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 11-14-2016, 01:49 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,258,456 times
Reputation: 7578

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Hate to say it, but check out where my not so fellow Americans look to target next.

Canada next to join the right wing uprising?

Remember at least this American gave you guys a heads up.
Curious, why makes Trump right wing?

Who else is an anti-globalization, anti-free trade right wing? For crying out loud, this man used helping the poor white collar workers as the main target audience, proposes to ban offshoring of international companies and he is "right wing”? He also explicitly said he has no issue with gay marriage. Nor is he interested in talking about God.

I guess for people like you, it is again your perceived understanding of the almighty race that determines everything. If one is anti-immigration, then he is right wing. Then tell me, is Japan, a country which doesn't accept immigration at all, completely right wing? Are Norway or Denmark right wing? It is obviously far harder to immigrate to those countries than the US under Trump.

Does right wing still have a meaning, or is it nothing but an insult we throw at people we don't like?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2016, 01:54 PM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,258,456 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123 View Post
I know right? George Bush started 2 wars that killed 1 million + innocent Iraqi civilians. Where are the congressional hearings? Where are the GOP-led inquiries? Where are the FBI investigations?

Apparently when you slaughter 1 million innocent people in a foreign, third-world country that's okay and you have total immunity for life, but 6 Americans die in a terrorist attack in a foreign consulate that you are NOT even remotely responsible for in anyway, makes you a total criminal that deserves the death sentence. Go figure.

.
For a moment, I thought you were talking about Obama, who is still engaging 5 wars overseas. How many civilians did Obama, Clinton & CO killed?

I appreciate your sympathy for innocent lives outside American soil, something Americans seldom care about, but it seems you only use the stats to criticize the hated GOP, not realizing the DEM has been doing exactly the same for years. Hilary Clinton for example had huge influence on Bill Clinton's wars overseas, and Obama's too.

Try to be objective. Party name is just a name. What matters is what they did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,691 posts, read 6,535,324 times
Reputation: 8193
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
For a moment, I thought you were talking about Obama, who is still engaging 5 wars overseas. How many civilians did Obama, Clinton & CO killed?

I appreciate your sympathy for innocent lives outside American soil, something Americans seldom care about, but it seems you only use the stats to criticize the hated GOP, not realizing the DEM has been doing exactly the same for years. Hilary Clinton for example had huge influence on Bill Clinton's wars overseas, and Obama's too.

Try to be objective. Party name is just a name. What matters is what they did.
I appreciate that you would like the US to stop meddling in places around the world, but am curious as to just how you think that Trump, who has said he would bomb the crap out of ISIS, is going to stay at home?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 02:05 PM
 
2,560 posts, read 2,178,337 times
Reputation: 1810
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
For a moment, I thought you were talking about Obama, who is still engaging 5 wars overseas. How many civilians did Obama, Clinton & CO killed?

I appreciate your sympathy for innocent lives outside American soil, something Americans seldom care about, but it seems you only use the stats to criticize the hated GOP, not realizing the DEM has been doing exactly the same for years. Hilary Clinton for example had huge influence on Bill Clinton's wars overseas, and Obama's too.

Try to be objective. Party name is just a name. What matters is what they did.
He is in 5 overseas conflicts but U.S. overseas troop deployment is at its lowest since 1990. Obama has wrapped up Afghanistan completely and Iraq only has U.S. military advisers.

I use Iraqi civilian losses to criticize the GOP because the GOP STARTED THE IRAQ WAR and their beloved former President Bush presided over some of the worst human rights abuses and atrocities in the past 2 decades. How difficult is it to comprehend that? I use it to criticize the GOP to demonstrate how insane their accusations against HRC is compared to the war crimes that Bush has committed yet the GOP didn't bother holding a single Congressional hearing on the 1 million civilian lives lost. No FBI investigations. No war crime allegations. No 24 hour coverage on his war crimes. As for the 5,000+ American soldiers who lost their lives invading a foreign country: they gave their lives "honorably" in defense of "democracy" and their "country" with "sacrifice" and "patriotism". It's all so great when you wrap the horrors of war in pomp and circumstance.

Since 2009 I believe Bush has become a professional painter, drawing portraits of landscapes and former world leaders - now that IS the life: starting 2 wars that slaughtered 1 million human lives and 6,000 troop casualties and retiring peacefully in a Texas ranch doing landscape paintings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2016, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,685 posts, read 8,747,108 times
Reputation: 7293
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
that's condescending. I think it is you who should be more open minded.

Trust me, I am very liberal. Pro gay rights, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-euthanasia, pro choice, anti-gun, anti-wall street/laisser faire, don't care about religion, agree with Canada's decision to welcome syria refugees, and from the start I supported Sanders.

but I can't stand Hilary Clinton. This is funny because I usually adore strong women (such as Angela Merkel). Whoever think she is liberal must be completely insane. She fits the democratic party just like how Trump fits the republican (an anti-free market, anti-globalization republic?)

Just because Clinton gave those touching speeches about women's right or ethnic equality doesn't mean she is a liberal. Honestly those are very easy to do just to gain popularity - a Miss Universe can do that. It boils down to one's real position when it comes to important issues, and I am afraid her cozy relationship with wall street and her love for external wars causing so many lost lives can't make me fond of her even a little bit. And the fact she still sticks with Bill Clinton pretending to be a loving couple endorsing each other makes me more sick of her personality. Such a fake woman. Even her smile is fake every time.

Yet still many can't see it through and was like "Hilary! Hilary" as if it were a sign of progressiveness. They think by voting for the first female president and rejecting a billionaire the media disdains somehow makes them morally superior. If someone voted for her purely out of abhorrence of Trump, I can somehow understand, but voting for her as an ideal candidate, that's just pathetic. I know many who didn't vote for Trump, but they couldn't bring themselves to voting for Clinton either, and I respect that.

And there are those who vote for her primarily because she is a woman, that's just as bad as if someone decides not to vote for her because she is a woman. It is time for the US to have a female president, what BS argument is that?
I was trying to be " cute ". Guess Ill have to work on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 02:59 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,258,456 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123 View Post
He is in 5 overseas conflicts but U.S. overseas troop deployment is at its lowest since 1990. Obama has wrapped up Afghanistan completely and Iraq only has U.S. military advisers.

I use Iraqi civilian losses to criticize the GOP because the GOP STARTED THE IRAQ WAR and their beloved former President Bush presided over some of the worst human rights abuses and atrocities in the past 2 decades. How difficult is it to comprehend that? I use it to criticize the GOP to demonstrate how insane their accusations against HRC is compared to the war crimes that Bush has committed yet the GOP didn't bother holding a single Congressional hearing on the 1 million civilian lives lost. No FBI investigations. No war crime allegations. No 24 hour coverage on his war crimes. As for the 5,000+ American soldiers who lost their lives invading a foreign country: they gave their lives "honorably" in defense of "democracy" and their "country" with "sacrifice" and "patriotism". It's all so great when you wrap the horrors of war in pomp and circumstance.

Since 2009 I believe Bush has become a professional painter, drawing portraits of landscapes and former world leaders - now that IS the life: starting 2 wars that slaughtered 1 million human lives and 6,000 troop casualties and retiring peacefully in a Texas ranch doing landscape paintings.
I have absolutely no disagreement with you about Bush. While dictators such as Assad or Saddam were accused for committing atrocity against their own people, Bush is unscathed for killing millions of civilians in this nonsense war, because lives in third world countries don't matter, unless of course, it is used by CNN to showcase why is it necessary to remove "dictators" (that won't listen to the white house, those who do are rarely criticized).

But it is not just Bush who starts and engages in wars. It was Hilary Clinton who convinced Obama to depose Qaddafi, a decision Obama later admitted was his biggest mistake. Libya is not a haven for ISIS terrorists. During an interview, Clinton dismissed the mistake by saying "we came, we saw, he died". Since 2012, she insisted a regime change in Syria, "Assad must go" - these three words have caused dangerous policies that directly led to the rise of ISIS and the European refugee crisis. Her support for the Syrian rebels didn't help democracy or freedom, it deepened the civil war leading to the largest refugee crisis in the 21st century. Funnily, following ISIS's expansion, they suddenly found themselves in possession of massive weapons paid by US taxpayers.

It is also ironic that while Iraq invading Kuwait results in military action from the US, invasion by Saudi Arabia of Yemen hardly receive any media attention, as if it didn't happen. In fact, Obama sold 50 billion worth of weapons to Saudi government (you know, one of the most free and democratic countries in the world), with Hilary Clinton personally making sure some of the deals going through. Thousands of Yemeni civilians were killed in their sleep, by the guns Obama and Clinton provided.

By the way, Ms Clinton is so meddling that she was even involved in behind the door intervention to prevent the Haitian government to increase the minimum wage to a sheer 0.62$ an hour. What a true liberal!

Yes, Obama might have reduce the military presence overseas, but its presence became more disperse. In 2009, the US was involved in military actions in 4 countries, now it is 8. More importantly, while Obama kept saying that the Iraq War represented an exorbitant cost for the American people. Over the course of his own presidency, the U.S. military will have allocated more money to war-related initiatives than it did under Bush: $866 billion under Obama compared with $811 billion under Bush.

I think we both loathe Bush's wars, but one would be naive to think the Obama administration is a peace loving one. It might not be safe to have Donald Trump to be the US commander in chief of the US army, it is equally dangerous to let Mrs Clinton to have her finger on the nuclear button. I just don't understand why you keep suggesting the Obama or a potential Mrs Clinton Adminstration is a benign one.

At least Trump has some valid points (globalization, offshoring, FDA regulation, world policing etc). Mrs Clinton has absolutely NOTHING to offer to the US or the world. All she wants is the presidency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 03:06 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,258,456 times
Reputation: 7578
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit View Post
I appreciate that you would like the US to stop meddling in places around the world, but am curious as to just how you think that Trump, who has said he would bomb the crap out of ISIS, is going to stay at home?
Bombing ISIS and interfering other countries's business, engaging in "regime changes" because you don't like them, are totally two different things.

Non-intervening doesn't mean always staying at home. It means not to engage in military actions where it doesn't concern the US, uninvited. In Syria, the US is there primarily to overthrow a sitting government and plant a puppet (like it did in Afghanistan, how did that work out?) ISIS would definitely be a second concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 10:45 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,442 times
Reputation: 92
This is all VERY bad for business and I a Millenial just trying to get established in this world. Not looking forward to trade wars with the US, not when we trusted the US, signed NAFTA, and now can't just restructure easily and go back to how things were. This will ruin us.

Never trust the USA. Never.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2016, 10:53 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,442 times
Reputation: 92
"if she had a gun to defend herself"

As someone who has been shot at before by someone else with a gun in their hand, I can say with some experience that if you have a gun, but you do not draw it first, it is not going to do you much good because by the time you do manage to get it in line to fire you will have a few more holes in you than nature gave you and by then it will be too late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2016, 08:25 AM
 
1,746 posts, read 4,633,389 times
Reputation: 1166
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
that's condescending. I think it is you who should be more open minded.

Trust me, I am very liberal. Pro gay rights, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-euthanasia, pro choice, anti-gun, anti-wall street/laisser faire, don't care about religion, agree with Canada's decision to welcome syria refugees, and from the start I supported Sanders.

but I can't stand Hilary Clinton. This is funny because I usually adore strong women (such as Angela Merkel). Whoever think she is liberal must be completely insane. She fits the democratic party just like how Trump fits the republican (an anti-free market, anti-globalization republic?)

Just because Clinton gave those touching speeches about women's right or ethnic equality doesn't mean she is a liberal. Honestly those are very easy to do just to gain popularity - a Miss Universe can do that. It boils down to one's real position when it comes to important issues, and I am afraid her cozy relationship with wall street and her love for external wars causing so many lost lives can't make me fond of her even a little bit. And the fact she still sticks with Bill Clinton pretending to be a loving couple endorsing each other makes me more sick of her personality. Such a fake woman. Even her smile is fake every time.

Yet still many can't see it through and was like "Hilary! Hilary" as if it were a sign of progressiveness. They think by voting for the first female president and rejecting a billionaire the media disdains somehow makes them morally superior. If someone voted for her purely out of abhorrence of Trump, I can somehow understand, but voting for her as an ideal candidate, that's just pathetic. I know many who didn't vote for Trump, but they couldn't bring themselves to voting for Clinton either, and I respect that.

And there are those who vote for her primarily because she is a woman, that's just as bad as if someone decides not to vote for her because she is a woman. It is time for the US to have a female president, what BS argument is that?
+1

You got it right, buddy!
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