Discussion in 'Politics' started by timojin, Jul 12, 2017.
Under Hillary would we be better off, security or economically vise or worse.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It would be status quo... which is to say, things wouldn't have gotten better, but it wouldn't be the utter dumpster fire we have now, our allies wouldn't feel like they cannot trust us with intelligence data, and the KKK and other supremacist groups wouldn't be emboldened to act in the public eye as they currently are.
Unquestionably, we would be in a much better off from a security or economic perspective. We would certainly be more secure. Our allies wouldn't be rattled as they are now. The Obama economy would have continued unabated as it has done. The world would be a much more secure place and our democracy and democratic institutions would not be under attack as they now are.
[QUOTE="Kittamaru, post: 3466493, our allies wouldn't feel like they cannot trust us with intelligence data, and the KKK and other supremacist groups wouldn't be emboldened to act in the public eye as they currently are.[/QUOTE]
What benefit do we get from our allieds , beside they getting our money, by allowing our soldiers staying on their land, we have a great number of floating islands (Ships.) were they can be moved fast on our shores to protect the nation. Who is going to invade us ? We are several thousand of miles away except ( Alaska) I don't think Russian would be that foolish by attempting to invade us.
You go and learn some history , and restrain your emotional mouth
Ask the men who fought in WWII if they got any benefit from our allies (if you can find any still alive.)
Well, we are sort of bending over and letting Putin have his way with us. I mean, what would Trump do? I can just see it now:
Putin lands a "small exploratory team" to build a military base in Little Diomede after evicting the US citizens there. US intelligence agencies confirm that the base is there and that Russia is amassing troops. Trump demands an explanation. Putin says "I didn't do it." Trump believes him, saying "I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian landings on Little Diomede. He vehemently denied it. So I created a joint task force with Russia to investigate this non-event. So stop asking about it. Why isn't anyone investigating Hillary's crimes?"
LOL...Well comrade I'm not living in your beloved Mother Russia. Here history, fact, reason, and freedom of speech still matters.
But what does that even mean?
So the bombing of Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with it?
Of course we were allies before the war. We were supporting England as much as we could logistically, starting in 1940. Google lend-lease.
You don't understand? Big Diomede is Russian. Little Diomede is US. The Russians want to expand their country, as evinced by their annexation of Crimea. If they want to annex more land, Little Diomede would be a good first step in terms of moving on to Alaska. And since Trump has a habit of bending over for Putin, he's likely to fold again in the unlikely event that that should happen.
Would the US stand for it? Perhaps not. But if Trump is president for another 3 years, the Russians might get enough of a foothold in Alaska that it would be very difficult to pry them out. They are, after all, better at cold-weather warfare than we are.
I don't edit what I slap. I am not writer like you
I advise him to read history, than he should restrain himself from saying something he does have the knowledge.
Is that better ?
Here is the thing comrade, how do you know I don't have "knowledge". You don't know enough history or business or current affairs to make that decision.
What does Pearl Harbor have to do with European war. I know you will say Japan and Germany allieds
Germany issued ultimatum to USA not to send armament to England .
About Little Diomede you are reading in to support your argument " moving into Alaska " That thing is up to the congress not , to the president. The Island is national territory
Crime was Russian before, after WWI were the Ottomans got defeated. Krushtchow been Ukrainian give it to the
Ukraina while been president in the USSR
You might now know things ,but you expressed your self of lack of knowledge in history
I don't care about gossip politics . Apparently you like political affair so express yourself without restrain.
The US did not want to get involved with the war directly; they wanted to support their allies logistically. After Pearl Harbor, all that changed. It resulted in the US committing troops to the war - both the Pacific and the European war.
Putin can annex US territory if he decides to. That is up to Putin, not Congress. (Note that Crimea did not approve of him annexing Crimea.)
Congress cannot send troops to stop such an attempt by Putin. The President is in charge of the military.
And apparently, you don't know or care about history. The truth isn't "gossip politics", it's just the truth. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make the truth bad or wrong.
Let's hope congressional Republicans find a set of balls before it comes to that.
There are very few people who could be worse than President Stupid and his son, Comrade Beavis, so that's a low bar. The real question is would things improve compared to Obama. I think things would largely stay the same in most respects. Our politics would be all about the Republican witch hunt against Hillary, since they would presumably get control of congress.
In essence the republican would be witch hunting . So the democrats are doing the same as what the republicans would do if Hillary would be in . So what tells me both party hard members are poor looser.
Next time lets bring a gorilla from the zoo.
Separate names with a comma.