Jump to content

neutrinosalad

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About neutrinosalad

  • Rank
    Baryon
  1. If Democrats believe in compromise, then why are they promoting the idea that they need to resist everything Trump proposes regardless of the actual things he is proposing even if it is ideologically aligned with what the Democrats want (a la infrastructure deals)? If the Democrats are so inclusive, why did Barack Obama refer to people who vote Republican as their enemies? Example: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/obama-i-shouldnt-have-used-the-word-enemies/1#.WQTuLrpFzF4 Thanks to your rhetoric, I can safely say that Barack Obama was promoting
  2. While everything I am saying is not 100% factually correct, at least it is a somewhat accurate approximation of the political realities of the region. Also, capability to develop nukes is not equivalent to having nukes. We can go back and forth over how close Japan is to having nukes, but the reality is that they don't have nukes. Japan does not have nukes. And I think you are veering off of the two most important questions with regards to North Korea in the region: -How will South Korea and Japan react to a fully nuclear North Korea? -How will China react if South Korea and Japan beg
  3. 1. Think about it in the context of this, within the last 100 years, Japan has committed mass genocide and rape of the Chinese people. To this day, there exists an underlying level of hostility between the Chinese and Japanese people due to this history. Even though Japan already has a strong military, there is a significant difference between having a strong military and being a nuclear armed country. While the United States has promised Japan it will use nuclear arms if necessary to deter a military threat to its existence, that is significantly different from Japan owning the nuclear arms t
  4. China operates more like a top down dynasty from what I have seen than like an absolute dictatorship. Also, we cannot expand our presence to North Korea without provoking a war with China. Competent leadership that fixes the North Korean economy and brings in political stability is more important than spreading democracy.
  5. China having nuclear weapons and the United States having nuclear weapons is the status quo. South Korea and Japan being protected under the United States nuclear umbrella is also the status quo. Now what is not the status quo is North Korea having a nuclear weapon that they are capable of reliably delivering to a large city in South East Asia (ex: Seoul, South Korea or Tokyo, Japan). If North Korea develops a proper delivery system and a stronger nuclear weapon, the political calculus would be altered in the region in a highly negative way. Japan and South Korea may perceive a nuclear Nor
  6. The problem with North Korea is that if they get a proper propulsion system, they could have a nuclear arm that they could deliever to a major South Korean or Japanese city. Currently neither of those two countries have nuclear arms themselves and if they feel that the United States nuclear umbrella is not sufficient, it could lead to a nuclear arms race in South East Asia. This could ultimately spiral out of control and lead to a major ground war in the region. Taking out Kim Jong Un is ultimately about preserving the stability and balance of power of the region. I have been following
  7. Here's a quote from your linked article: The electors are saying that they need the briefing as a justification to become "faithless electors" per Federalist Paper #68. They are saying that this is based on a conclusion from the intelligence community. Yet here is an article that conflicts with that conclusion: Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E Also, from my previous post, you know that John Podesta with the Hillary Clinton campaign is leading the "faithless elector" campaign by trying to get electoral college voters intell
  8. I do trust Wall Street Journal and I do trust Mitch McConnell and John McCain. The fact that these three sources are raising red flags does concern me, but I want to see how the investigations turn out before I come to any conclusion. Also, just a critique of your own quote: The briefers do not have evidence directly identifying Russian hackers otherwise they would have explicitly said it was Russian hackers. Instead they have circumstantial evidence that they are using to create a conclusion that it is Russia who is involved. While their conclusion could be accurate, since they a
  9. In this case it is not the intelligence community that is suggesting this. It is the CIA that is suggesting this and it is merely an inference that is being promoted here. The FBI has dissented from the CIA's inference because there is no direct evidence suggesting that Russia hacked the DNC or Democrat's accounts. I repeat there is no evidence that the DNC or Democrats were hacked by Russia, it is only an inference made by anonymous people who supposedly work for the CIA. Also, the bolded part is part of the problem. You are suggesting that white people who lean right are the problem
  10. Except a lot of these hate crimes are unsubstantiated by evidence showing that they happened. Two cases: Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/10/women-in-hijabs-on-2-campuses-say-they-were-attacked-by-men-invoking-donald-trump/ and second one: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/muslim-student-reported-trump-inspired-attack-admits-made/story?id=43442471 Hijab story is fabricated. Another one: Based on the fact that the police responded saying it had not been reported, story is also fabricated. ---------------------------------------
  11. This latest revelation broke Chris Matthews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9eYU51D3Qg This is glorious! Please read this article all the way through: Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/retired-general-charged-with-lying-about-leaks-to-reporters-1476729375 This general was charged with misleading the FBI. Who pursued him? Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has mislead and lied to the FBI multiple times about her server! And what has happened? Absolutely nothing. Again Loretta Lynch was unwilling to declare charges against Clinton and she and Barack forced James Co
  12. McCain is literally going senile. It is becoming abundantly obvious at this point. He's still better than Ann Kirkpatrick (his opposition this year) though. The problem with the United States is an increasing loss of internal cohesion. On our current path, the country is on the road to breaking up into smaller pieces unless some superhero president can swoop in and resolve the disarray that is occurring. A lot of what is happening right now are different states, ethnic groups, and classes are forming factions and fighting each other rather than working on problem solving. At least
  13. So it is okay for a man to circumvent our laws because the other side is being quote unquote "too difficult"? This kind of circumventing of the rules bends the separation of powers and consolidates more power underneath the executive branch exactly like I talked about. Also, if this was not struck down as unconstitutional it would set a precedent for a Republican president to do the exact same thing where he (or she) could load up the judicial branch with people who are ideologically aligned with them with absolutely no opposition to question the appointments. Edit: Ahh, b
  14. The reason why it is hard to identify any sort of ideological construct that Trump follows is because his ideology does not fall within the normal right left boundaries that have existed in the modern era of American politics. I was skimming through an article of the New Yorker about Trump and here is a little line about him in the article that really struck me about how pin-point accurate it was about Trump and what he believes: Source: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/president-trumps-first-term Trump's ideological perception of the world is based around basic hu
  15. I will back it up. I am going to broaden it though since this is a new thread and this will just be a collection of things that have been done by the Obama Administration that have led me to dislike his presidency. A lot of these things are what I see as overreach or distasteful rather than purely being "rule by executive fiat". I will add some commentary, but otherwise I will leave it to people to judge for themselves. Also, I will pre-empt this by saying that I am currently ideologically inclined to be critical of the Obama Administration, so everything is going through that filter. Obam
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.