U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-21-2016, 02:58 PM
 
34,390 posts, read 41,490,319 times
Reputation: 29864
You got your opinion Umma and i got mine, what i'm seeing is the same bunch that for the last 8 years have spewed their hate venom and vitriol at the 2X duly elected President of the USA now switching their target from Obama to Clinton. The hate for Hillary is plainly obvious on most forums and may very well carry the day for Trump.
Make America great again? will serve to have the rest of the world laughing as America gets turned into a bizarre reality show.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-21-2016, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Canada
3,912 posts, read 2,730,376 times
Reputation: 5084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
I don't like Trump. But I think sometimes, you have to look at the big picture. And when I look at the big picture, electing another Clinton to the White House would do far more damage than electing even a bumbling shameless self-promoter like Trump. The first time (Bush) was bad enough and set a bad precedent. The second time creates the pattern. A bad, bad pattern.
This thread is looking at Trump from a Canadian perspective. Can you explain why you think a Hillary presidency would do more damage to Canada and the world than a Trump presidency?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2016, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,839 posts, read 1,695,911 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
This thread is looking at Trump from a Canadian perspective. Can you explain why you think a Hillary presidency would do more damage to Canada and the world than a Trump presidency?
Can you explain why you think either of them would be better for Canada and the world ?

I can hardly see Trump getting into all the foreign wars that we've been getting into under Clinton and Bush. And Obama, for that matter. Somali, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria, enough already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
You got your opinion Umma and i got mine, what i'm seeing is the same bunch that for the last 8 years have spewed their hate venom and vitriol at the 2X duly elected President of the USA now switching their target from Obama to Clinton. The hate for Hillary is plainly obvious on most forums and may very well carry the day for Trump.
Make America great again? will serve to have the rest of the world laughing as America gets turned into a bizarre reality show.
I hate Hillary because she's the face of plutocracy. I hated Dubya for the same reason.

And Obama is a terrible president, duly elected or not.

I think - as much as I don't like Bill Clinton as a person - that he was the last decent President that we had.

And the rest of the Western word has not been pulling their fair share of the load long enough, letting the US do all of the heavy lifting. Not always in a smart way, I'd be the first to agree. But I think it's the high time we pointed our attention to fixing our internal problems, and let our friends buy themselves whatever defense they can afford. And if they can't be bothered with spending money on their own protection, perhaps they will be better off finding another sugar daddy. I am not talking about Canada, necessarily. For instance, Russia openly poisons a person under British protection, shoots down a Dutch passenger plane, and these countries have really nothing left to do but swallow this. Because neither is capable of taking Putin on. If the US just stepped away, how long would it be until the whole regions are dominated by the countries that have been investing into their militaries instead of welfare programs ? You know, China in SE Asia, Iran in the ME, etc. And I can just see a nice nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, South and North Koreas. Perhaps even China and Japan. Surely will be good for the world.

Could the EU and Canada and the rest of the "golden billion" replace the US as the global peacemaker ? Probably, but not without major investments - that would definitely impact the quality of life - and major sacrifices, and likely not in a timely manner. The US provides over 70% of NATO strength, and there's currently no alternative to NATO. I doubt that the rest of our glorious Allies combined would be able to change the course of events much in short enough time to prevent any of the pressure point from exploding.

Until they are ready to step in, laughing at the US is really a bad form.

Last edited by Ummagumma; 09-21-2016 at 08:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2016, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Canada
3,912 posts, read 2,730,376 times
Reputation: 5084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
Can you explain why you think either of them would be better for Canada and the world ?
See my previous posts in this thread where I expressed concerns about Trump. I don't have the same concerns about Clinton, although I don't like her as a candidate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2016, 06:25 AM
 
34,390 posts, read 41,490,319 times
Reputation: 29864
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnirene View Post
See my previous posts in this thread where I expressed concerns about Trump. I don't have the same concerns about Clinton, although I don't like her as a candidate.
On a similar line of thought i trust Hillary to use tact and diplomacy to run a steady ship,Trump on the other hand is an unpredictable bull in a china shop and as such we have no idea when he'll decide to smash em in the face or bomb the hell out of them or ban an entire cultural demographic,or wall off the entire country,the guy is a total political rookie that has no idea of what is involved in handling the reigns of such power,he's like a spoiled vindictive rich brat who is in it entirely for self aggrandizement. Those wanting change are in a state of delusion if they think Trumps change will be positive in nature. .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2016, 07:57 AM
 
18,277 posts, read 10,380,277 times
Reputation: 13339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
Can you explain why you think either of them would be better for Canada and the world ?

I can hardly see Trump getting into all the foreign wars that we've been getting into under Clinton and Bush. And Obama, for that matter. Somali, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria, enough already.



I hate Hillary because she's the face of plutocracy. I hated Dubya for the same reason.

And Obama is a terrible president, duly elected or not.

I think - as much as I don't like Bill Clinton as a person - that he was the last decent President that we had.

And the rest of the Western word has not been pulling their fair share of the load long enough, letting the US do all of the heavy lifting. Not always in a smart way, I'd be the first to agree. But I think it's the high time we pointed our attention to fixing our internal problems, and let our friends buy themselves whatever defense they can afford. And if they can't be bothered with spending money on their own protection, perhaps they will be better off finding another sugar daddy. I am not talking about Canada, necessarily. For instance, Russia openly poisons a person under British protection, shoots down a Dutch passenger plane, and these countries have really nothing left to do but swallow this. Because neither is capable of taking Putin on. If the US just stepped away, how long would it be until the whole regions are dominated by the countries that have been investing into their militaries instead of welfare programs ? You know, China in SE Asia, Iran in the ME, etc. And I can just see a nice nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, South and North Koreas. Perhaps even China and Japan. Surely will be good for the world.

Could the EU and Canada and the rest of the "golden billion" replace the US as the global peacemaker ? Probably, but not without major investments - that would definitely impact the quality of life - and major sacrifices, and likely not in a timely manner. The US provides over 70% of NATO strength, and there's currently no alternative to NATO. I doubt that the rest of our glorious Allies combined would be able to change the course of events much in short enough time to prevent any of the pressure point from exploding.

Until they are ready to step in, laughing at the US is really a bad form.
You make some very good points.

A counter-point or two would be looking at a a couple of those events you mentioned from a different perspective; why di you think the only regions that the U.S. has gone in with both feet are those in the middle east? Why do you think it is that the senior partner in NATO and the superpower with a veto vote did not do anything about Putin's Crimea expansion nor respond to the Dutch jet or any number of other major world balance upsets but THOSE one's that have oil under their feet?

The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps some of the major issues we now face could be traced right back to a really stupid American foreign policy of fabricating a reason to go all "rabid warthog" and demand co-operation and involvement in some corner of the Middle East while ignoring real and tangible threats to world security in places like Europe and Africa.

Both organizations; the U.N. and NATO take note of American political stance and the cues from attitudes expressed by U.S. leadership. If you ain't go'n, nobodies go'n. That is the way the U.S. has patterned and exerted their control for over 50 years.

The rest and "glorious allies" of the U.S. are positioned very carefully by U.S. economic and military might to only do what it is America demands of them and no more. They do otherwise at their own risk of American designed economic fallout.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2016, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,839 posts, read 1,695,911 times
Reputation: 4521
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
You make some very good points.

A counter-point or two would be looking at a a couple of those events you mentioned from a different perspective; why di you think the only regions that the U.S. has gone in with both feet are those in the middle east? Why do you think it is that the senior partner in NATO and the superpower with a veto vote did not do anything about Putin's Crimea expansion nor respond to the Dutch jet or any number of other major world balance upsets but THOSE one's that have oil under their feet?

The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps some of the major issues we now face could be traced right back to a really stupid American foreign policy of fabricating a reason to go all "rabid warthog" and demand co-operation and involvement in some corner of the Middle East while ignoring real and tangible threats to world security in places like Europe and Africa.

Both organizations; the U.N. and NATO take note of American political stance and the cues from attitudes expressed by U.S. leadership. If you ain't go'n, nobodies go'n. That is the way the U.S. has patterned and exerted their control for over 50 years.

The rest and "glorious allies" of the U.S. are positioned very carefully by U.S. economic and military might to only do what it is America demands of them and no more. They do otherwise at their own risk of American designed economic fallout.
This is not necessarily an accurate assessment.

"Going in with both feet" wasn't just in the Middle East - the attention to which is understandable after 9/11. You also have Kosovo and Bosnia, Somali, boosting US military presence in the Eastern and Central Europe to provide some support to the smaller countries there who are worried about Russian aggressiveness; boosting US military presense in the South Asia in cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, trying to work as a counterbalance to China's expansionism and North Korean nuclear threats.

I agree that removing Saddam, Ghaddaffi and trying to remove Assad was stupid. But remember that it was the Europeans who started meddling in Libya and Syria, especially in Libya. We just stupidly followed.

And yes, absolutely the US foreign policy wasn't always smart. My point was, however, that none of the Western countries have been responsible enough to maintain the levels of defense spending that would allow them to pursue a smarter policy. Because no matter how smart and nuanced your diplomats are, if you can't back it up with power, you don't have a negotiating position when dealing with the likes of Putin. You're being told what to do. And I am not picking on Putin - I think as aggressive as he's been, he's actually rather cautious. The next guy may be more reckless.

So while I personally welcome the constructive criticism of our many faults, I can't help but smell the stench of hypocrisy when the criticism is coming from the countries that's been leeching off the US for decades, providing generous welfare packages for their citizens while completely neglecting their own defense, relying on the US to protect them while launching the yearly "Yankee baby killers go home" demonstrations. Again, this is not directed at Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Canada
3,912 posts, read 2,730,376 times
Reputation: 5084
Speaking of Putin... and a possible Trump presidency, this adds to my belief that Trump will pursue a foreign policy that benefits him rather than his country:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/elect...-hundreds.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2016, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Canada
4,811 posts, read 4,441,926 times
Reputation: 3257

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2016, 12:02 PM
 
18,277 posts, read 10,380,277 times
Reputation: 13339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
This is not necessarily an accurate assessment.

"Going in with both feet" wasn't just in the Middle East - the attention to which is understandable after 9/11. You also have Kosovo and Bosnia, Somali, boosting US military presence in the Eastern and Central Europe to provide some support to the smaller countries there who are worried about Russian aggressiveness; boosting US military presense in the South Asia in cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, trying to work as a counterbalance to China's expansionism and North Korean nuclear threats.

I agree that removing Saddam, Ghaddaffi and trying to remove Assad was stupid. But remember that it was the Europeans who started meddling in Libya and Syria, especially in Libya. We just stupidly followed.

And yes, absolutely the US foreign policy wasn't always smart. My point was, however, that none of the Western countries have been responsible enough to maintain the levels of defense spending that would allow them to pursue a smarter policy. Because no matter how smart and nuanced your diplomats are, if you can't back it up with power, you don't have a negotiating position when dealing with the likes of Putin. You're being told what to do. And I am not picking on Putin - I think as aggressive as he's been, he's actually rather cautious. The next guy may be more reckless.

So while I personally welcome the constructive criticism of our many faults, I can't help but smell the stench of hypocrisy when the criticism is coming from the countries that's been leeching off the US for decades, providing generous welfare packages for their citizens while completely neglecting their own defense, relying on the US to protect them while launching the yearly "Yankee baby killers go home" demonstrations. Again, this is not directed at Canada.
"Leeches", although a characteristic and familiar refrain, is hardly an adjective that lends itself to that of an accurate assessment either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top