British Expats - 2020 Election

This is the thing I find hardest to understand. I just cannot comprehend how anyone could listen to him speak, and think there is a dynamic sharp mind operating behind these words. I'll paraphrase a podcast I listen to, but when people speak, you're getting a window into their mind. From a general intelligence perspective, it's not possible that somebody can sound like a 12 year old, with an incredibly limited vocabulary, but actually be really smart. Smart people simply do not talk like that. Smart people are capable of understanding complex concepts, and expressing nuanced views. Trump clearly can't do that. He'll repeat the same thing in 3 different ways, each time just as simplistic and mindless. It's not possible that he's actually a genius behind closed doors, he is having to confront the reality that simply talking about himself incessantly will not be enough this time.

It's difficult to even debate his performance so far. He's 'graded on a curve' to such a ridiculous extent. We're not seeing a level of incompetence which is absurd for a President, we're seeing a level of incompetence that would be absurd for the average person, so any debate that starts with the premise that his suitability for the presidency is an open question, is just a non-starter. It's like someone asking to debate if the world is flat or not. He should't be in charge of a local walmart, never mind the Presidency. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that if I walked down the street right now, I'd expect the first person I saw to be more capable than he is. He is someone who simply doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the implications of his words and actions, because the only thing that motivates him is his own insecurity.

Six more months and the nation will have the chance to end our national mistake.

andyrebell

Apr 26th 2020 5:15 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 12844145)

I interpreted that as the Clintons forcing him to name HRC as his VP pick. Nothing to do with Repubs at all.

She is the one female VP with whom would lose very badly as people would not want her as president of the United States.

andyrebell

Apr 26th 2020 5:21 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by UkWinds5353 (Post 12844451)

Six more months and the nation will have the chance to end our national mistake.

Clinton would have been the mistake as there would have been a nuclear war with Russia over Syria that would have lead the destruction of most of the United States. Putin is an evil monster he would do it. For all has floors Trump has not started a nuclear war he has been very restrained to be fair. He has not started any wars and if were not for Assad using chemical weapons I don't think he would have struck Syria at all.

civilservant

Apr 26th 2020 5:23 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Clinton would have been the mistake as there would have been a nuclear war with Russia over Syria that would have lead the destruction of most of the United States.â€‹â€‹â€‹â€‹â€‹â€‹

Oh brother. Proxy war? Probably, Outright war? Remote. Nuclear War? Not a chance.

andyrebell

Apr 26th 2020 6:06 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 12844561)

Oh brother. Proxy war? Probably, Outright war? Remote. Nuclear War? Not a chance.

Ok when Clinton and her NATO allies enforce a no fly zone over Northern Syria which was something she wanted to do, shooting down several russian planes will Putin not respond?

He will, he has to and in a conventional war with non nuclear weapons Russia wouldn't have a chance against NATO. Bare in mind Israel, Ukraine and Georgia would join with the NATO forces and a possible third uprising in Chechnya may occur . There would never be a better time for that. Meaning Russia is a facing problems on several fronts. They are not strong enough to defeat, NATO, a ground push by Ukraine, likely revenge action by Georgia to further weaken the Russian position and Chechnya take 3. China would sit out the conflict and probably move on taiwan without much problem and North Korea would advance it's nuclear options.

Putin could not been seen to lose that conflict he would be finished so he would use nuclear weapons regardless of the consequence because he would rather die than live in a world ruled by the USA and NATO.

dave_j

Apr 26th 2020 6:07 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyrebell (Post 12844556)

Clinton would have been the mistake as there would have been a nuclear war with Russia over Syria that would have lead the destruction of most of the United States.

History, a great teacher. There would have been no nuclear conflict except in the case of accident. No leader would have consciously brought it about, certainly not a Russian one, the memories and losses from the Great Patriotic War are still raw. An American president wouldn't either, deliberately.
But accident, well that's another story. Suggest you read up on the Able Archer War game, an incident that led me to the conclusion that spies were a good thing.

andyrebell

Apr 26th 2020 6:18 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave_j (Post 12844577)

My son was taught in History that the defence stance of NATO during the cold war if dealing with an attempt to by the Soviets to break into the West Germany was as follows. Hold out as you long as you could and then deploy nuclear weapons on the Soviet troops in Western Europe killing their men and ours and destroying an area of Europe to do it. A stance which gives two choices to the Soviets, retreat/surrender or respond with your own Nuclear Weapons knowing American response will be equal.

civilservant

Apr 26th 2020 6:36 am

Re: 2020 Election

This isn't an imminent invasion of Western Europe by a vastly superior force that you're talking about though, it's Syria.

You have to think of the context, Soviet armor outnumbered Western armor by many to 1. Nuclear was the last resort to stop them. They also only planned to use tactical nuclear weapons, not multi-megaton strategic weapons.

How are the 2 situations even remotely similar?

I agree about the accident possibility though, Able Archer could have ended very badly for both sides. The problem with making a war game as 'real' as possible. The other side thinks it might actually be a precursor to a real attack.

andyrebell

Apr 26th 2020 7:47 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 12844588)

And the speculation in that dropping of tactical nuclear weapon would end the war without full blown response and the devastation of Europe by result of the low level nukes. A situation which would result in the probable break up of NATO and collapse of what was left of the smaller European Union that existed back then. Ergo so a victory for Soviets but a very costly one in terms on hundreds of thousands if not millions of troops killed. We will never how that situation would have turned out had it really come to pass and since the situation in Syria is all but resolved now we will probably never find out how any attempt to restrict Putin's activity would have ended up. But in terms of the Russia. Trump is a better president than Clinton would have been.

Putin is not Goberchov not close. Putin is an evil John Snow (from got you know what I mean) who unleashes chemicals attacks on English market towns to kill one person. Putin is building nukes or he claims he is, that if you drop one on Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds would be taken out by the blast wave. Putin wants to win the nuclear war no one can win. And remember the only way to win is not to play as Matthew Broderick will tell you.

civilservant

Apr 26th 2020 8:12 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quite the conspiracy theory you have going there, or should that be alternate reality?

Nutmegger

Apr 26th 2020 10:04 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 12844605)

Quite the conspiracy theory you have going there, or should that be alternate reality?

Sounds like serious drugs to me â€” only option; you canâ€™t make this stuff up.

andyrebell

Apr 26th 2020 11:47 am

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 12844605)

Quite the conspiracy theory you have going there, or should that be alternate reality?

Ok so how do you think History would have played out if the west was forced to resort to nuclear weapons to put down the soviet invasion bearing in mind you have wiped out lets say Berlin a city 9x the size of Paris to do it? And who do you think would have won? Or would it have been a draw?

Putin claims to have nuke that can destroy England in a single shot? I don't see how they could ever test the warhead?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ic-missile-USA

civilservant

Apr 26th 2020 11:58 am

Re: 2020 Election

I'm not going to speculate on WW3. There's plenty of fiction on it. It never happened.

Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy is an excellent book.

Stop reading the Express.

nain rouge

Apr 26th 2020 12:07 pm

Re: 2020 Election

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyrebell (Post 12844602)

But in terms of the Russia. Trump is a better president than Clinton would have been.

No. Donald is not better at any aspect of the Presidency than Hilary Clinton would have been. You, and other connservatives, started a drumbeat years ago of "how awful Hilary is" in order to de-legitimize her from the presidency, even though she was extremely capable and experienced. Unfortunately, the constant drumbeat it worked (along with a strong push from Vladimir), and we now have Angry Uncle occupying the White House during our country's worst crisis in 75 years. But no weird, half-baked theory that you expound will ever make Donald more palatable than he is - a despicable, incompetent, self-serving moron.

All times are GMT -12. The time now is 5:46 am.

Page 182 of 390

182

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page