Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

Take the oil.

Another thing I disagree with, but the money wouldn't be going into the hands of special interests like it would with Clinton, it'd be going to our veterans, some of whom are currently living on the streets.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by Shadowcon66:

we really should've taken the oil tbh

I agree. It was the whole reason we went after all... Seems like an insult to all those who died to get it to not take it in the end.

Taking advantage of other people for your own gain is unethical, damages your international reputation, and is totally contrary to the founding fathers' vision for this country that they created because they were being exploited by England.

Originally posted by Hellewin:

Originally posted by ComputerCraftr #DemsForTrump:

Did Trump personally call you the former? I didn't think so.


So you're an imperialist and you support taking advantage of other people for personal gain? I thought we already learned our lesson from the age of imperialism, but apparently not. This country was literally founded in rebellion to England's abusive imperialism, so holding that view is quite ironic. Iraq and Syria should've been left alone and they still should be left alone so they can rebuild on their own, arming rebels we know nothing about is more meddling by special interests and it'll only turn out bad in the long run.

I apologize, and would like to offer this reassurance.

I do not in any way support imperialism. I would much rather the U.S. pull its resources from the Middle East and let Syria, the Kurds, and Turkey do the sweeping along with some multinational coalition.

However, I was originally addressing the argument that Hillary would bring us into World War 3. I say again that she wouldn't pull us into World War 3. At worst, she'd pull a second Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Additionally, I'm quite sure Trump has said a lot of things about Clinton supporters. It's just that nobody's bothered to dig them up yet.

Sorry, things were getting quite heated there. I know neither Clinton nor Trump will start WWIII, but I'm expecting a lot of imperialistic proxy wars with Clinton versus Trump's noninterventionist America first foreign policy.

Originally posted by Hellewin:

Originally posted by ComputerCraftr #DemsForTrump:

Apparently I'm a basement dwelling deplorable now because I supported both of them over her.

And I'm a shill and a traitor to my country because I support Crooked Hillary.

Did Trump personally call you the former? I didn't think so.

Originally posted by Hellewin:

Originally posted by ComputerCraftr #DemsForTrump:

Well, plenty of people died in the Iraq war over "weapons of mass destruction" that didn't really exist... I'm sure Bush's and Clinton's special interests and corporate allies made a killing off of the arms manufacturing and "taking the oil" so they wouldn't hesitate to do it again with ISIS, which actually came to exist only because of their meddling in the first place, so I guess they got extra lucky there. It's like Lyndon B. Johnson and Vietnam all over again, endless corporate wars, silent assassinations (using drones this time), and more kickbacks.
https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/

Again, you bring up an example of US exploitation of a Third World country.

US v. Cuba
US v. North Vietnam
US v. Iraq

Syria is another hallmark in this process of Third World exploitation.

It seems far more likely that the U.S. would back another war against Syria, with Russia supporting then with armaments and "volunteers".

Many people would die. But it wouldn't be World War 3.

I'd call it "Operation Syrian Freedom".

So you're an imperialist and you support taking advantage of other people for personal gain? I thought we already learned our lesson from the age of imperialism, but apparently not. This country was literally founded in rebellion to England's abusive imperialism, so holding that view is quite ironic. Iraq and Syria should've been left alone and they still should be left alone so they can rebuild on their own, arming rebels we know nothing about is more meddling by special interests and it'll only turn out bad in the long run.

Originally posted by Neko Cup Needs Milk:

Originally posted by ComputerCraftr #DemsForTrump:

Some nice things Clinton has said about Trump and Sanders supporters:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-19/the-most-offensive-part-of-hillary-clintons-basket-of-deplorables-remark
https://www.rt.com/usa/361338-clinton-sanders-supporters-remarks/
Apparently I'm a basement dwelling deplorable now because I supported both of them over her.


Well, plenty of people died in the Iraq war over "weapons of mass destruction" that didn't really exist... I'm sure Bush's and Clinton's special interests and corporate allies made a killing off of the arms manufacturing and "taking the oil" so they wouldn't hesitate to do it again with ISIS, which actually came to exist only because of their meddling in the first place, so I guess they got extra lucky there. It's like Lyndon B. Johnson and Vietnam all over again, endless corporate wars, silent assassinations (using drones this time), and more kickbacks.
https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/


This

What happened?

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=757576514 https://youtu.be/zk2bLUa8e_g

Originally posted by Hellewin:

Originally posted by ComputerCraftr #DemsForTrump:

Sorry, Trump isn't this extreme.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416935/hillary-clinton-rewrite-first-amendment-joel-gehrke
The United States does have libel laws against slander, and, one great thing about the freedoms we have here is that we're allowed to sue other people for damages when they've negatively affected us and that everyone is entitled to due process and a lawyer, even if they can't afford one (they'll be provided for free). Neither candidate has a favorable view on this issue, but there's a lot more we can talk about with Clinton than some stupid, crazy comments out of a reality TV star, such as the email server or Benghazi.

Oh yes, reverse the Supreme Court decision that FAVORED corporate and lobbyist interests.

God forbid they be oppressed and taxed too much.

I agree that citizens united needs to go, but removing or limiting freedom of speech is not how you go about it and that'd be the exact opposite of the founding fathers' vision of a country where you can truly express your views, practice any religion, and experience real freedom from punishment and government control over people's lives and individual freedoms.

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

For starters, they aren't even comparable on free speech issues. Trump hates anti-SLAPP laws, and uses his wealth to intimidate others by filing frivolous suits because they said something mean. He would love to bring our libel laws into the US, when they literally incompatible with the first amendment. The other person simply made it an legal requirement for stores not to sell adult rated games to children. Yes, both are free speech issues, but one's simply annoying whereas the other is an actual threat.

As for "criminal", Trump is literally facing criminal charges, Clinton is not.

Thanks to Obama...

Tell me this doesn't smell fishy...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.html

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

Originally posted by ComputerCraftr #DemsForTrump:

Hey, I was a Bernie Sanders supporter, Trump and Clinton are both bad but Trump is still much better than that criminal.

For starters, they aren't even comparable on free speech issues. Trump hates anti-SLAPP laws, and uses his wealth to intimidate others by filing frivolous suits because they said something mean. He would love to bring our libel laws into the US, when they literally incompatible with the first amendment. The other person simply made it an legal requirement for stores not to sell adult rated games to children. Yes, both are free speech issues, but one's simply annoying whereas the other is an actual threat.

As for "criminal", Trump is literally facing criminal charges, Clinton is not.

Sorry, Trump isn't this extreme.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416935/hillary-clinton-rewrite-first-amendment-joel-gehrke
The United States does have libel laws against slander, and, one great thing about the freedoms we have here is that we're allowed to sue other people for damages when they've negatively affected us and that everyone is entitled to due process and a lawyer, even if they can't afford one (they'll be provided for free). Neither candidate has a favorable view on this issue, but there's a lot more we can talk about with Clinton, a career politician, than some stupid, crazy comments out of a reality TV star, such as the email server or Benghazi.

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

Originally posted by ComputerCraftr #DemsForTrump:

Honestly, you should take a look at what Clinton's been trying to do here for years
http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/03/hail-to-the-censor
And don't forget her war on video games
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/hail-to-the-censor-hillary-clinton-new-a/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/02/05/can-we-forgive-hillary-clinton-for-her-past-war-on-video-games/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Shame that Trump agrees with her on this: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/280812064539283457

Hey, I was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Trump and Clinton are both bad, but Trump is still much better than that criminal.

Originally posted by Fork_Q2:

Originally posted by robomagon:

Suing people is never stupid (as long as you can afford it). Even if you lose, it both punishes the people who wronged you and discourages others from doing the same via a costly long and drawn-out legal battle.

It's highly immoral when it's weaponised in the way Trump uses it, to stifle and suppress free speech. The guy talks about how great our libel laws in the UK are. They're fucking not, and we've been trying to change them for years. He says he would like to see something similar done in the US, it's literally incompatible with the first amendment.

Honestly, you should take a look at what Clinton's been trying to do here for years
http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/03/hail-to-the-censor
And don't forget her war on video games
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/hail-to-the-censor-hillary-clinton-new-a/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2016/02/05/can-we-forgive-hillary-clinton-for-her-past-war-on-video-games/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_Protection_Act

Some nice things Clinton has said about Trump and Sanders supporters:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-19/the-most-offensive-part-of-hillary-clintons-basket-of-deplorables-remark
https://www.rt.com/usa/361338-clinton-sanders-supporters-remarks/
Apparently I'm a basement dwelling deplorable now because I supported both of them over her.

Originally posted by Hellewin:

Originally posted by ComputerCraftr #DemsForTrump:

Read up on the War Powers Resolution and AUMFs, the president can send troops anywhere for up to 60 days

Regardless, we can't guarantee that Hillary would be able to start WW3 on her own. There are fundamental constructs in place - the U.N., general trade deals between superpowers, "nuclear peace", and so on. If it were so easy for one person to march up to the Oval Office and start World War 3, then we'd already have blown ourselves to hell.

Well, plenty of people died in the Iraq war over "weapons of mass destruction" that didn't really exist... I'm sure Bush's and Clinton's special interests and corporate allies made a killing off of the arms manufacturing and "taking the oil" so they wouldn't hesitate to do it again with ISIS, which actually came to exist only because of their meddling in the first place, so I guess they got extra lucky there. It's like Lyndon B. Johnson and Vietnam all over again, endless corporate wars, silent assassinations (using drones this time), and more kickbacks.
https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/

Originally posted by robomagon:

Originally posted by Hellewin:

President can't make a declaration of war without Congress's approval

Russia and US won't declare war on each other because they're both nuclear powers that would annihilate each other

Syria is in no position to wage war

Worst thing that could happen is that we lose out on sweet Russian oil, and the Kurds sweep up ISIS instead of the U.S.

Uh, the last time the US actually even bothered with a declaration of war was in 1942.

And of course, we haven't been to war since. /s

This

Originally posted by Hellewin:

President can't make a declaration of war without Congress's approval

Read up on the War Powers Resolution and AUMFs, the president can send troops anywhere for up to 60 days