Jump to content

What if war breaks out before Feb 2018?


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, paul said:

Obama is the reason we have Trump.

Yup you're absolutely right. Ever since Obama became president there was a significant increase in right wing media to attack and belittle every little thing the president did, even if it benefited Republicans. Breitbart, the Blaze, FOX "News" and also radio talk shows such as Hannity, Limbaugh, and Alex Jones all pushed for an anti-Obama agenda and even anti-government agenda all for the sole purpose of defeating him in 2012. When that didn't work, they pushed even further to belittle the Democratic party as a whole to set themselves up for a 2016 victory. Well it worked, a little too damn good. So good that instead of having a Republican with actual experience and maybe international respect, the party voted in a demagoguing bag of candy corn that eventually won. So yes, it's all Obama's fault for being black and pissing off right-wing media just for simply breathing and doing his job that led us to a mango Mussolini president. Thanks Obama.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, paul said:

He won the presidency twice but in the end lost everything for his party and the people that supported him. He should have supported Clinton in 2008 and been ready NOW to step in in 2016....when he would have been more ready.

Wow, I actually agree 110% here with you!! The Dems were premature in selecting Obama back in 2008 (it's all really Dean's & Oprah's fault in the end :rolleyes:). Hlllary by far had the most experience even back then. I'm sure that Obama in 2016 would've mopped the floor with Trump. But no, the Dems were too stupid back in 2008 to realize that their premature decision would come back to bite them in the a$s. They still could've had the White House now if they had played their cards smarter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paul said:

He won the presidency twice but in the end lost everything for his party and the people that supported him. He should have supported Clinton in 2008 and been ready NOW to step in in 2016....when he would have been more ready.

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Wow, I actually agree 110% here with you!! The Dems were premature in selecting Obama back in 2008 (it's all really Dean's & Oprah's fault in the end :rolleyes:). Hlllary by far had the most experience even back then. I'm sure that Obama in 2016 would've mopped the floor with Trump. But no, the Dems were too stupid back in 2008 to realize that their premature decision would come back to bite them in the a$s. They still could've had the White House now if they had played their cards smarter.

Wait.. what?  I know hindsight is 20/20 and all, but are you seriously saying that at the time, liberals were stupid because they should have known this could happen and should have played their cards smarter?  I don't buy that.  Easier to see that now, but was that really the thinking at the time?  Plus, Clinton was a known political entity back then.  Obama was not.  If he loses the primary, he probably fades somewhat back into obscurity.  So who knows where he'd stand this time around.

And to really throw a wrench into your logic here.. if the thinking is that Trump happened because of Obama, then if Obama never became president...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Wait.. what?  I know hindsight is 20/20 and all, but are you seriously saying that at the time, liberals were stupid because they should have known this could happen and should have played their cards smarter? 

Absolutely yes. There was a blinding, irrational, ecstatic, liberal-frenzy that pushed Mr Obama past Mrs. Clinton....for many of the wrong reasons. 

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

If he loses the primary, he probably fades somewhat back into obscurity. 

....absolutely NO chance of that, he would have been at the TOP of the Clinton administration...likely VP....and THAT would have been a formidable combination to serve the American people.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

And to really throw a wrench into your logic here.. if the thinking is that Trump happened because of Obama, then if Obama never became president...

...playing their cards right and rationally Mr Obama would have been elected president in Nov 2016. He would have had the same powerful political and public support that he has always enjoyed......and that would have carried him into office....setting up Democrats for the very rare feat of control the executive branch for a concurrent 8 years.

...we can still HOPE for the best, but Mr Obama will not be part of the equation.

220px-Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, paul said:

Absolutely yes. There was a blinding, irrational, ecstatic, liberal-frenzy that pushed Mr Obama past Mrs. Clinton....for many of the wrong reasons. 

....absolutely NO chance of that, he would have been at the TOP of the Clinton administration...likely VP....and THAT would have been a formidable combination to serve the American people.

...playing their cards right and rationally Mr Obama would have been elected president in Nov 2016. He would have had the same powerful political and public support that he has always enjoyed......and that would have carried him into office....setting up Democrats for the very rare feat of control the executive branch for a concurrent 8 years.

...we can still HOPE for the best, but Mr Obama will not be part of the equation.

220px-Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg

Still feels like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking here.  I can't speak to the political climate back in 2008 to the point I remember what got Obama the win in the primary over Clinton.  But again, tell me you thought this way BEFORE Trump got elected and not after to where it's "oh crap, what have we done, here's what *hindsight* tells us."  If Clinton had won the primary, would Obama really have been her choice for VP?  I doubt it.  Again, hindsight tells us what kind of respect the man deserves after 8 years in the White House.  You didn't know that at the time who he was or what he was about, so I don't buy that he would have been at the top of Clinton's administration.  More likely he would have stayed in Illinois and then maybe made a run for 2016.  But that's a hypothetical we'll never know the answer to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I can't speak to the political climate back in 2008 to the point I remember what got Obama the win in the primary over Clinton. 

it was a combination of frenzy for the new and his truly amazing presence and oratorical skill.......he was exciting and new and fresh and all the things many people dreamed of. he created a cult of followers that believed he could solve every problem through their support and his electric personality and presence.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

But again, tell me you thought this way BEFORE Trump got elected and not after to where it's "oh crap, what have we done, here's what *hindsight* tells us." 

I was saying this through the 2008 primary....I have always felt this way.

I thought it was selfish and self-serving to step in front of Clinton and now we see that it was probably a misstep that has caused the near total destruction of the democratic party establishment.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

You didn't know that at the time who he was or what he was about, so I don't buy that he would have been at the top of Clinton's administration. 

with the popularity and leverage he gained in the primary he would have likely been able to select what position he wanted in a Clinton administration.....he was way beyond Chicago at that point.

Edited by paul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilarious that people still have time to bear a grudge about 2008...what about looking forward to getting rid of the orange one in 2020 (and hopefully, the Rep Congress before that)?

While Democrats fight among themselves, he can just sit back, launch a new executive order or a few missiles every now and then and wait for November 2020 to come along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, paul said:

it was a combination of frenzy for the new and his truly amazing presence and oratorical skill.......he was exciting and new and fresh and all the things many people dreamed of. he created a cult of followers that believed he could solve every problem through their support and his electric personality and presence.

I hope you appreciate the irony that the bold is exactly how Trump supporters feel about him.  Either way, if you have someone that's as young and dynamic as Obama (2 things that you wouldn't say about Hillary), it's not like you can say "let's save him for 8 years from now."  Politics usually doesn't work that way.

26 minutes ago, paul said:

I was saying this through the 2008 primary....I have always felt this way.

I thought it was selfish and self-serving to step in front of Clinton and now we see that it was probably a misstep that has caused the near total destruction of the democratic party establishment.

Okay, exactly.. NOW you see that.  Can you honestly tell me that 9 years ago that you saw that self-serving move and thought it would lead to the destruction of the establishment?  Particularly after Obama got elected for a 2nd term.  It's a hindsight argument and one that you can't necessarily use to assume an alternate timeline in the vein of "what if Athens got 1996 instead of Atlanta."

32 minutes ago, paul said:

with the popularity and leverage he gained in the primary he would have likely been able to select what position he wanted in a Clinton administration.....he was way beyond Chicago at that point.

Maybe.  This is still a man with 2 young children who maybe he didn't want to move out of Chicago even for a top position in Clinton's administration.  Again, there are a lot of hypotheticals here which are tough to reconcile, the least of which is whether or not Trump would have emerged in response to a Clinton presidency (let alone if she would have won a 2nd term in the first place)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, StefanMUC said:

Hilarious that people still have time to bear a grudge about 2008...what about looking forward to getting rid of the orange one in 2020 (and hopefully, the Rep Congress before that)?

While Democrats fight among themselves, he can just sit back, launch a new executive order or a few missiles every now and then and wait for November 2020 to come along.

I actually agree with paul here on several points. But what about telling that to the (Democrat) people that held "grudges" & couldn't "look forward" in finding themselves to vote for Hillary bcuz their beloved Sanders didn't get the nomination, & probably handed the big cheetoh the presidency on a silver platter bcuz of it. 

As much as I was disappointed that Obama won the nomination back in 2008 instead of Hillary, I at least came to terms with it & actually voted for him & not just then, but also again in 2012. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the 2016 race where many people didn't vote, or voted for somebody else in spite, bcuz their preferred Democratic nominee wasn't given the candidacy, & now, many of them are regretting that short-sided decision, but it's too damn late now for voters remorse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

South Korean elections are this sunday, and Moon Jae In (former civil rights fighter/lawyer and from the moderate left wing) seems to be the one to win. Apparently people wants to pick someone from the left to punish the conservative elite which had been ruling the country for 10 years.

He also seems to support a close approach to NK, not being happy at all with Trump lately shenanigans. So it might be safe to say tensions would alleviate in the region if Moon wings and does a Sunshine Policy 2.0.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many are viewing the SK general election as a Referendum about America's recent actions in the peninsula rather than a presidential election. 

Also my bad, elections are in tuesday, not tomorrow. As for France, I don't really think Le Pen has chances, like she could give a surprise but the fact she didn't got enough votes on the first round and everyone is teaming up against her pretty much...at least Trump was at least some times ahead in the polls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ikarus360 said:

Many are viewing the SK general election as a Referendum about America's recent actions in the peninsula rather than a presidential election. 

Also my bad, elections are in tuesday, not tomorrow. As for France, I don't really think Le Pen has chances, like she could give a surprise but the fact she didn't got enough votes on the first round and everyone is teaming up against her pretty much...at least Trump was at least some times ahead in the polls. 

Not only that, Le Pen really screwed up her golden opportunity at the debate (She was a full disaster and Macron really dominated her in many ocasions). Even her stans were furious and disappointed of her performance (Hence, her daddy recognized that). Just in case, her biggest card ("Frexit") was destroyed in small parts by Macron and she couldn't propose any rational argument.

Now, we have the leaks of Macron's mails, but these came just barely to the closure of the campaign and Macron's team reacted effective. Everything related to this is forbidden in public light, unless after Sunday 8PM when election is over.  The irony is she started strong in this second part of the campaign but after a first 4 good days, the impact was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new South Korean president. He'll be proclaimed tomorrow and we'll see him again next February when he opens the games.

Conservatives hate him because of his wish to approach more with NK but tbh I think it was precisely those policies from the conservatives which kind of made an already complicated situation even worse.

If he does a Sunshine Policy 2.0 what are the odds we might see the unified Korean team again in the ceremony?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Maybe not an unified team again, but I can see making an special gesture with North Korea as part of fraternity and peace. Also Moon Jae-In's policies came on right time after a series of disastrous decisions from the conservatives government (And not only related for North Korea). For example, the militar's daughter's leadership came with corruption scandals and missing presence in key moments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Tensions are escalating more than ever now after this week. Both leaders exchanging heavy language and now NK is threatening to bomb Guam.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40883372

I think the idiots who thought Trump was the best choice for a president back in 2016 are going to be very, very sorry in a few, if this going on the Olympics are going to be the least important issue to worry about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just catching up on this thread again and all the Hillary-Barack-Trump dialogue.  Even back in 2008, Hillary was saddled with an incompetent staff.  Barack's new team back then was able to beat a seasoned, ex-president's wife such as her.  For 2016, even if she inherited some of Barack's team, she still had losers like Podesta and that Uma Abbedin as millstones who, once again, weighed down her campaign fatally.  Aside from her decisions on the email thing, Hillary's other flaw was her loyalty to the wrong people for her campaign.  But the country is the worse for it now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, what kind of idiot announces where and when they will attack? It's as if they're literally begging to get nuked. 

I mean, if i was the president of a country and someone is threatening to send me missiles the next week, I would most likely do a preemptive strike to protect my people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Current effects of the impending Armageddon, from The Guardian:

Quote

Nuclear tensions cast chill over South Korea's Winter Olympic buildup

Ticket sales are low, while North Korea’s nuclear weapons testing and missile launches have dented hopes the neighbours would field joint teams

...

early ticket sales have been disappointing. In the first phase of sales between February and June only 52,000 tickets were sold inside South Korea – less than 7% of the 750,000 seats organisers aim to sell domestically.

International sales were stronger, with overseas sport fans buying more than half the targeted 320,000 seats, but the rate is below that of most previous winter Games at this stage of preparations. Online ticket sales began last week.

There is particular concern that so few tickets have been sold in China and Japan, ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/12/nuclear-tensions-cast-chill-over-south-koreas-winter-olympic-build-up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...