[Potemkin]

Nixon, despite his faults, actually knew Federal and State politics backward and forward. He didn't spout off at the mouth and ran a tight ship.

He also wasn't a demonstrable narcissist and was actually quite the "beta male." He doted on his wife before they were married and literally drove her to dates with other men before they started a relationship.

Do you think Trump, if he were indicted, could successfully negotiate his way to a pardon?

Precisely. Nixon was paranoid, not narcissistic.

[colliric]

Colliric, don't bullshit me with your half assed take on the convention. You said you missed half of it because your local station switched to Turnbull. You literally missed half of the show you're making a half assed comment on. Well, I guess if you take the proportions into account it's a full assed comment.

An old man who probably helped his wife practice that speech a dozen times was tired at 10 PM? I'm shocked. Shocked at how little I care.

All we missed was the last 10minutes of Chelsea's Speech...... not half the show....

That was all. We got to see all of Hillary....

All boring near 60 minutes of her. Including the silly balloon dance...

Oh and ABC(News24 is their digital free to air News Channel) despite being a left wing leaning station summed up in it's commentary Hillary's speech in the exact same words("pretty boring speech").... politely of cause. Before promptly returning to cover Turnbull post-coverage, you know, because he was actually interesting and local.

Note: They covered Trump basically most of the Day when he formally accepted nomination.

[Hong Wu]

Dadimir Trumpin, the perfect villain who can only successfully be opposed by the perfect heroes who will never grow up.

I guess this makes Assange Captain Hook, who gets to be the alligator?

Meanwhile, one of Trump's Russian advisers is the guy who negotiated the START treaty with the Soviet Union and the media spins that as "Russian connections".

[SpecialOlympian]

Colliric, I'm having trouble understanding your position and why you have a hate on for Hillary's speech. Like, all the news outlets I've heard comment on it have agreed that her speech was good, if not great because Hillary is ultimately a policy nerd more at home in the office than behind a podium.

Personally, I do not feel she is a strong speaker. Trump is more natural, but devoid of substance. Hillary is less natural, but actually addresses what she plans to do.

Also somehow we were watching the same feed but you missed the several instances where the crowd was chanting Hillary's name. I heard these despite running a mock thread in Gorkiy I was putting most of my attention toward.

So, random question, how do you feel about Nauru?

[Hong Wu]

Hey SO, if Trump builds the wall, the price of cocaine might go up.

[Rugoz]

Or it could be: Putin is a leader whose power base is Russia, hence, he is conflict with the "American" leadership, whose power base is corporate-Soros-Slim-Zio-Wahabite. But if Trump were elected, with an American power base, these two self-interested leaders could get along, because they'd both be defending a circumscribed national interest, rather than globalism.

Also, Putin seems like a real mensch.

Putin acts in the interest of himself and his Mafia state, not in the national interest.

But you're basically at a point where you would sell your grandmother for racial purity, so I'm afraid I have to stop taking you seriously.

[SpecialOlympian]

Hey SO, if Trump builds the wall, the price of cocaine might go up.

I'm not ashamed of my vices, but I haven't touched it in weeks. The short term high is not worth the anxiety ridden crash.

Sorry if you're a low energy person, like Jeb Bush.

[Ombrageux]

Putin acts in the interest of himself and his Mafia state, not in the national interest.

Why would I hate Putin? I find it amazing. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union actually imposed totalitarian dictatorships across half of Europe and threatened the other half with potential conquest and nuclear oblivion. But much of the Left thought that was cool. Today, Russia is clearly an electoral, pluralistic regime, it is not a threat to Western Europe (or even, IMHO, to most of Central Europe), Putin has done great good for his country (look at the economy, life expectancy, the birth rate), he is popular, and I am supposed to fight with him?

Why? Who benefits from Westerners fighting with Russians and Europeans fighting among themselves?

Even if I were merely a civic nationalist, I would have no reason to fight with the Russians. If Donald-Putin lead to a pacifying of relations across the wider European world, awesome!

[Hong Wu]

weeks

Also, not using cocaine makes someone "low energy"? I'm kind of worried, in a weird and probably creepy way.

[SpecialOlympian]

I'm glad that your purposeful misreading of my post has allowed you to achieve some temporary sense of superiority. I hope you use that initiative to better yourself.

Namaste, Hong Wu Rainbow Crow.

[Beren]

Precisely. Nixon was paranoid, not narcissistic.

As well as he was a politician, not a villain. Can you imagine the Donald cooperating with Henry Kissinger? Or anybody else for that matter.

Oh and ABC(News24 is their digital free to air News Channel) despite being a left wing leaning station summed up in it's commentary Hillary's speech in the exact same words("pretty boring speech").... politely of cause. Before promptly returning to cover Turnbull post-coverage, you know, because he was actually interesting and local.

Note: They covered Trump basically most of the Day when he formally accepted nomination.

Sure, Trump is a lot better showman than Hillary. If someone wants a great reality show in the White House, they should vote for Trump.

But if Trump were elected, with an American power base, these two self-interested leaders could get along, because they'd both be defending a circumscribed national interest, rather than globalism.

As the Axis Powers did, right? Mussolini always had to be helped out, while Japan didn't give a damn and never attacked the USSR to help their Nazi ally a bit. Even Churchill and Stalin could cooperate better.

[Ombrageux]

Beren - The track record of WW2 is kind of a non-sequitur, but indeed, many Right-wing regimes get along fine.

Certainly better than when the "American Empire" gets involved, see: Iraq, Libya, Syria. All in the name of Israel.

U.S. foreign policy will be a lot better once the death-grip of the Israel Lobby has been annihilated für ewig. And Trump, for all his faults, does offer that.

Actually, I realize Trump's flaws in this respect: he keeps bashing Iran for no reason. I hope this is just to make Obama look weak. Nobody's perfect. Trump is a wildcare, Hillary is assured continued destruction of the Western nations.

[Beren]

Beren - The track record of WW2 is kind of a non-sequitur, but indeed, many Right-wing regimes get along fine.

Certainly better than when the "American Empire" gets involved, see: Iraq, Libya, Syria. All in the name of Israel.

U.S. foreign policy will be a lot better once the death-grip of the Israel Lobby has been annihilated für ewig. And Trump, for all his faults, does offer that.

Actually, I realize Trump's flaws in this respect: he keeps bashing Iran for no reason. I hope this is just to make Obama look weak. Nobody's perfect. Trump is a wildcare, Hillary is assured continued destruction of the Western nations.

As president Trump would turn against Russia, China, Iran, and the others immediately while urging Europe and Japan to militarise. If Putin really supports Trump, then he just doesn't know what he's doing. Like Hitler's western supporters just didn't know what they were doing when they thought he was going to destroy communists at home and invade the USSR while they're just watching. Putin's absolutely mistaken if he believes Trump's going to destroy his enemies in the US while he's just watching.

[Rich]

Certainly better than when the "American Empire" gets involved, see: Iraq, Libya, Syria. All in the name of Israel.

Libya certainly was not done at the behest of Israel. Israel's representatives on the forum certainly never agitated for it. Iraq was not really done at the behest of Israel, it was certainly driven by Zionist Neo cons and Zionist Conservatives like Rumsfield and Cheney, but their priorities are not identical with Israel's. The removal of Saddam was a glorious, noble and utterly moral venture of which we can be justly proud. Putting the majority Shia and secular Kurdish nationalists into power was both moral and strategically wise and prudent. It was also superb vengeance for 9/11. 9/11 was an attack on us by Sunni Muslims. The next steps are to give Eastern province and Bahrain to the Shia as well and start setting up Infidel safe havens in the Middle East and north Africa.

Do I like the Twelvers? No, but their hands will be so full fighting off Sunni terrorism that we don't need to worry about them for the foreseeable future.

[Rugoz]

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union actually imposed totalitarian dictatorships across half of Europe and threatened the other half with potential conquest and nuclear oblivion. But much of the Left thought that was cool.

I do not feel responsible for French leftists.

Today, Russia is clearly an electoral, pluralistic regime

, it is not a threat to Western Europe (or even, IMHO, to most of Central Europe),

No it is not, because it is comparatively weak. That doesn't mean we should feed it with European leftovers.

Putin has done great good for his country (look at the economy, life expectancy, the birth rate),

The economic boom in Russia in the 2000s is as much Putin's achievement as the boom in Turkey is Erdogan's, the boom in Venezuela is Chavez' or the boom in Brazil is Lula's. Putin implemented some important reforms in the first 2 years of his rule, but after that he was preoccupied with consolidating his power. Overall the economic boom in Russia was the result of the 2000s commodities boom, the reforms of his predecessors and himself and simple catch-up growth after the painful transition to a market-based economy.

Putin mostly failed in his main task though, to diversification of the Russian economy. He also failed at fighting corruption (obviously, it's a kleptocracy). He destroyed the relationship with Ukraine with his stupid bullying. He weakened Russian political institutions. He brought Russia on the path of likely future upheaval and chaos. Does that sound like "acting in the national interest" to you?

Even if I were merely a civic nationalist, I would have no reason to fight with the Russians.

You don't have to fight him, just don't pretend he is some kind of role model to follow.

[Ombrageux]

If Putin really supports Trump, then he just doesn't know what he's doing. Like Hitler's western supporters just didn't know what they were doing when they thought he was going to destroy communists at home and invade the USSR while they're just watching.

Funny thing: the Westerners (for some apparently inexplicable reason) never gave Hitler the opportunity to invade the USSR before declaring war. They declared war for "Polish sovereignty" and quietly let the Soviets annex the Balts and Bolshevize Poland.

I wonder why they were so harsh on Hitler and so generous with Stalin?

Pretty much all the evidence since the war indicates that Hitler's main priority was destroying Bolshevism and securing Germany as an independent superpower through Eastern Lebesraum. He might have felt the need to take out France at some point, just to be safe. But he said a hundred thousand times both in public and in private that he loved the British Empire.

Rich - I respectfully disagree. There are obviously many factors in play, but an important one is Zionism, given that Libya was largely instigated by the French government at the behest of Bernard-Henri Lévy.

There will still be conflicts in the world if and when the influence of Zionism over U.S. and French foreign policy is eliminated, but there will be less conflicts. And, at the least, we can hope that Western governments' engaging in conflict will be in the interest of their peoples rather than that of a foreign nation and disloyal oligarchs.

Rugoz - Putin is an elected, popular Russian leader. IMHO the problems are the Russians' to solve. Already in the 1960s and 70s, European and American leaders saw the benefits of rapprochement, détente, and Ostpolitik with the Soviets even though they occupied half of Europe. The case for rapprochement is infinitely stronger today! We should work for an equitable solution in Ukraine and work to get along in the interest of all Europe.

To me, Putin is not a role model. He did significantly diversify the Russian oligarchy to include many more of the ethnic Russian majority (before that it was practically all Jews, and there are still many prosperous Jewish oligarchs). But he is no systematic nationalist and, once he passes, there is every possibility Russia will slide into degeneracy. I would welcome strong leaders of the De Gaulle type in the West - which I suppose is what Trump represents - but we need something more revolutionary and more progressive to solve our problems.

[Godstud]

The removal of Saddam was a glorious, noble and utterly moral venture of which we can be justly proud.

Maybe, if they hadn't left the country in a worse state than when Saddam was there. Saddam killed less of his people than the US did, too. US sanctions and war tore Iraq apart and made it the wreck it is today. US has no moral high ground on this. They are dirtbags of the highest calibre for this injustice(which is why only US bum buddies went with them). If anything, America fucked up a lot of people, for the monetary gain of a very few. Par for the course, I suppose for the USA.

Putting the majority Shia and secular Kurdish nationalists into power was both moral and strategically wise and prudent.

History shows that it was neither prudent, nor wise.

It was also superb vengeance for 9/11.

9/11 was an attack on the US by a terrorist organization that America helped create during the Afghan/Russia War. Iraq had NOTHING to do with it. Iraq was an oil grab. There's nothing more to it than that.

[Rugoz]

Rugoz - Putin is an elected, popular Russian leader. IMHO the problems are the Russians' to solve. Already in the 1960s and 70s, European and American leaders saw the benefits of rapprochement, détente, and Ostpolitik with the Soviets even though they occupied half of Europe. The case for rapprochement is infinitely stronger today! We should work for an equitable solution in Ukraine and work to get along in the interest of all Europe.

To me, Putin is not a role model. He did significantly diversify the Russian oligarchy to include many more of the ethnic Russian majority (before that it was practically all Jews, and there are still many prosperous Jewish oligarchs). But he is no systematic nationalist and, once he passes, there is every possibility Russia will slide into degeneracy.

Elected? Seriously? You cannot call a system a democracy where political opponents are eliminated and there's widespread electoral fraud. And that's without even mentioning the total lack of press freedom, the lack of independent judiciary. His "popularity" means nothing.

As for Ukraine, Putin fucked it up. If he wants an "equitable solution" he must convince Ukrainians of it.

And now you start talking about Jews again. Jesus. Wtf happened to you.

I would welcome strong leaders of the De Gaulle type in the West - which I suppose is what Trump represents - but we need something more revolutionary and more progressive to solve our problems.

Let's face it, you only support a strong leader if he implements the policies you personally desire. That kind of egotism and lack of commitment to higher principles will be the downfall of Western civilization.

[Hong Wu]

Getting back on topic...

Even if Hillary were to win at this point, the chances of her carrying congress are clearly gone and the chance of her retaking the Senate (which never looked guaranteed, if more possible) are certainly less. So we can be even more sure at this point that she would be a one-term lame duck. The trend of one party not making it past three terms is almost sure to hold true after the recent leaks. So in a way, Republicans/GOP have already won this provided Hillary can't carry the Senate. And since a lot of the Bernie delegates are also involved in state politics and part of the scandal is the DNC/HFA siphoning money away from state races, that seems very possible right now.

[Zagadka]

Donald Trump threatens to ‘hit’ several DNC speakers 'so hard' over their critical speeches
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2730295

“I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy,” Trump said at his rally. “I was gonna hit this guy so hard, his head would spin, he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”