MASSIVE Erection Thread 2016 - Lizard has the advantage. Trump is spiraling towards defeat.

First title

second title

third title

Fourth title

Fifth and Sixth title

Seventh title

eighth title

Ninth title

tenth title

All discussion of the candidates, updates and results should go here

For example- here's a video of Ted Cruz vying for world domination.

Also Hilary Clinton is a crook and nobody should have sex with her.

Discuss

(Note- The title will change as we get nearer the election, previous titles will be archived in the OP)

 

[FlamingPie]

The US is the big imperialist empire of the current age. Everything it does is based on a geopolitical assumption. Whenever those are right or wrong are another topic entirely. I feel currently they are a bit too antagonistic to Russia, and are in a "cold war defense" mode as if Putin already launched an attack. This just makes the Russians even more nervous that they will get a "dose of high explosive demukhracy". As an article stated, they consider the US a foe that can not negotiate. Not unwilling, but unable to negotiate. That's scary.
...

I'd probably be a bit more sympathetic to Russia if their government didn't pull shit like poisoning a journalist with radiation and shooting down passenger planes for no reason. It doesn't excuse the dumb things the U.S. has done, but it's like, as you said, choosing between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

 

[Male Idiot]

As the two posts above illustrate, Putin is bad but he is not actively and publicly encouraging kebabification like Obama and Hillary and Merkel.

EU goverments are either ideologically compromised on the west, or simply bribed in the east with eu money.

 

[DuskEngine]

Putin is bad but he is not actively and publicly encouraging kebabification like Obama and Hillary and Merkel.

who the fuck is Ramzan Kadyrov lol

 

[Male Idiot]

He is not openly and forcefully promoting the European countries to take in rapefugees, which is better than the US is doing. He no doubt benefits from it either way.

If Europe gets very right wing and expels rapefugees, its US connections will be harmed severely unless Trump wins. If Trump wins, than the US will be in a more friendly position with Russia anyway.
If not, it will be too weak and defenseless and ripe for the taking by Russia.

Putin gains advantage either way and the cunning old bear no doubt knows it.

 

[Internet War Criminal]

You do know Saddam was gassing his own people, right? We had reason to suspect he still had chemical weapons, because he had used them before.

Us and every single Western intelligence agency

And apparently Saddam himself

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

He is not openly and forcefully promoting the European countries to take in rapefugees, which is better than the US is doing. He no doubt benefits from it either way.

If Europe gets very right wing and expels rapefugees, its US connections will be harmed severely unless Trump wins. If Trump wins, than the US will be in a more friendly position with Russia anyway.
If not, it will be too weak and defenseless and ripe for the taking by Russia.

Putin gains advantage either way and the cunning old bear no doubt knows it.

I find it hard to believe that anyone in the current political climate isn't pro-Russia, regardless of Putin's personal motivation, and honestly we should be helping them deal with Kebab in anyway we can. A Russo-American alliance is still a viable path forward. I am basically for any candidate that promises to try and normalize relations with the bear, although that will be difficult given that Russia has every good reason not to trust western governments or their motives.

 

[Shugo]

The Clinton Foundation theories go all over the place to the point that I no longer take any of them seriously, to be perfectly honest. If only because the only sources I see on that shit are bullshit tabloids and crap like Breitbart. If some Saudis gave money to it that's all well and good, but it doesn't mean anything in and of itself. It's a charity. People donate money to charities. Rest assured the Saudis don't need to give the CF money to get the cooperation of the US. We've been giving it to them gladly for over 60 years.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Here's a source that quotes someone who was in the state department for 34 years, and Harvard Professors (not right wing conspiracy theories) pointing out the conflict of interests between Hillary having the main authority in approving these deals, and being guided by law to refuse deals to countries that abuse human rights to leverage them to stop and the donations to her foundation.

You really need to do your own research rather than taking millions upon millions of "donations" as a right-wing conspiracy. These aren't people donating government to this "charity." These are governments donating hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars when they are seeking deals from the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, herself.

 

[kobebyarlant]

I just don't get how Hillary is the best choice for world peace by randomly arming and bombing various middle east groups while being aggressive towards Russia in Syria, and Trump somehow will start WW3 by leaving them alone. Is Russia gonna get jealous over the lack of threats and meddling and start launching nukes to make senpai notice them?

 

[Ruin]

I just don't get how Hillary is the best choice for world peacr by randomly arming and bombing various middle east groups while being aggressive towards Russia in Syria, and Trump somehow will start WW3 by leaving them alone. Is Russia gonna get jealous over the lack of threats and meddling and start launching nukes to make senpai notice them?

I noticed most Hillary supporters try to rationalize this with "oh women are more rational and even tempered than men," despite the complete fucking meltdown of the Middle East under her tenure as Secretary Of State.

 

[*Asterisk*]

This is the part I don't get. Why not dethrone Assad personally if he's that big of a threat to our interests? Why not destroy ISIS by ourselves instead of giving weapons to rebels who immediately surrender, or somehow the weapons get intercepted by ISIS themselves?

Because Obama's a massive coward who's more concerned with appealing to the Michael Moore crowd than preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Levantine civilians.

Why do we have to fund, arms, and train incompetent and in some cases horrible groups to achieve our goals?

Is the main reason we fund these organizations so we can control the world without fighting wars ourselves? We can't risk American lives fighting for American interests in the Middle East, but we can spend American dollars to fund Arab lives to die for our interests when they happen to coincide at the time? Are proxy wars just going to continue indefinitely until there's no one else in the world who are against American interests? What is the main threat to American interests posed by Assad's presidency?

His regime has created a massive refugee crisis which has flooded our allies borders and has created horrendous instability in every country within pissing distance of the Mediterranian.

His violence is such that most of the people crazy enough to stand up to him are either clerical fascists or those forced to work with them, much like Chechnya and the Afghano-Soviet war. This also provides a combat front for thousands of Islamists to attain expertise in murder, explosives, and rape.

When a country treats all forms of disobediance as equal, the citizens realise the whole operation's a sham, and the only ones who'll make any rules are those who kill people the best. This makes it a crapshoot on who gets final control of the country, though on most occasions it's usually someone unspeakably nasty and violent.

This is how countries like North Korea and Iran come about. That's always a problem.

When I complain about politicians only looking out for themselves, I mean more like when Clinton gets millions of dollars personally donated to her Clinton Foundation. Her decisions seem to be influenced on who pays her the most rather than actual American interests.

True, and Hillbot's horrendous on that even by political standards.

Thing is? So's Trump. He poisoned the well on the Central Park Five case so he could bump Trump Tower's, a building located on a southern corner of said park, realestate value. Which is why he took out ads in the top New York papers calling for the underage defendants execution before their conviction.

Hope for nothing in this race.

 

[TrippinKahlua]

Whenever I read something bad about Trump, I read it in the voice of Manannan from the Kings Quest computer games.

 

[Male Idiot]

I find it hard to believe that anyone in the current political climate isn't pro-Russia, regardless of Putin's personal motivation, and honestly we should be helping them deal with Kebab in anyway we can. A Russo-American alliance is still a viable path forward. I am basically for any candidate that promises to try and normalize relations with the bear, although that will be difficult given that Russia has every good reason not to trust western governments or their motives.

I do not think such an alliance is possible in the current political climate. But even "neutral" relations would be fine.
Russians have stated that the US can not be negotiated with, a phrase that apparently holds extremely potent meaning within their culture which is not apparent to Americans. As explained this does not mean that they are unwilling to negotiate, but that they are literally unable to. Even if the bear is wrong, this no doubt makes the bear rather angry and fearful. And there is nothing more terrifying than an angry and scared bear.

As you said, Russians got every reason to distrust the West and for all the bad things he does, Putin always seems downright rational and pragmatic. A man who always weights his options and their end results before choosing to enact something.

I can not say the same about Trump, and certainly not about Hillary who I think follows a bribed agenda.

*Puts on conspiracy fedora* Something like being paid by soros to help Merkel ferment conflict in Europe and let soros and pals sell weapons to both sides at inflated prices, getting even richer. *Takes off fedora*

Either that, or she is truly believing the batshit insane millenial neoliberal bullshit and in that case she is not thinking clearly and is clearly deluded and detached from reality. That may be even worse.

Edit:
https://www.rt.com/usa/360591-trump-netanyahu-jerusalem-israel-capital/
Trump sucks up to Israel.

 

[Brandobaris]

His regime has created a massive refugee crisis which has flooded our allies borders and has created horrendous instability in every country within pissing distance of the Mediterranian.

His violence is such that most of the people crazy enough to stand up to him are either clerical fascists or those forced to work with them, much like Chechnya and the Afghano-Soviet war. This also provides a combat front for thousands of Islamists to attain expertise in murder, explosives, and rape.

Even though Syria is a Shia Muslim country, and more secular than say Saudi Arabia, Assad is painted with the same brush as Saddam. But lets say for arguments sake he's an evil dictator. When Saddam was toppled and then executed despite how "evil" he was, he was a stablising factor in the region. Once he was gone, it created a power vacuum for local Warlords and Militant Sunni Clerics to come in and plant the seeds of ISIS.

No, I think the main reasons the US wants to topple Assad is because Syria is no friend of Israel, Syria is a friend of Russia and China, and I'm sure ISIS has no qualms in attempting to take out a Shia Islam country. This isn't some war over regime change due to humanitarian outrage. This is about isolating and cutting off Russian and Chinese allies whilst simultaneously attempting to choke out their access to oil and energy.

Remember the five nations on the UN council with veto powers are China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the US. So China and Russia call out the US Government on geopolitical shenanigans, the US vetos the bill. Similarly, whenever the US calls out China or Russia on their geopolitical shenanigans, China and Russia veto that. For example, the US regularly vetos UN council intervention and even condemnation of Israel expanding its border settlements and basically treating Palestinians like garbage.

If the US Government actually cared about humanitarian need for regime change, North Korea, various Dictatorships in Africa, Israeli expansion, they would have made intervention through the UN and directly with the neighbour countries. But there is no geopolitical pay out there. The cold war is still going essentially.

EDIT: Also, how do you gain expertise in rape?

 

[XYZpdq]

EDIT: Also, how do you gain expertise in rape?

Practice.

 

[Brandobaris]

He is not openly and forcefully promoting the European countries to take in rapefugees, which is better than the US is doing. He no doubt benefits from it either way.

If Europe gets very right wing and expels rapefugees, its US connections will be harmed severely unless Trump wins. If Trump wins, than the US will be in a more friendly position with Russia anyway.
If not, it will be too weak and defenseless and ripe for the taking by Russia.

Putin gains advantage either way and the cunning old bear no doubt knows it.

I'm not sure what the idea is, is it to break up the Eurozone because it may be a future threat as an economic superpower? Or is it something more along the lines of the Hooten plan?

 

[*Asterisk*]

Even though Syria is a Shia Muslim country, and more secular than say Saudi Arabia, Assad is painted with the same brush as Saddam. But lets say he's an evil dictator. When Saddam was toppled and then executed despite how "evil" he was, he was a stablising factor in the region. Once he was gone, it created a power vacuum for local Warlords and Militant Sunni Clerics to come in and plant the seeds of ISIS.

Saddam Hussein's the reason Iraq was Islamicised in the first place.

He took Iraq to the right of Fred Phelps in a cynical ploy against Iran, which is why most of ISIS's founders used to work with him and his regime. He harbringed the first holy goose-stepper who tried to blow up the Twin Towers and tried to carbomb a former US president.

There is no such thing as stability when men like that are in power.

No, I think the main reasons the US wants to topple Assad is because Syria is no friend of Israel, Syria is a friend of Russia and China, and I'm sure ISIS has no qualms in attempting to take out a Shia Islam country. This isn't some war over regime change due to humanitarian outrage. This is about isolating and cutting off Russian and Chinese allies whilst simultaneously attempting to choke out their access to oil and energy.

Assad started the war by capturing over a dozen schoolboys; locking them into torture dungeons; starving them to emaciation; beating them over and over; and electroshocking them to the point of speech disorder.

Their crime? Writing pro-democracy grafitti on their school's wall.

To this day he has children captured and raped in front of their families to terrorise them to submission.

Ba'athists are the Scum of the Earth. Anybody who defends them can get fucked.

Remember the five nations on the UN council with veto powers are China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the US. So China and Russia call out the US Government on geopolitical shenanigans, the US vetos the bill. Similarly, whenever the US calls out China or Russia on their geopolitical shenanigans, China and Russia veto that. For example, the US regularly vetos UN council intervention and even condemnation of Israel expanding its border settlements and basically treating Palestinians like garbage.

If the US Government actually cared about humanitarian need for regime change, North Korea, various Dictatorships in Africa, Israeli expansion, they would have made intervention through the UN and directly with the neighbour countries. But there is no geopolitical pay out there. The cold war is still going essentially.

My ass.

The second Syrian Palestineans happened to live in an area of strategic value ocupied by the FSA, he raped, slaughtered, and seiged both groups to starvation and surrender. But that was totally okay by everybody, long as the ones doing the raping and the bombing weren't das Juden.

 

[Brandobaris]

Saddam Hussein's the reason Iraq was Islamicised in the first place.

He took Iraq to the right of Fred Phelps in a cynical ploy against Iran, which is why most of ISIS's founders used to work with him and his regime. He harbringed the first holy goose-stepper who tried to blow up the Twin Towers and tried to carbomb a former US president.

There is no such thing as stability when men like that are in power.


Assad started the war by capturing over a dozen schoolboys; locking them into torture dungeons; starving them to emaciation; beating them over and over; and electroshocking them to the point of speech disorder.

Their crime? Writing pro-democracy grafitti on their school's wall.

To this day he has children captured and raped in front of their families to terrorise them to submission.

Ba'athists are the Scum of the Earth. Anybody who defends them can get fucked.


My ass.

The second Syrian Palestineans happened to live in an area of strategic value ocupied by the FSA, he raped, slaughtered, and seiged both groups to starvation and surrender. But that was totally okay by everybody, long as the ones doing the raping and the bombing weren't das Juden.

I'm not sure what your point is, yes, we know all countries and government do terrible things, in order to keep their power, some are true and some are propaganda. Are you somehow saying that the US is somehow holier than thou and those other countries had it coming? After supporting Saudi Arabia? After Supporting ISIS? After Guantanemo? After Abu Gharib? After the mass rape of German Women after WWII by the Allies? After dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

I just get the sense from your posts that you are willing to forgive and forget atrocities committed by the West because you believe other countries are way worse. They are just as bad as each other, it's the fact people are willing to ignore their own Governments "evil doings" because they other side is seen as the true "bad guys" that unsettles me. The US is not some moral superior by any stretch of the imagination.

The simple fact is that the US and most major governments wage war either directly or through proxies to secure their global hedgemony. If you choose to believe the story of "we funded these guys that beheads people and rapes women because we want them to get this other guy that kills people and rapes children" then I'd like to know what you are smoking and can I have some?

 

[feedtheoctopus]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=I2dXRFGhzME


Neoliberals ladies and gentlemen. 'Sure people don't like that we fund the Saudis and just chucked a shitfit at Obama for vetoing the 911 bill because they fucking hate that these scumbags have anything over us, but they have for 60 years so who cares what Hillary did!?' Let me guess, Trump would have done the same thing only worse somehow right? I mean, he didn't, but he could have! Is Glenn Greenwald left wing enough for you to take seriously, or is he too left wing to be taken seriously? It's true, he does suffer from an obvious deficit by having a coherent morality that led him, along with an apparently insignificant 30% of the population to oppose the obvious from the get go clusterfuck that was the war in Iraq, but I don't think he classifies as tabloid or breitbart.

Calling me neoliberal is pretty fucking hilarious, as other people on this forum can probably elaborate on for you. I'm a lot of things. A champion of the free market is not one of them. As for Glenn Greenwald, that article is engaging in speculation, not fact.

I like his opinions occasionally, but Greenwald often lets his politics get in the way of an honest assessment of the world. If your article's title is a question you can probably guess it doesn't have anything concrete. And sure enough, he doesn't. His argument is basically "The Saudi government beheads people therefore the Clinton foundation is corrupt". That's not journalism. That's making wild speculations on the motives of people without actually having any actual knowledge of them. I could easily flip that around and say that charity is one of the five pillars of Islam and that's why they gave money. And you know what? It would be just as "factual" as that article.

What EXACTLY do you think the Saudis got from those donations that they weren't getting from us anyway? Like I said, we've been in bed with that regime for decades. They don't need to donate money to a charity to get us to play along with their bullshit. We do it gladly because oil. What more leverage do they need other than massive influence over the world's energy supply, please answer me that.

Watch this, it's only recently that our connections with the Saudis are considered "controversial". We've been playing the same game with these people for a long time. And the reasons aren't changing anytime soon, and neither is that relationship.

"That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute. But that fact has exactly nothing to do with the profound ethical problems and corruption threats raised by the way its funds have been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president."

The Saudis don't need to curry favor with jack shit in the US, they know our government needs them and that our economy is reliant on them in a lot of ways (if you want proof just remember the oil embargo in the 70's).

 

[Tranhuviya]

Watch this, it's only recently that our connections with the Saudis are considered "controversial". We've been playing the same game with these people for a long time. And the reasons aren't changing anytime soon, and neither is that relationship.

That doesn't make it right to let them do it to us.

I'm starting to think you either have a warped sense of right and wrong, or don't care.

 

[Jaimas]

On one end of the clusterfuck that is the international Autism Expo we now are calling the 2016 election, we have Hillary Clinton.

Hillary represents the very worst of the DLC-era Democrats that I have literally spent the bulk of my political activism trying to fight in the left. For the uninitiated, the DLC represents the status-quo "there's no real difference between us and the right except social issues" Democrats that have consistently lost election after election. This would be bad enough, but she's honestly gone and become representative of one of the most destructive ideologies to have ever emerged from the left in recent years, and now has the backing of most of the Republican establishment. Throw in my ongoing personal shit with her (backing Jack Thompson, being openly pro-censorship, the entire Sanders shitstorm with the DNC), and you have a candidate I would sooner find a way to swallow my own ass than vote for.

On the other we have Trump, an absolute bumblefuck who is inspiring zero confidence in social, economic, and foreign policy spheres. Every time Trump says or does anything common-sensical, he chases it by doing or saying something of monumental idiocy. I love what Trump represents in terms of throwing a wrench in the political system, but I absolutely can't stand him as a human being and he espouses a huge number of ideological beliefs fundamentally incompatible with what I care about. Yet ultimately he's probably less damaging than Clinton is, and that fucking terrifies me. It's gotten to the point where I'm strongly considering voting for him just to piss off certain assholes I know IRL who won't shut the fuck up about how democracy as we know it is doomed if Trump gets in (Nigga we survived Reagan, Clinton, and Both Bushes. We'll be fine).

But the point of fact is that we have queen of the status quo and harbinger of quite everything I hate about the left versus someone who may or may not be riotously unstable, untested, and potentially dangerous to stability in general. Fucking hell of a choice you've given us, America.

Welcome to 2016, the election year where it mostly boils down to which candidate you hate less.