This is wrong of him on many levels. His words exactly:He came out with another doozy...
"Russia, I hope you have those 33,000 e-mails." Now the Democrats are foaming at the mouth saying he's encouraging Russian espionage.
I think he is really stupid.“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’ll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”
I didn't defend Putin and Russia. I merely pointed out that Russia does never attack towards the west but rather towards the south of Russia. By acknowledging that Russia does attack somewhere, I acknowledge that neither Putin nor Russia are saints.I'm wondering why you go to such great lengths to defend Russia and Putin.
When did I prevent you from criticizing anyone? I merely stick to the facts.Yes, what the American government has done is wrong on many levels, but can't we criticize both?
Every time someone criticizes Putin, this crowd will accuse them of distracting from the American government's corruption. Also posting videos from Alex Jones probably doesn't leave the best impression online.
Hittler and Stalin made a pact before WW II and that was not in another universe.
Starting in mid-March 1939, in attempts to contain Hitler's expansionism, the Soviet Union, Britain and France traded a flurry of suggestions and counterplans regarding a potential political and military agreement. Although informal consultations commenced in April, the main negotiations began only in May. At the same time, throughout early 1939, Germany had secretly hinted to Soviet diplomats that it could offer better terms for a political agreement than Britain and France.The Soviet Union, which feared Western powers and the possibility of "capitalist encirclements", had little faith either that war could be avoided, or faith in the Polish army, and wanted nothing less than an ironclad military alliance with France and Britain that would provide a guaranteed support for a two-pronged attack on Germany; thus, Stalin's adherence to the collective security line was purely conditional. Britain and France believed that war could still be avoided, and that the Soviet Union, weakened by the Great Purge, could not be a main military participant, a point that many military sources were at variance with, especially Soviet victories over the Japanese Kwantung army on the Manchurian frontier. France was more anxious to find an agreement with the USSR than was Britain; as a continental power, it was more willing to make concessions, more fearful of the dangers of an agreement between the USSR and Germany. These contrasting attitudes partly explain why the USSR has often been charged with playing a double game in 1939: carrying on open negotiations for an alliance with Britain and France while secretly considering propositions from Germany.
By the end of May, drafts were formally presented. In mid-June, the main Tripartite negotiations started. The discussion was focused on potential guarantees to central and east European countries should a German aggression arise. The USSR proposed to consider that a political turn towards Germany by the Baltic states would constitute an "indirect aggression" towards the Soviet Union. Britain opposed such proposals, because they feared the Soviets' proposed language could justify a Soviet intervention in Finland and the Baltic states, or push those countries to seek closer relations with Germany. The discussion about a definition of "indirect aggression" became one of the sticking points between the parties, and by mid-July, the tripartite political negotiations effectively stalled, while the parties agreed to start negotiations on a military agreement, which the Soviets insisted must be entered into simultaneously with any political agreement.
I find it hilarious that American "nationalists" would be in bed with the Kremlin…Just for some clarity...
Donald Trump is sui generis for our times, in my opinion. If I had to describe him I'd say that he's a populist and a nationalist. He certainly isn't a Republican, and his positions aren't those of the Republican Party. I have no idea whom he's been voting for over his lifetime, but he's given more money to Democrats. He doesn't believe in small government, has expressed no desire to tackle the problems of Social Security, or to reign in spending and lower taxes. He's socially progressive and always has been. In all those ways he's like another billionaire New York businessman: Bloomberg.
The difference is that he's an isolationist, nationalist, and nativist who identifies with working class and lower middle class Americans, probably because he's spent his life working with them and has always seen himself as a kid from Queens taking on the elites in Manhattan. He's against illegal immigration because he believes that a constant influx of undocumented workers drives down the wages of American born workers. In that he reflects the views of his working class and lower middle class employees. I think he also is genuinely concerned about the violence and drug trafficking along our southern border and in our inner cities. I don't believe that it stems from actual racism. He's certainly not an anti-Semite, not with a beloved daughter and grandchildren who are Jewish. He's a known quantity in New York. If he were expressing racist sentiments or treating people of different races with contempt, we would know. There certainly hasn't been a hint of it in his dealings with all his thousands of Hispanic employees. However, his unrestrained and bellicose rhetoric, with his talk of building walls and deporting millions of people have alienated Hispanics. He's also genuinely a law and order type person and a strong supporter of the police. That has alienated blacks.
So, with blacks and Hispanics out of reach, that leaves him with a totally white base of support. If he got most of them, he'd win handily, but regardless of whether he hires and competitively pays a lot of women, and promotes them much more than Hillary does, his rhetoric toward them turns white women, especially educated white women off. He also has a big problem with millennials. In my opinion, they've been so indoctrinated by their Marxist teachers that they're turned off by what he would undoubtedly say to them, which is get off your duffs and get a job, stop bashing capitalism and make it work for you.
Just when I think that he might actually have a shot, like after his speech at the convention, he steps all over his own message by engaging in another petty rampage against Ted Cruz and Kuchinic. I mean, take a look at this clip. Look at his facial expressions and listen to his voice. The man is temperamentally unfit to be president of the United States. Would anyone sleep well at night knowing that he has his finger on the nuclear button? That's over and beyond the fact that I don't think he understands the complexities of any of the issues he'd be facing, not even the domestic ones, much less the foreign policy ones.
As to Ted Cruz, there's nothing honorable or courageous, in my opinion, about giving someone your word you'll endorse him, agreeing to speak at his convention, and then showing up and sticking a knife in his back. The double dealing that anyone who had dealt with him personally knew about was suddenly out in the open, and I don't think it will stand him in good stead. As for his expressed politics, he's far to the right of anyone else who ran, and that's socially and economically and politically.When he talked about "voting your conscience" he wasn't at all implying that he had any problem with Trump's views on immigration; far from it, he was often competing for who could be more against illegal immigration. He was alluding to the fact that Trump isn't conservative enough.
As for the voting patterns of black Americans, the huge majority of black Americans support Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. You don't need to look at polls; all you need to do is look at Bernie rallies versus Clinton rallies. They're astonishingly white, maybe even more white than Trump rallies.
As for Hillary, just to be clear I don't "hate" her personally, not even the way I "hate" Ted Cruz. Neither do I subscribe to all those old conspiracy theories about Vince Foster and on and on. I just think she's incredibly corrupt, the embodiment of "politics as usual", crony capitalism, take money and support from every lobby, minority and special interest group, and to hell with what's in the best interest of the country. She's also incompetent in my opinion. That's all over and above the fact that on fiscal matters she's way too liberal for me.
Just saw that Wiki Leaks has announced that their next e-mail dump will "ensure that Hillary Clinton is arrested." I doubt it; the fix is in. One can hope, however. Then, Tom Kaine would be at the head of the ticket. He sure doesn't make my heart go pitter-patter, but he's infinitely better than Clinton.
Its a threesome actually, you left out Europe's far right. They are madly in love with each other..........
It seems contradictory that due to their ethnocentrism they would want to embrace Eurasianism. It's because they see Western values such as tolerance and freedom as self-destructive, so naturally they would embrace one of the most backwards, primitive (partially) European nations in terms of social values. As a European nationalist who is quite clearly to the right of the political spectrum, I see liberal values as one of the greatest European and American achievements, and something to be protected from external invaders.
I'm against political correctness because I support freedom of speech. No freedom of speech = Russia. Therefore, totalitarianism would arrive in a different form if European nations embraced the Russian system of governance.Both Le pen and Trump admires Putin, and the other way round. Both Le pen and Trump want EU dismantled, watch Russian TV and feel its attitude towards the EU. Just some bond factors. There are more.... such as boasting of non political correctness (whatever that means) and anti Establishment (whatever that means)..........and more. Its a love affair
I'm against political correctness because I support freedom of speech.
Being able to use "fighting words and aggressive speech and body language saying EXACTLY the same thing, automatically releasing a state of anger…" is still legal. It is part of free speech to say whatever you want.Political correctness does not relate to lack of freedom of speech. There are ways and ways to say exactly the same thing.
*)One can encourage someone to reflect on what they are doing without resentment and anger through the way something has been said to them.
*)The other way is using fighting words and aggressive speech and body language saying EXACTLY the same thing, automatically releasing a state of anger protection approach steering up emotions and sentiments getting in the way to any compromise towards what is being said on an individual /s and so on.
Very often this is the pattern it follows.
I have to admit, I don't really like any of them. I voted Rubio, as the one closer to the center, still having some chance of winning if super delegates choose so, and as a lesser evil. I don't think any of them is a good material for a leader. I would rather pick Obama or Romney from last election. On brighter side we have one billion dollar worth of reality show for a whole year paid by candidates and their faithful.
Being able to use "fighting words and aggressive speech and body language saying EXACTLY the same thing, automatically releasing a state of anger…" is still legal. It is part of free speech to say whatever you want.
Every since Obama became president, the middle class suffers, they have to pay for the lower class for something they work very hard for. My aunt and uncle have to pay $US600 medicare per month and the poor pays nothing. This is for US citizens over age of 65. If you are the upper class you got heaps of money to give away you don't feel the pain, but if you are not this is very unfair.
when we say poor probably its people who are unemployed, who are disabled and cannot really hold a job. Most of the times there are good reasons but you can also get people who abuse a system. What is the alternative? dump people who for genuine reason cannot make a proper living onto a trash heap? or care for those that for some good reason cannot at least be entitled for basic things in life? In Europe we pay national Insurace besides tax that covers free health and many other services. If a person is disabled they get a minimal pension and very often unless helped by charity organizations and family they can easily fall under the poverty lines. Every year locally we collect Millions of Euros to help those who genuinely need help. Mostly helping those who need treatment overseas which are not covered by health insurances both private and government. Why not?
Yes, this is true, there are many shades of grey. This does not, however, provide any justification for limiting freedom of speech.Indeed, but what is the point? what is the intent? what is the outcome? what are the consequences? one needs to be wise enough to justify one over the other. Its not just a cool fashion trend. This also a denial of the many shades of grey concept, which is the reality of life. Some people are made up in a way that they cannot digest much information so the many greys of shade between black and white feels cumbersome and maybe unnecessary in their psyche, so a mantra of simple lines can give a sense of comfort just like a magic potion. Works well on the mind. But we ALL know life is not that simple and the many different grades of shades between the Black and White are very much a reality.
I married an European ( My husband is Half Belgian, Half French), I know how the European system works. See, it is not possible to read all the post on here, you see a post you think you would like to contribute your opinion, you post... do you see my point now?
I can only comment on the French system, and on Luxembourg's system which is not exactly the same but in some areas have the same model.
Now, the French system requires those who are working to pay for their students, their unemployed, their elderly people and their disabled people. During their 30 glorious years as they called it, that system worked very well, but now it does not work anymore.:useless: Many of my french friends moved to countries like Australia or Luxembourg or Switzerland because their system is failing.
My aunt owns a hotel somewhere in the US, she has a black guy who won't pay and won't leave the hotel. She has called the police many times for help, but because the president is black the police won't do anything...it was not like this before according to her..So according to your logic, she should just let him stay for free because he is poor??!!!.
No wonder there is Brexit Gees
Yes, this is true, there are many shades of grey. This does not, however, provide any justification for limiting freedom of speech.
Yes the system is changing. Every country has its own way to make ends meet. The standard of living has grown steadily in many European countries so the total socialist system cannot work anymore were many services are free because the government is the main earner through lots of centralization. Example before it was that if an old person seeks a government run care home it would have been totally free irrelevant to how much wealth that person has. Now its standard to have a means test. The service has improved and that person will reimburse the government 80% of the pension towards that care home.
Its the same with health care. Its not what it used to be. Everybody used to get free health care irrelevant to the income. Its still free now, but they have created deterrents such as having long wait for appointments to non emergency operations (as an example) also there is an introduction to a means test when it comes to applying for grants and certain type of medication.
This is totally different subject and totally besides the point. That man is breaking the law and has nothing to do with poverty. There are no shelters in the US? I don't know. But the police are duty bound to remove him from there unless the owner is kind enough to let him / her for free. Otherwise THEY are breaking the law. But this example has nothing to do with helping people in the poverty line just because they genuinely cannot do anything about it. I dont know how police works in the US but with such a case the Police would refer them to a support agency. I am sure they exist in the US
Again you are out of subject. Brexit out cry was immigration and the sort of frustration that the EU was making the UK government helpless to control it. Nothing to do with the subject. Brits in favour of Brexit were thinking on the lines that migrants (especially recent ones from the EU that had a right to claim according to EU protocol were claiming social welfare as in housing, dole money and free health being a burden on the Britts themselves. This was silly as Cameron already negotiated special conditions for this not to be possible, but the Brits seem not to trust that. They are even not trusting the same referendum as it seems that no one is in particular hurry to Brexit and rumors have it they might still be there for the next 10 years -
This thread has been viewed 684094 times.