attack. Thus the purpose of US policy was to convince soviet leadership that US leadership would take that crazy decision, in order so the president would NOT be in a position to make that decision. If the USSR did not believe the president would follow through, they would have moved on western Europe.

In summary the key to this policy to work is that adversaries of the United States would believe that a president would use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack.

As for Trump. I would agree its not as relevant(though it is still the cornerstone to US defence policy) but its called rhetoric. It was a political campaign. He was trying to convince the voters who believed the previous administration lacked teeth. So he over compensates to show he will have a tough defence policy. Im not defending it, I am just saying that this is a much more likely reason as compared to him not knowing what nuclear weapons do and thus use them all willy nilly.

Im not debating whether or not this pre-emptive nuclear strike policy is moral, thats a different story.... For the last time I am simply stating what US defence policy is! And the reason they reserve that right.

Even an actual real murderous aggressive dictator, Stalin, knew better than to actually use nuclear weapons. So I dont think you have to be affraid of the world ending in nuclear war with Trump as president... sure there could be many many other problems. But a nuclear war is not one of them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The future

Post by Rockie »

B208 wrote:Kinda like what Black Lives Matter does when it preaches white privilege
Black lives matter is a result of Black people getting tired of being gunned down by police for no reason. Expect it to get much worse now. I'd post links to news articles about it but there's no point.
B208 wrote:Bit of a elitist statement there Rockie.
Well, if being able to point to the United Kingdom on a map, or knowing how a charismatic but despotic leader can manipulate a peaceful people into persecution and even murder then I guess I'm an elitist. I mean really B208, they just elected a man who is going to set the wall street criminals loose again without supervision because they can't remember back as far back as 2008. You know, the same people they were baying to be locked up for devastating their own and the world's economy just a few short years ago. That's not even history - the entire world is still recovering and now they're going to do it all over again because they believed a huckster instead of learning from their own very recent experience.

Doesn't fill the rest of the world with confidence I can tell you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The future

Post by Rockie »

LittleNelly wrote:Ok, state what these "caveats" are? The United States and NATO are clear that PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear strike is on the table.
From the 2010 US Nuclear Posture Review, sorry about the formatting:

For Non-Nuclear Weapons States Compliant with Non-Proliferation Obligations:

•Strengthen the U.S. “negative security assurance”

– “The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations”

– These states face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response if use CBW against the United States or its allies and partners

– If biological threat grows, U.S. reserves right to adjust assurance

For Nuclear Weapons States and Non-Compliant States:

• The U.S. would use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, our allies and partners

• For these states, there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring conventional or CBW attack as long as nuclear weapons exist

•The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners

•Continue to strengthen conventional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks, with the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or our allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons



What determines "extreme circumstances" is obviously up to the President, which in Trump's case would include jokes about his tiny hands. Also the entire policy is subject to change depending on who runs the country.


While all nations' policies are under constant review and change according to the political and military threat of the day, NATO's is even more complex given that each nuclear state applies its own criteria to their use. That's because NATO itself doesn't own any nukes, its member countries do. In any event, this is all I could find from NATO and it is pretty vague, deliberately so.

Allies acknowledge the importance of the independent and unilateral negative security assurances offered by the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Those assurances guarantee, without prejudice to the separate conditions each State has attached to those assurances, including the inherent right to self-defence as recognised under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, that nuclear weapons will not be used or threatened to be used against Non-Nuclear Weapon States that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Allies further recognise the value that these statements can have in seeking to discourage nuclear proliferation. Allies note that the states that have assigned nuclear weapons to NATO apply to these weapons the assurances they have each offered on a national basis, including the separate conditions each state has attached to these assurances.

It's a complex thing, and in reality a guarantee that a country will not exercise first use is not worth the toilet paper it's printed on. Witness North Korea. The only thing that provides any stability in that regard is faith that a country that has them will not use them unless their extinction is imminent, because if they are used their extinction is virtually guaranteed. In Trump's case threatening nukes against ISIS only makes him, and by extension all Americans look stupid, unless he's serious in which case he's a menace to humanity.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The future

Post by Rockie »

FOD wrote:Are you kidding? If you truly believe that none-sense you prove only your own ignorance of any attempt to use the critical thinking method.

You need to stop, your ignorance is starting to become offensive.
You can research each of the cases mentioned in this site if you like, but something tells me you won't.

http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/

This is an issue whether you acknowledge it or not, and as I said under Trump and his rumoured new Chief of Staff it's only going to get much, much worse as is the entire spectrum of social issues in the US. Let's see who's right one year from now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: The future

Post by pelmet »

Rockie wrote:
B208 wrote:Kinda like what Black Lives Matter does when it preaches white privilege
Black lives matter is a result of Black people getting tired of being gunned down by police for no reason. Expect it to get much worse now. I'd post links to news articles about it but there's no point.
I have to say that I really find people with opinions like your quite repulsive. Black lives matter, but if you say all lives matter you are a racist. Black lives matter is so sick of blacks being gunned down for no reason yet at the same time many more black lives are taken for absolutely no good reason by other blacks and there is silence. Somehow it must be white racism involved.

Black lives matter came to be mostly after a cop defended his life from a store robber who tried to grab his gun. The black community ruined this man's career and tried to put him in jail. The family initially released nice photos of this robber in his high school graduation uniform and were so upset when police released the robbery video. Black witnesses lied and said that he shot the robber in the back until forensic evidence proved otherwise. Black leaders called for him to go to jail and only the non-corrupt justice system saved this good mans from that. Those poor black victims of Fergeson then did what so many wanted to do anyways...have fun burning and stealing from various stores, probably the unpopular ones who reported them for earlier shopliftings.

Now we see whenever a black man is shot by a cop, there are immediate protests before we even know what the full story is. Conviction before evidence.

Black lives matter and their pathetic white lefty supporters are the biggest group of racists around. Racists disgust me. A large number of these disgusting people call others racist and then pass laws to hire based on race for certain groups. They pass laws to allow people to get into university with lower marks exclusively because of their race yet they call other bigots. We have seen one significant poster here calling people bigots and racists yet I suspect that he is one of the biggest racists around if he supports the same.

The racists I am talking about throw around the term of privilege as an excuse to pass their racist laws as if poor white people from West Virginia or whatever other lower income areas had more privilege that Obama's kids or Oprah's kids(if she were to have any) or Michael Jordan's kids. Imagine that, your raised in a poor family somewhere and some billionaire's kids get a free ride ahead of you because of your supposed privilege. And the day a black person immigrates to America, he/she is automatically considered to have been discriminated all his life by others and gets these preferential benefits. Meanwhile, the boat people(among other groups) who came over with nothing and speaking a foreign language use their cultural values of family unit, hard work, and honesty to get ahead. And almost all make it. They put their entire effort to work and put their kids through university.

Recently, the disgusting racism industry has been whining that not enough minorities are at the great paying jobs in the high tech industry(it really means black people). The high tech industry replied that in fact, there are all kinds of Asians working there at a very high percentage compared to the population (because their spent years studying computers in their parents basement instead of playing basketball as a hoped for easy way to millions of dollars which is almost impossible to get).

It seems as if the black leaders who are very representative of their community want these good high tech jobs to be waiting for them after years of little hard effort to get there. It can unfairly work for some careers where you can get by with below average qualifications but not in the high tech industry where you better be good or you are gone.

Racism has almost nothing to do with the problems we see. It is almost all due to culture. All cultures have a certain amount of problems but is seems to be greatly magnified in this community and some a few other communities but the so-called "progressives" refuse to acknowledge it. The blame culture is a big part of it. A lack of interest in spending endless hours studying instead of shooting hoops, a culture of violence, a willingness to steal, irresponsible parenting, poor health habits, etc all leads to the problems we see.

I believe that there is an endgame planned for all this. A long term goal. It is called perpetual subsidy. A supreme court judgement to forever have these racist laws enshrined so that the easy way out in life can continue forever while most others have to work much harder to get ahead.

The founders and descendants of America created a country where a poor black prostitute with nothing became the richest woman in America and the son of a black African American became president, the most powerful man in the world. The luckiest blacks in the world are the descendants of the slaves who wouldn't dream of going back to the sh-tholes that their forefathers have created. Instead, the they are in a country where the opportunities are limitless. But for those who make little effort, the opportunities are limited.
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: The future

Post by timel »

FOD wrote: Are you kidding? If you truly believe that none-sense you prove only your own ignorance of any attempt to use the critical thinking method.

You need to stop, your ignorance is starting to become offensive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... -shooting/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-24/c ... eo/7873952

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/minnesota- ... -1.3668185
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: The future

Post by timel »

Obviously, this guy is not here to listen but to give lessons to everyone. With this type of people, nothing will ever change. Now watch the 3 videos I published, and tell me how this is good police work. To me it looks like excecutions. Live video with facebook or periscope is giving a new perspective to the public, it is not all pinky on the police side.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
NorOntair
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:23 pm

Re: The future

Post by NorOntair »

Only thing this thread has thought me is just how balls deep Rockie is with Left Wingers!
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: The future

Post by timel »

NorOntair wrote:Only thing this thread has thought me is just how balls deep Rockie is with Left Wingers!
If I was a member of the Tea Party, I would think similarly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: The future

Post by pelmet »


I made an earlier post about black lives matter issues and the response was three videos showing blacks being killed by white officers. Not much of a rebuttal but I suppose if that is what the level of discussion is...I gues that I will post my three videos as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_av_NRqWVE (action starts at 6:30)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1UjKqzVDCw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1UjKqzVDCw (shooting happens in first minute with the white victim appearing to have his hands up)

If any of these had been black victims, the rioting and racism accusations would have been relentless, defended and enhanced by the disgusting racism industry who look the other way in the cases I posted.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The future

Post by Rockie »

Trump rose to prominence asserting Obama wasn't American. Millions of racist Americans who are deeply offended at having a black president are only too willing to believe him and they form the core of his support. Trump's announcement entering the primaries was a blatantly racist attack on millions of Mexicans cementing his core of supporters. His most popular refrains throughout the election have been blatantly racist. I don't know why his supporters don't just proudly admit it - are they ashamed or something?

This is going to set the US back 100 years in race relations which is exactly what Trump's core supporters have been praying for since the 60's. Thinking life just got better in the US for them though is delusional. It's going to blow up.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: The future

Post by complexintentions »

Everyone take a deep breath. What Canadians think about the US election is inconsequential. So why get all worked into a lather about something you have no influence over? I can practical see a few wiping the spittle off the screen. And how's about we try and keep it sorta civil? I may not always agree with Rockie, but comments like NorOntair aren't really necessary.

Rockie, how do you see race relations getting "set back a hundred years"? A bit heavy on the rhetoric. Relations have never been great, might be something to do with one race coming over as conquerors, one as slaves, I dunno. But I think the past that most hearken for in the US is one of more economic prosperity in Middle America, not necessarily Jim Crow. As you say, Trump cannot deliver this - technology is more responsible for job loss than foreigners, and no one's putting that genie back in the bottle.

Everyone seems intent on framing the election on their own issue, whether race, gender, economics, security, whatever. Ultimately they all play SOME role, but conflating one over all "RACIST WHITES ARE TO BLAME" etc is unsophisticated and beneath us superiorly-educated Canadians. :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The future

Post by Rockie »

complexintentions wrote:Rockie, how do you see race relations getting "set back a hundred years"?
Because the racist's ship has arrived and it's ok to be a racist again. That's why I don't understand why they don't just proudly admit it.
complexintentions wrote:Everyone seems intent on framing the election on their own issue,
What frame do you think Trump wrapped his candidacy in from the beginning? It wasn't dog whistle politics - he was blowing the ships horn. It is a serious mistake thinking this will only affect the US too. He's going to rip up trade agreements, start trade wars, rock the foundations of NATO and create a nation full of people many times angrier than they are now and looking for someone to blame. He'll be only too happy to point the finger at some group to blame for his inevitable, gargantuan failures because he is dangerously incompetent to be anything but what he really is - a crooked, amoral, unethical rich boy.

What in his background has prepared him to be President? Please don't say a business man because I know you're smarter than that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: The future

Post by pelmet »

Rockie wrote:Trump rose to prominence asserting Obama wasn't American. Millions of racist Americans who are deeply offended at having a black president are only too willing to believe him and they form the core of his support. Trump's announcement entering the primaries was a blatantly racist attack on millions of Mexicans cementing his core of supporters. His most popular refrains throughout the election have been blatantly racist. I don't know why his supporters don't just proudly admit it - are they ashamed or something?

This is going to set the US back 100 years in race relations which is exactly what Trump's core supporters have been praying for since the 60's. Thinking life just got better in the US for them though is delusional. It's going to blow up.
Racism is what got Obama into office. Why do you think Hillary lost the democratic race in 2007. Because black Democrats voted almost exclusively for Obama. Then blacks voters overall voted almost exclusively against Mitt Romney in 2008. Along with disgusting racist white voters who said "lets vote for Obama because we need a black president" instead of "we need whoever would be the best president".

It's interesting to see that for some strange reason(if it turns out to be true) that the Democrats were not able to get as high a percentage of the black vote in this election as the last one.

Plenty of blacks said in the previous two elections that they were voting for Obama because of his race, which is accepted by the racism industry but try saying that you are voting for someone because they are white. You face the most dreadful of Rockie-style accusations.

A good example...in the South Carolina democratic primary in 2008, Hillary got 22% of the black vote compared to Obama....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... y-clinton/

...miraculously, in the 2016 primary Hillary has the support of 86% of the blacks now that there is no longer a credible black candidate but instead, some other white guy. And she would have had 86% of that vote back in 2008 if Barack Obama was exactly the same person but white.

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-s ... y-clinton/

There is all kinds of racism around and the biggest group of racists in my opinion are the ones who have been claiming to be the biggest victims of it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
LittleNelly
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:07 am

Re: The future

Post by LittleNelly »

Rockie wrote:
LittleNelly wrote:Ok, state what these "caveats" are? The United States and NATO are clear that PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear strike is on the table.
From the 2010 US Nuclear Posture Review, sorry about the formatting:

For Non-Nuclear Weapons States Compliant with Non-Proliferation Obligations:

•Strengthen the U.S. “negative security assurance”

– “The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations”

– These states face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response if use CBW against the United States or its allies and partners

– If biological threat grows, U.S. reserves right to adjust assurance

For Nuclear Weapons States and Non-Compliant States:

• The U.S. would use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, our allies and partners

• For these states, there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which U.S. nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring conventional or CBW attack as long as nuclear weapons exist

•The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners

•Continue to strengthen conventional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks, with the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or our allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons



What determines "extreme circumstances" is obviously up to the President, which in Trump's case would include jokes about his tiny hands. Also the entire policy is subject to change depending on who runs the country.


While all nations' policies are under constant review and change according to the political and military threat of the day, NATO's is even more complex given that each nuclear state applies its own criteria to their use. That's because NATO itself doesn't own any nukes, its member countries do. In any event, this is all I could find from NATO and it is pretty vague, deliberately so.

Allies acknowledge the importance of the independent and unilateral negative security assurances offered by the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Those assurances guarantee, without prejudice to the separate conditions each State has attached to those assurances, including the inherent right to self-defence as recognised under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, that nuclear weapons will not be used or threatened to be used against Non-Nuclear Weapon States that are party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Allies further recognise the value that these statements can have in seeking to discourage nuclear proliferation. Allies note that the states that have assigned nuclear weapons to NATO apply to these weapons the assurances they have each offered on a national basis, including the separate conditions each state has attached to these assurances.

It's a complex thing, and in reality a guarantee that a country will not exercise first use is not worth the toilet paper it's printed on. Witness North Korea. The only thing that provides any stability in that regard is faith that a country that has them will not use them unless their extinction is imminent, because if they are used their extinction is virtually guaranteed. In Trump's case threatening nukes against ISIS only makes him, and by extension all Americans look stupid, unless he's serious in which case he's a menace to humanity.
Thank you, you illustrated my point exactly. Those policy reviews outline each president's unique position on nuclear use policy(ie that one was Obama's). Its nicer more snuggly language but notice it still clearly states that the US may respond to a conventional attack with its nuclear deterrent. Obama could have easily committed the US to Non First Use publicly(while in reality making threats if a situation arose), but he still maintained the open policy threat.

So yes even Obama leaves the threat of PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear retaliation on the table for NON-existential conventional threats. Many countries, including the likes of say Iran, could easily be dealt with with conventional force. Take a country like Russia or China now. While the US is capable of winning a conventional war against them, it would be at the cost of hundreds of millions dead. Thats why the US policy makes it clear that conventional war=nuclear war with the United States(In regards to major states such as china and russia).

Lets take Japan as an example. The US has treaty obligations to protect Japan. Say the Chinese Navy sinks a Japanese naval vessel over one of their disputed islands. Maybe Japan retaliates, in turn China retaliates again leading to a conventional conflict that the United States is obligated to enter. The US does not want to fight a conventional war with China. Thankfully this situation is extremely unlikely because China knows a conventional war with the United States could turn into a nuclear war. If an international incident happens both sides show restraint because they know it could go nuclear.


Now back to these policy reviews, there were upset people on his soft tone in regards to his defence and foreign policy(though remember Obama still retained the right of pre-emptive first use!). Everybody knows Obama took a dove approach to his foreign/defence policy, not saying there is anything wrong with that, just that is the reality. Thus Trump was appealing to people seeking a more hawkish policy, this was a political election after all.
This back and forth debate between hawks and doves has happened in EVERY election. And every time a hawkish president comes to power there are people who think that the world is going to end with a nuclear war. These concerns came up during the administrations of Bush 1&2, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eishenhower. The world never did end.

By the way Bush's posture also stated countries like Syria(Remember the whole axis of evil thing)..... Did he end up using nuclear weapons?

This hysteria happens every time a republican is elected president. You don't have to worry or be scared, the world never ended under these hawkish presidents. Its talk, its posturing, like a gorilla thumping its chest. So you can be stressed about lots of things about Trumps administration but the world ending in a nuclear war is not one of them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: The future

Post by complexintentions »

Rockie,

You are of course, entitled to your opinions. But I find your sweeping generalizations of millions of people a bit absurd. Grand pronouncements such as "Millions of racist Americans who are deeply offended at having a black president are only too willing to believe him and they form the core of his support" or "Because the racist's ship has arrived and it's ok to be a racist again" are precisely the types of comments that the average person takes offense to and leads to them resisting those who perceive themselves their betters. I really think you underestimate just how tired and pissed off people are of their "leaders" telling them how they (the people) think.

I mean really...you profess to have intimate knowledge of the motivations millions of Americans? Ok. It's a shame you weren't working for one of the polling firms down south.

It's ok to be a racist again? Says who? If that's the message one chooses to take away from what's happened, then it doesn't really matter who got elected, does it? Because in that case Trump is a symptom, not the cause. Lamentable, but would not be solved one bit more by a Democrat. You can't just "mandate" for people to become inclusive.

I am under no illusions about the uneasy state of race relations in some parts of the US. But sensational blanket statements like yours only serve to further polarize the various camps. The vast majority of Americans I know - and I know more than a few - are not racist monsters, in fact they're very much like anyone anywhere. How does attempting to demonize Trump and those who voted for him foster better race relations? Even you must surely admit that the 60 million Americans who voted Trump aren't all racist. They're certainly not all even white!

I just find it curious that you're apparently worried about the inflammatory effect of his being elected, while pouring fuel on the fire yourself. It's your perogative to hand-wring, but maybe give it more than a couple days to see how things go before hitting the panic button. Ironically, so far it would appear most if not all of the violence is Trump supporters being attacked and anti-Trump protesters assaulting police.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by complexintentions on Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: The future

Post by Eric Janson »

The election in cartoons by Ben Garrison.

http://grrrgraphics.com/index.html

Warning:- Not for those of you that are easily "triggered" (whatever that means).
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: The future

Post by timel »

Eric Janson wrote:The election in cartoons by Ben Garrison.

http://grrrgraphics.com/index.html

Warning:- Not for those of you that are easily "triggered" (whatever that means).
You'll enjoy this one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs&feature=share
---------- ADS -----------
 
watermeth
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: The future

Post by watermeth »

like any other elected candidate, he won't be able to wipe out everything and will be confronted to the realities of this world.
he's already backing up on some subjects, or modifying things from his program which was tailored for a certain electorate during the campaign.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... 3628S?il=0
while the economy will continue to improve in some ways, the very first people to suffer from his decisions will be those who elected him. His program is by no way a boon for poor people or those unemployed. they can feel like potential millionaires having to reconsider their options in life, they will remain poor and jobless.
Biotech and healthcare sectors are anticipating a great era of M&A as well as no constraint on their price fixing procedures that saw the epipen surging to 600%. no good for poor sick people without obamacare. just saying the obvious, in fine I don't care.
a big majority of republicans are all in in free trade agreements and some countries such as china - usa's main creditor and provider of cheap products making their way of life so affordable - can deploy severe counter measures.
lower corporate taxes will be good for share holders and capex, unless minimum wage increases in every states.
some might be tempted to see a reagan II era but the cards are very different as they were.
panicking is useless.
---------- ADS -----------
 
timel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:50 am

Re: The future

Post by timel »

pelmet wrote:

I made an earlier post about black lives matter issues and the response was three videos showing blacks being killed by white officers. Not much of a rebuttal but I suppose if that is what the level of discussion is...I gues that I will post my three videos as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_av_NRqWVE (action starts at 6:30)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1UjKqzVDCw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1UjKqzVDCw (shooting happens in first minute with the white victim appearing to have his hands up)

If any of these had been black victims, the rioting and racism accusations would have been relentless, defended and enhanced by the disgusting racism industry who look the other way in the cases I posted.

First, I will make a distinction, in your videos the police are obviously seeing a threat and those people are given a fair advice, in the other videos I shared, those guys aren't a threat. I'll give you a point though. It is not black and white. It is a complexe issue, it is partly fueled by racism and Trump really didn't help during his campaign.

People don't start rioting right out of nowhere, and we all know about the racial tensions. Black lives matter wasn't started because someone rightful was shot, OK but I believe it is the result of decades of anger. Like Israel and Palestine, who did what, where, when, at some point both camps will have to put water in their wine and stop acting like idiots.

I will finish by adding, if it is not racism but cultural clashes, why don't they make racist groups and public speeches illegal? In my opinion, racism has nothing to do with liberty of speech.

The "work hard", you'll be successful isn't that simple. Public schools in the US are a disaster and they are not providing their youth with the tools they need to become succesfull. The wealth inequality is part of the problem. Someone was complaining about having to contribute to the society with his taxes. You know what, If I make good money don't mind giving half my pay, if it is used to give a fair education and health care for everyone. I know people who were accepted to Harvard, they had the school results, but not the money.

Trump has been saying out loud that he hasn't paid taxes for many years, what a di**, and in addition of all the loops in the system, he wants to cut the taxes of the richest, even more...
IMG_2370.JPG
IMG_2370.JPG (58.34 KiB) Viewed 1650 times
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by timel on Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked

Return to “General Comments”