Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Make that 3 candidates I can't vote for

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    I guess I feel good relations is a good thing. It is good to have treaties and alliances if they are spelled out and everyone complies. But I don't think it is up to us to tell another country how to run their country. If they don't give someone the right to vote that is up to them. Those people can rise up and change their system. If you attack us we attack you. Not necessarily with an invasion but we can blow up a whole lot of power plants and water treatment facilities and any other infrastructure. Leave me alone and I leave you alone. If some country feels another is inching into their world they should go to the UN and get sanctions or whatever. But it isn't up to the US to go fix it for them. The problem is we (generically) waffle and change and try to back one side instead of letting them take care of it themselves.
    I'm not saying be an isolationist but worry about what is on your dinner plate not mine and maybe we will get along better
    Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
    Hope is not a strategy
    RIP

    Comment


    • #92
      I disagree if it comes to our alliance with Isreal. I also think we have to pay attention to what is going on globally. The UN often seems worthless. Hitler was far across the pond from us, but eventually we had to squash that, along with who? .....the Soviet Union. Yes, pick your allies well.
      http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

      Comment


      • #93
        Just sayin that I will not rip Trump if he tries to improve our relations with Russia and all countries..... From a position of strength not weakness as we have been trying. And I agree ND , this country takes on way too much, let the world sort itself out, unless their is giant disparity.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by MDFAN View Post
          Just sayin that I will not rip Trump if he tries to improve our relations with Russia and all countries..... From a position of strength not weakness as we have been trying. And I agree ND , this country takes on way too much, let the world sort itself out, unless their is giant disparity.
          Ding! That's the one I'm looking out for.
          http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

          Comment


          • #95
            As I said if you have alliances that spell out what you will do then you have to do that. We have alliances with Europe, Israel, Japan, et al. They are defense treaties that we have to stand by. I'm not sure why Israel is different than the UK for example. We have a treaty to come to the other's defense.
            Much like people didn't like the electoral college they don't like the UN. The issue isn't the electoral college or the UN. It is the understanding of them. The UN and its sanctions can be a significant factor IF used and used properly. If sanctions are imposed and all countries abide by the sanctions. The problem comes into play when we play politics with right and wrong
            If some dictator in Africa stays in his country doing what he wants go to the UN to deal with him. It isn't up to us to go in and change that country. Hell they may not even want democracy for all we know. If he steps outside his country you stop him. We would never have done anything had Hitler not left Germany.
            And we didn't learn anything by watching Russia get bogged down in Afganistan. We decided we should get bogged down in Iraq and Afganistan among others
            Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
            Hope is not a strategy
            RIP

            Comment


            • #96
              The IF in your post was key, Nodak. The UN is only as strong as the actions of its members.

              But yes, we may not have intervened if Germany doesnt strike outside of Germany, but they did. Similar occurrences are happening today, if on a smaller scale So FAR. I'm not one for allowing an evil power to grow until it is catastrophic to put down . I wonder some times is our allies are more guided by their morals, or their willingness to get their hands dirty. Regardless, we, yes WE, have to be a strong leader in the UN. THE leader. I understand if yuo dont like that. I don't like it either. But no one else is going to do it.
              http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

              Comment


              • #97
                Oh I believe we need to be a strong leader and have a strong voice. We need to stand up for the oppressed. We need to stand for human rights. And many other things. Of course we need to make sure our house is in order also in that regard.
                But I don't believe we need to intervene in how everyone runs their country. I was in Desert Storm, I was in Saudi Arabia though and not Iraq, and I believed in it because we had evidence, or so I thought, of Saddam building a chem weapons stockpile and moving in on other countries.
                But I have grown to believe we can bring a country to its knees if we want by destroying its infrastructure. We just don't have the political will to do so. I would much rather do that than have politicians who did all they can to avoid service decide they can send other people to fight and die.
                There was a joke going around the military when we invaded Iraq. Our country needs more oil and we need more vacation spots and beaches. This will work out well. We will go in, kick his ass, take over the country, have all the oil we want and make this a tourist destination for Americans. It wasn't a joke we should have done that.
                Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
                Hope is not a strategy
                RIP

                Comment


                • #98
                  Bravo ! ,! ! =d>=d>=d>
                  Originally posted by nodakiggle` View Post
                  oh i believe we need to be a strong leader and have a strong voice. We need to stand up for the oppressed. We need to stand for human rights. And many other things. Of course we need to make sure our house is in order also in that regard.
                  But i don't believe we need to intervene in how everyone runs their country. I was in desert storm, i was in saudi arabia though and not iraq, and i believed in it because we had evidence, or so i thought, of saddam building a chem weapons stockpile and moving in on other countries.
                  But i have grown to believe we can bring a country to its knees if we want by destroying its infrastructure. We just don't have the political will to do so. I would much rather do that than have politicians who did all they can to avoid service decide they can send other people to fight and die.
                  There was a joke going around the military when we invaded iraq. Our country needs more oil and we need more vacation spots and beaches. This will work out well. We will go in, kick his ass, take over the country, have all the oil we want and make this a tourist destination for americans. It wasn't a joke we should have done that.
                  http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    I'm just asking, but why is the electoral college better than the popular vote? I thought that it was originated that way because communication wasn't that good back then when it was instituted. Why would that be a disaster today?
                    "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

                    Comment


                    • Simply put, the electoral college ensures that the support for our president is fairly distributed across the country, not simply represented in hubs. It continues to be of great importance to ensure that the interests and concerns of all our people are represented.
                      http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

                      Comment


                      • Because we are a republic, we don't vote for laws by popular vote we vote by state through the congress of state representatives. The same for president. At one time congress was going to chose the pres and the electoral college was a move away from that. It helps to balance power among states.
                        I would also submit that it could aid in preventing rigged elections. Say evidence was found today that there was clear evidence of criminal action in the votes for a particular state or area. The electors could change their vote or abstain so that those votes didn't influence the election.
                        As a snide ass remark I would say half the people in this country probably shouldn't get to vote anyway. They have no idea of anything except what they see or hear from dumbass friends. Electors at least are involved. Fortunately everyone gets a vote so my snide ass don't matter
                        I don't know that it is a perfect system but I'm not sure a popular vote would be good at all. I think they founding fathers probably did a pretty good job after what I would think was a very contentious gathering. I would hate to see us trying to establish a country today. Hell we can't decide on a budget
                        Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
                        Hope is not a strategy
                        RIP

                        Comment


                        • Without the college, why would anyone campaign in Md, or Ma, or Utah or Montana ..... You would only need to win, like Ny, Cali, and Florida , New Jersey, Texas to win the whole thing.

                          Also and more importantly, we are a nation of States, thus each state needs to be represented....... Equally, based on population.

                          Comment


                          • Clinton showing her ass again, jumping on board this demand for a recount in Wisconson, Pennsyltuckey and Michigan. This, after claiming that Trump's hint that he might not just accept the vote if HE lost was "horrifying". What a phony.

                            Not that her legacy looked like much anyway, but way to bury it in disgrace.
                            http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

                            Comment


                            • Really fresh? Do you not think ol Donald, who screamed "rigged" all they way up until he won and said during the debate he would have to let people know if he accepted the election or not after the election was done would not be doing the same thing. Really, do you believe that.
                              Hillary didn't file this stuff and didn't complain about the result after the election. That nut Jill Stein started this and while Clinton (& Co) have agreed to participate they have said they didn't have evidence of hacking and fraud so they aren't pushing it.
                              I understand people don't like her but damn beat her up for serious stuff not this crap. Donald should say we believe the election is done and we have no evidence of wrongdoing (even though I was a baby bitch about it before the election). Everyone has a right to look into a recount but we are moving forward with our transition and if there is evidence of fraud we will be happy to participate in uncovering it. Until then we will press forward with establishing a no government. Instead he wills at he lost the popular vote because of fraud. He is the future president but he is a whiny one
                              Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
                              Hope is not a strategy
                              RIP

                              Comment


                              • Trump was wrong not to accept the election results without question. Agreed. But Hilary is yet again shown to be a self serving hypocrite. What's so hard to understand here? At least she is consistent, and stays in character.

                                Stein is a whack adoo and is is purely out for notoriety and a money grab. Clinton is disgracing herself for no reason, and might want to tread a liittle lightly as Trump had backed from looking to pursue charges against her. an obvious effort to create some peace and harmony. What SHE is doing is more divisive crap, despite claims to support a peaceful transition. Bullshit.. Sorry, but I am sick to death of these pot stirrers inciting hatred and chaos. You think this is small shit? It is not. It's more of the same divisive speech and actions that have gotten us to our current state.

                                It's pretty simple, really. I'd like Hilary to just fade into obscurity. However, now that donations to the Clinton Foundation have tapered off dramatically since she can no longer promise favors to anyone, and no one is going to pay huge sums of money for a speach from a 2 time loser, she realizes that the gravy train has run out and she's doing whatever she can to cling on. Like that sheet of toilet paper stuck to your heel.
                                Last edited by FRESH; 11-27-2016, 10:19 PM.
                                http://shop.cafepress.com/content/global/img/spacer.gifOK, let's try this again...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X