If Donald Trump wins, what country would you flee to?

evince said:
you post right wing clap trap biased sites.


you don't know what constitutes a FACT
Click to expand...

You need to stay off those sites, they are programming you to parrot their right wing hate and racism. Stop being such a right wing extremist and learn some facts, like how Republicans are trying to steal elections by keeping blacks from voting
 
cuntiefan915 said:
livingrentfreeinhead.png
Click to expand...

Awwwwwww!

How sweet!

The little bitch reads my posts AND steals my lines.

You're a liar as well as a cunt, cuntiefan.
 
kaz said:
You need to stay off those sites, they are programming you to parrot their right wing hate and racism. Stop being such a right wing extremist and learn some facts, like how Republicans are trying to steal elections by keeping blacks from voting
Click to expand...

The obama failings listed in my posts are indefensible; red lines in syria, failure to arm syrian rebels when it could have stopped assad's slaughter of 300K people - funny how you leftists bitch about Israel killing a few arabs, but are silent on assad's massacre of hundreds of thousands, increase in the national debt by $9 TR, failure to stem the flow of hundreds of thousands of illegals into the US, severe damage done to foreign relations ships, spying on Germany, etc.

What the other political party is doing or not doing is irrelevent - these are all on obama.
 
transwarpdrive said:
If you do not start addressing the points/items in those articles, you will have exhausted my patience and you will be the first person I permanently ban from any thread I open. I am giving you one last chance to engage on the facts, or you will be placed on both my ignore list and perma-banned from all of my threads.

You claim conservatives run from facts, here's your chance to show liberals actually engage them.
Click to expand...
You basically have two options with desh: Ignore or keep her around for entertainment. I vote entertainment for one reason: She cusses better and more originally than a US Navy Chief Petty Officer. Politically, she's more full of crap than a Christmas goose and a major pain in the ass, but nonetheless occasionally entertaining.
 
callinectes said:
You basically have two options with desh: Ignore or keep her around for entertainment. I vote entertainment for one reason: She cusses better and more originally than a US Navy Chief Petty Officer. Politically, she's more full of crap than a Christmas goose and a major pain in the ass, but nonetheless occasionally entertaining.
Click to expand...

You can say that for just about any other libtard on this board.
 
transwarpdrive said:
The obama failings listed in my posts are indefensible; red lines in syria, failure to arm syrian rebels when it could have stopped assad's slaughter of 300K people - funny how you leftists bitch about Israel killing a few arabs, but are silent on assad's massacre of hundreds of thousands, increase in the national debt by $9 TR, failure to stem the flow of hundreds of thousands of illegals into the US, severe damage done to foreign relations ships, spying on Germany, etc.

What the other political party is doing or not doing is irrelevent - these are all on obama.
Click to expand...

Arming the rebels against Assad is ridiculous. There are nothing but bad guys over there. The rebels are no better than Assad, and helping them overthrow Assad strategically does nothing but help ISIS. It removes one of the two governments they were formed to remove. You should learn about Shias and Sunnis if you want to understand what's going on better over there.

As for Israel, I'm a big supporter. No way they should roll over to Palestinian terrorism against them
 
kaz said:
Arming the rebels against Assad is ridiculous. There are nothing but bad guys over there.
Click to expand...

The first few years of the uprising there were huge numbers of SAA defectors, who with the proper management and backing of obama and his clueless, failed administration, could have been the backbone of a moderate resistance to assad, but instead obama avoided engaging the conflict until he was forced to when assad began dropping sarin gas bombs on civilians. The West had plenty of time to round up and arm the SAA defectors, who numbered in the tens of thousands: far greater than any other anti-assad group, and who now are either languishing in Turkey or trying to sneak into Europe.

The rebels are no better than Assad, and helping them overthrow Assad strategically does nothing but help ISIS.
Click to expand...

There was no ISIS presence in syria for the first few years of the conflict, and obama's lunatic dithering created the vacuum for the jihadist groups to flow in from Iraq. He has also not stopped putin from bombing the moderate groups while ignoring the jihadists, as a means of giving the world 2 options: a diseased, illegitimate, terrorist assad regime - or an ISIS-led one.

You should learn about Shias and Sunnis if you want to understand what's going on better over there.
Click to expand...

I am FROM the mideast, and do not need to study such things.

As for Israel, I'm a big supporter. No way they should roll over to Palestinian terrorism against them
Click to expand...

We are in agreement.
 
transwarpdrive said:
I am FROM the mideast, and do not need to study such things
Click to expand...

Then why don't you seem to get the significance of that in this conflict? Overthrowing a Shiite government in Syria without a plan would be a boon for ISIS, clearly it would be a Sunni government. And Obama has specifically failed in Syria because his recruits are more interested in fighting Assad than ISIS. What does that tell you if they win?

As for your arguments on what we woulda, coulda, shoulda done in the past, I don't care. They are all bad guys and we can't change that.

Personally as a libertarian, I think we should take a back seat and let the local governments and Euroweenies deal with their own mess. I think we should support them if they step up to it, but not do it for them. Just like we shouldn't have invaded Iraq or tried to nation build in Afghanistan. I do think we should have blown the crap out of the Taliban for what they helped Al Qaeda do in south Manhattan, but nation building there was a terrible idea, the British failed at 4 times and then the Russians did as well.
 
kaz said:
Then why don't you seem to get the significance of that in this conflict? Overthrowing a Shiite government in Syria without a plan would be a boon for ISIS, clearly it would be a Sunni government. And Obama has specifically failed in Syria because his recruits are more interested in fighting Assad than ISIS. What does that tell you if they win?
Click to expand...

The population of syria until 2011 was 85% sunni, so the country was being run by a minority, illegitimate dictatorship that was unsustainable. Realistically there was only one option: split the country along sectarian lines and provide the alawites a rump state in the northwest above Lebanon, and the rest of syria to be sunni sovereign.

As for their preference to fighting assad, given that he and his father had been imprisoning, torturing and murdering their family members for almost 50 years, and ISIS had just come across the border within the last year or two, it made sense for the vast majority of sunnis to target assad.

As for your arguments on what we woulda, coulda, shoulda done in the past, I don't care. They are all bad guys and we can't change that.
Click to expand...

That is inaccurate, and many of the moderate rebel leaders have publicly stated they would not only recognize Israel, but would align with the West if they were victorious:

http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles...bers-overtures-israel-remain-unpopular/?lang=

Personally as a libertarian, I think we should take a back seat and let the local governments and Euroweenies deal with their own mess. I think we should support them if they step up to it, but not do it for them. Just like we shouldn't have invaded Iraq or tried to nation build in Afghanistan. I do think we should have blown the crap out of the Taliban for what they helped Al Qaeda do in south Manhattan, but nation building there was a terrible idea, the British failed at 4 times and then the Russians did as well.
Click to expand...

Isolationism is like communism; on paper it sounds like a good idea until you actually put it in practice. With most of the world bent towards war/violence/disorder, the stabilizing factor of the US as a leader and guarantor of security, while expensive, provides us with lots of free, safe markets to conduct trade to. Remember we are still one of the world's top exporters of everthing from manufacturing to food exports, and without the US military providing stability to many of the world's regions, those customers purchasing our products won't be able to.

Isolationism led directly to WW1, and has given iran and putin a free hand to annex/terorrize whole regions, which instead of having more disposable income to buy US products are now fearful and have to save their money in case of wider conflict, or spend it on weapons the US may or may not sell. History over the past 100 years has shown that when the US or other major powers vacate their role as security guarantors war is not far around the corner.

Last, if you are a supporter of Israel, then allowing iran to continue to operate as the cancer it has over the past several decades as the world's top terrorist supporter, murdering civilians and fomenting wars across the mideast, is a gigantic mistake. The only error Bush made was to attack the wrong country; he should have de-capitated iran.
 
transwarpdrive said:
The population of syria until 2011 was 85% sunni, so the country was being run by a minority, illegitimate dictatorship that was unsustainable. Realistically there was only one option: split the country along sectarian lines and provide the alawites a rump state in the northwest above Lebanon, and the rest of syria to be sunni sovereign.

As for their preference to fighting assad, given that he and his father had been imprisoning, torturing and murdering their family members for almost 50 years, and ISIS had just come across the border within the last year or two, it made sense for the vast majority of sunnis to target assad.



That is inaccurate, and many of the moderate rebel leaders have publicly stated they would not only recognize Israel, but would align with the West if they were victorious:

http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles...bers-overtures-israel-remain-unpopular/?lang=



Isolationism is like communism; on paper it sounds like a good idea until you actually put it in practice. With most of the world bent towards war/violence/disorder, the stabilizing factor of the US as a leader and guarantor of security, while expensive, provides us with lots of free, safe markets to conduct trade to. Remember we are still one of the world's top exporters of everthing from manufacturing to food exports, and without the US military providing stability to many of the world's regions, those customers purchasing our products won't be able to.

Isolationism led directly to WW1, and has given iran and putin a free hand to annex/terorrize whole regions, which instead of having more disposable income to buy US products are now fearful and have to save their money in case of wider conflict, or spend it on weapons the US may or may not sell. History over the past 100 years has shown that when the US or other major powers vacate their role as security guarantors war is not far around the corner.

Last, if you are a supporter of Israel, then allowing iran to continue to operate as the cancer it has over the past several decades as the world's top terrorist supporter, murdering civilians and fomenting wars across the mideast, is a gigantic mistake. The only error Bush made was to attack the wrong country; he should have de-capitated iran.
Click to expand...

So my choices are to be policeman to the world or be an isolationist? I reject that as the crap that it is. And I didn't even say that. Actually, I said, "I think we should support them if they step up to it, but not do it for them." How do you get "isolationism" out of that? An isolationist wouldn't help them. I mean duh.

So, you seem consistently pro-Sunni and anti-Shiite, so I guess you do know the difference
 
kaz said:
So my choices are to be policeman to the world or be an isolationist? I reject that as the crap that it is. And I didn't even say that. Actually, I said, "I think we should support them if they step up to it, but not do it for them." How do you get "isolationism" out of that? An isolationist wouldn't help them. I mean duh.
Click to expand...

Unless someone else of good will, like NATO were to step in an fill the void left by a US stepping out of the role as the world's cop materialized, there really is no other option. ISIS came about due to the failure of obama to keep the iranian filth from forcing maliki to marginalize the iraqi sunni population, and obama's continued dithering and refusal to take forceful action against iran is a huge failing on his part.

So, you seem consistently pro-Sunni and anti-Shiite, so I guess you do know the difference
Click to expand...

I am fervently anti-islam, but right now the shiites are being led into a cauldron of fire by the self-appointed shiite leadership of iran, who cannot be liquidated soon enough. If the iranian regime were wiped off the map today there would still not be absolute peace in the mideast, but it would move us a long way in that direction. They are the primary cause of many of the current mideast wars, and are the top obstacle to resolving the arab-Israeli conflict.
 
Irish said:
Man libs leaving the country in droves. THis would be a double win!

Maybe we can actually stop Islamic Terrorists from killing people, without whiny liberals getting in the way. AQ/ISIS best ally is the American Liberal. Who lets their people out of gitmo, and makes strong arguments on their behalf.

They both agree that the West and the USA are racist bigoted countries that have to go, or be "transformed."

That's why Obama refuses to fight ISIS, he's their ally.
Click to expand...

TRUMP opposes most all of these interventionist wars that Democrats and their RINO allies love so much. If Trump were President we would not have been in hardly any of these wars. He believes only in self defense not in spreading democracy by killing millions of innocent people, or making the world safe for Walmart and Costco, doing the fighting for lazy, stingy so-called allies, and so on, and on. He knows the trillions these useless wars cost and he has plans to rebuild our infrastructure and a bunch of other good things. He wants a great military so we never have to use it. Vote Trump to fix a lot of these things Liberals are complaining of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top