Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.

[joepistole]

This would be stupid. The major danger of Clinton - WW III - would become even more probable if they would become terrorists.

Oh hogwash. Stopping Putin's aggression and his theft of their lands isn't starting WWIII. It's actually preventing a WWIII. The West tried appeasement with Hitler and it resulted in WWII. Unfortunately, for you and your beloved Putina the West hasn't forgotten that lesson. If your beloved Mother Putina wants to get suicidal, that's on him and the Russians who have enabled him.

There is, of course, the general danger of every totalitarian state - and the US moves in this direction - that all the enemies of the leader will be declared terrorist, enemies of the people or so.

You mean like your beloved Mother Russia? Well, it has thus far worked for Mother Putina.

 

[Schmelzer]

Stopping Putin's aggression and his theft of their lands isn't starting WWIII. It's actually preventing a WWIII.

If Clinton would try a blackmail - give Crimea to NATO or you get a nuclear attack - the answer would be clear: No. If Clinton starts a nuclear attack after this, this is the end of Russia as well as America as well as all the states with American bases. Because actually Russia is strong enough to answer, and the American rocket shield not worth its money.

Don't forget: Saudi-Arabia has everything of American rocket protection what is for sale. But is hit, regularly, by old Soviet Totshka rockets.

And with some sufficiently high probability this will be the end of mankind. Such is life.

You mean like your beloved Mother Russia?

Nonsense.

 

[iceaura]

The godawful Democratic voters and politiicans Bernie Sanders and his wrecking crew just spent over a year denouncing as corrupt are the reason we don't have a Christian nationalist theocracy

No. The Democratic voters and political faction Bernie represented did that. The "wrecking crew". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/15/us/washington-talk-judiciary-committee-alignments-bork-battle-each-member-likely.html?n=Top/Reference/Times Topics/People/G/Greenhouse, Linda&pagewanted=2

Byrd, Leahy, Metzenbaum, Simon, Spector, Biden at the time - Single payer backers, bank regulation advocates, and except for Biden (who like Kerry was running for President) anti-war votes when it counted (Byrd led the effort to prevent Senate endorsement of the W's Iraq war powers Act). That's your wrecking crew.

If Clinton would try a blackmail - give Crimea to NATO or you get a nuclear attack - the answer would be clear: No. If Clinton starts a nuclear attack after this, this is the end of Russia as well as America as well as all the states with American bases. Because actually Russia is strong enough to answer, and the American rocket shield not worth its money.

Because Clinton is not only insane but terminally stupid?

 

[Schmelzer]

Because Clinton is not only insane but terminally stupid?

Whatever. I have to explain the situation to joepistole, a person which is terminally stupid.

 

[joepistole]

Whatever. I have to explain the situation to joepistole, a person which is terminally stupid.

Oh boy, now that's an intelligent argument. But unfortunately, that's all you have. Isn't it. You cannot make a fact based, reasoned, honest argument so you resort to personal attacks. Just because people refuse to drink the Kool-Aid you are peddling, it doesn't make them stupid.

But that's all Russia's troll army has isn't it? Since Russian trolls cannot argue their case with facts, reason, and honesty all they have left if personal attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/europe/russia-finland-nato-trolls.html

 

[joepistole]

If Clinton would try a blackmail - give Crimea to NATO or you get a nuclear attack - the answer would be clear:

How does that makes the least bit of sense? What blackmail? Crimea belongs to Ukraine, not NATO. Whose talking about nuclear attacks other than members of Russia's web brigades e.g. you?

No. If Clinton starts a nuclear attack after this, this is the end of Russia as well as America as well as all the states with American bases. Because actually Russia is strong enough to answer, and the American rocket shield not worth its money.

Well, it's definitely the end of your beloved Mother Russia. Clinton isn't talking or threatening nuclear attacks. The only people talking about nuclear attacks are members of Russia's web brigades i.e. folks like you. If you don't think America's missile shields are not worth the money, then why is your beloved Mother Putina so afraid of them?

Unlike your beloved Mother Russia, the West doesn't need to use its military or threaten to use its military to inflict damage on its enemies as demonstrated by the economic sanctions which have been placed on your beloved Mother Russia by Western powers. Instead, Russia has to build and fill "troll factories" of which you are not doubt a part in an attempt to spread misinformation.

Don't forget: Saudi-Arabia has everything of American rocket protection what is for sale. But is hit, regularly, by old Soviet Totshka rockets.

Except, that's more than a little disingenuous isn't it? There has only been one instance and it was an anti-tank missile. That's not the kind of missile we are talking about here. Those missiles pose so little threat, they aren't worth wasting a patriot missile on. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/uragan/

And with some sufficiently high probability this will be the end of mankind. Such is life.

Nonsense.

As I told you before, if Mother Russia decides to get suicidal and launch a nuclear war, that's on Putina and the Russians who have enabled him, that's not on the West.

 

[Schmelzer]

If you don't think America's missile shields are not worth the money, then why is your beloved Mother Putina so afraid of them?

Once the US develops them, Russia has to answer. Today, they are not yet a threat, but they may become a threat. To prevent this, one has to spend some money. To develop rockets which cannot be catched by the shield. This is possible, and, even in the long run, cheaper than a symmetric shield. But it costs money. To the Russian taxpayer as well as the American one. It would be better for above sides not to throw away so much money.

Except, that's more than a little disingenuous isn't it? There has only been one instance and it was an anti-tank missile.

About which anti-tank nonsense you talk? http://spioenkop.blogspot.com.eg/2015/08/houthis-continue-to-fire-ballistic.html This is about age-old Soviet time short range ballistic rockets. Some of them hit by Patriots, other not. If Patriots are even unable to hit them all, they are not worth much.

The same Totchka missiles have been used regularly by the Ukraine military in the civil war in the Donbass. And they have never hit anything important. Officially because the weapons have been too old and Ukrainian soldiers too stupid to use them. So, I would guess the Yemeni Houthi fighters are much more experienced or have newer Totchka rockets, because they have hit quite worthwhile Saudi targets, which have made it into the news, several times. Or may be the Donbass air defense is much better than Patriots. Your choice.

 

[joepistole]

Once the US develops them, Russia has to answer. Today, they are not yet a threat, but they may become a threat. To prevent this, one has to spend some money. To develop rockets which cannot be catched by the shield. This is possible, and, even in the long run, cheaper than a symmetric shield. But it costs money. To the Russian taxpayer as well as the American one. It would be better for above sides not to throw away so much money.

Russia has to answer...? The fact is the American antimissile systems you think are a waste of money aren't a waste of money. Russia tried to compete militarily with the US once before and it led to the destruction of the Russian i.e. Soviet state. As has been explained to you numerous times, your beloved Mother Russia cannot compete with the US in anything. If Mother Russia, i.e. Mother Putina, wants to go down that path again and repeat all the mistake of her past, so be it. Some people are slow learners. The US alone, can outspend your Mother Russia by more than 10 to 1.

Mother Russia is trying to develop missiles that cannot be "catched" by US defense systems and I guess that's all we can say about that. The fact is your beloved Mother Russia is holding the short end of the stick. I don't think anyone is impressed by Mother Russia's saber rattling. Russia is a two bit wanna be run by a corrupt dictator. It had the opportunity to become a respectable nation and it blew it. It's now a pariah state, not much better than North Korea.

About which anti-tank nonsense you talk? http://spioenkop.blogspot.com.eg/2015/08/houthis-continue-to-fire-ballistic.html This is about age-old Soviet time short range ballistic rockets. Some of them hit by Patriots, other not. If Patriots are even unable to hit them all, they are not worth much.

The same Totchka missiles have been used regularly by the Ukraine military in the civil war in the Donbass. And they have never hit anything important. Officially because the weapons have been too old and Ukrainian soldiers too stupid to use them. So, I would guess the Yemeni Houthi fighters are much more experienced or have newer Totchka rockets, because they have hit quite worthwhile Saudi targets, which have made it into the news, several times. Or may be the Donbass air defense is much better than Patriots. Your choice.

That's a lot of obfuscation. None of it changes the facts.

 

[Schmelzer]

Russia has to answer...? The fact is the American antimissile systems you think are a waste of money aren't a waste of money. Russia tried to compete militarily with the US once before and it led to the destruction of the Russian i.e. Soviet state.

Because the Soviet Union had an extremely stupid economic system, communism. Now they have a normal one. And the US has more and more degenerated.

As has been explained to you numerous times, your beloved Mother Russia cannot compete with the US in anything.

It already competes.

The US alone, can outspend your Mother Russia by more than 10 to 1.

It already outspends Russia 10:1, and even more if one takes into account the other NATO states. And up to now Russia is fine. Because it does not need a worldwide net of military bases and a large fleet - it is a continental power and needs against the US only second strike power.

Mother Russia is trying to develop missiles that cannot be "catched" by US defense systems and I guess that's all we can say about that.

Actually it has them. It develops missiles that cannot be catched by possible future developments. Then, if 10% go through that's enough to destroy the US. So, actually there is a sufficiently large gap which preserved Russian security. And in fact nobody believes that the US will be able to win this new race.

Just think about how to protect the US against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub which can be placed on every standard container ship. Think about it, range 2600 km, nuclear warheads possible, supersonic at arrival, and every container around the world is suspect containing such a weapon.

None of it changes the facts.

Yes, the fact that age-old Soviet ballistic missiles, export variant, can hit Saudi-Arabian military objects defended by Patriots. And that the same Soviet missiles, internal variant, used by Ukraine against Novorussia, have magically failed to hit anything important.

 

[iceaura]

Because the Soviet Union had an extremely stupid economic system, communism. Now they have a normal one.

True, the new Russian economy is "normal", in the sense of being a type familiar and common. It's one of the ugly ones, of course - strongman rule of a corporate capitalist setup, similar to Spain under Franco or various regional mob-dominated local economies of the US, made unusually powerful by its having inherited the remarkable industrial and technological advances in capability (including educational) made by the old Soviet state - especially military ones.

 

[wellwisher]

The claim of racism, sexism, etc., is a liberal lawyer scam. The trick is to make people afraid to speak about data and hard facts, if somehow lawyers can twist the truth, and use the mob and talking points, to push you over the fence.

To the Democrat base, they do not make a distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. This is like saying a pickpocket in the mall is the same as a shopper. If you dislike pickpockets, you also hate shoppers. This is not even rational, except in the world of relative morality. However, if the irrational liberal mob buys into this and is willing to apply peer pressure, many people can be made be afraid to report pick pockets, out of fear of being labelled a shopper hater. Who benefits by this? Criminals, lawyers and corrupt politicians who make a living on deception.

Trump is a businessman and not a lawyer. He knows the employment laws differentiate legal and illegal immigrants, with the laws offering more wage regulation for legal immigrants. If you are illegal, you can be taken advantage of by businesses and/or you can avoid tax withholding and insurance, since you not documented, for these laws to fully apply.

If Trump was a corrupt businessman, he would be for illegal immigrants, since he could save money in all his hotels. He is willing to pay more for legal labor, since this is what is lawful. Hillary is for illegals and an environment of lawyer based skimming and skirting laws. Trump is pro-law and order, since this makes for a level playing field, and not the rigged system preferred by Hillary. If legal and illegal are the same, then insider trading and playing by the rules is the same under certain circumstance; pay-to-play becomes acceptable.

 

[origin]

If Trump was a corrupt businessman, he would be for illegal immigrants, since he could save money in all his hotels.

Hmm, since he has purposely hired illegal aliens to work for him, by your stated standards he is corrupt. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[joepistole]

The claim of racism, sexism, etc., is a liberal lawyer scam. The trick is to make people afraid to speak about data and hard facts, if somehow lawyers can twist the truth, and use the mob and talking points, to push you over the fence.

Well, I'm sure that is very reassuring to all the victims of racism and sexism. It really wasn't racism, it was a "liberal lawyer scam". I guess all that civil rights stuff was just a "liberal lawyer scan". That will be news to all those people who marched with Martin Luther King, and all those who continue to be victimized by racism and sexism e.g. Roger Ailes victims.

To the Democrat base, they do not make a distinction between legal immigration and illegal immigration. This is like saying a pickpocket in the mall is the same as a shopper. If you dislike pickpockets, you also hate shoppers. This is not even rational, except in the world of relative morality. However, if the irrational liberal mob buys into this and is willing to apply peer pressure, many people can be made be afraid to report pick pockets, out of fear of being labelled a shopper hater. Who benefits by this? Criminals, lawyers and corrupt politicians who make a living on deception.

Oh, and were is your evidence for that assertion? How do you explain the fact that Democrats have deported more illegal aliens than any previous administration? But then you live in that Republican, i.e. so self described "conservative" bubble of ignorance and dishonesty where fact and reason don't matter. Unlike with Democrats, for you Republicans it's all about the deception. Contrary to your assertion, Democrats have focused deportation efforts on deporting criminals. Democrats have deported nearly twice the number of criminals the previous Republican administration deported. But, hey, you don't care about facts or reason, do you?

Trump is a businessman and not a lawyer. He knows the employment laws differentiate legal and illegal immigrants, with the laws offering more wage regulation for legal immigrants. If you are illegal, you can be taken advantage of by businesses and/or you can avoid tax withholding and insurance, since you not documented, for these laws to fully apply.

Well, it's good you mentioned that. The Donald has a long history of hiring illegal aliens and abusing them. The Donald took full advantage of his illegal alien workers.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-says-controversy-over-his-tower-was-trumped-n397821

Yes, the Donald knows the employment laws and he knows who to break them as evidenced by his history.

If Trump was a corrupt businessman, he would be for illegal immigrants, since he could save money in all his hotels. He is willing to pay more for legal labor, since this is what is lawful. Hillary is for illegals and an environment of lawyer based skimming and skirting laws. Trump is pro-law and order, since this makes for a level playing field, and not the rigged system preferred by Hillary. If legal and illegal are the same, then insider trading and playing by the rules is the same under certain circumstance; pay-to-play becomes acceptable.

Well, that is what The Donald wants people to believe, but that isn't the truth of the matter. Per previous references The Donald has a long history of hiring and using illegal aliens, and he has a long and continued history of shipping manufacturing jobs overseas. Numerous Republicans, even Republican talk show hosts like Limbaugh, have said there is no way The Donald will deport 12 million illegal aliens. Only a fool would believe such nonsense. But fortunately for Trump, he has a lot of fools in his camp. The direct and indirect costs to the nation and the economy would huge. There is no way any sane person would do such a thing, and that is obvious even to right wing nut leaders like Limbaugh and Levin.

 

[joepistole]

Because the Soviet Union had an extremely stupid economic system, communism. Now they have a normal one. And the US has more and more degenerated.

Oh, so you think the Soviet Union, i.e. Mother Russia, failed was because of its "extremely stupid economic system". Well, I've got news for you, your current economic system isn't any better. For all the reasons previously and repeatedly described to you, Russia isn't able to compete with the West economically, technologically, or militarily. The US alone can outspend your beloved Mother Russia by more than 10 to 1 on military spending. The US alone has more than twice the population of your beloved Mother Russia, and unlike Russia, the American population is growing. Russia's population is shrinking.

"Population losers: The populations ofJapan, Russia and Germany are expected to decrease by more than 10% by 2050. For Japan, this means a loss of 19 million residents; for Russia, 23 million; and for Germany, 10 million." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/

Russia is a 2 bit wannabe backwater nation. It will never be able to compete with the US much less the West, in no small part, because its leader is unwilling to shed itself of the coruption which is eating away its base and eroding its core.

It already competes.

Only in your dreams....

It already outspends Russia 10:1, and even more if one takes into account the other NATO states. And up to now Russia is fine. Because it does not need a worldwide net of military bases and a large fleet - it is a continental power and needs against the US only second strike power.

In fact it does, the US alone outspends your beloved Mother Russia by about 10 to 1 and the US has reduced military spending. There is no way your beloved Mother Russia can outspend the US. But Russia isn't fine. Russia is suffering a huge recession. It's economy is shrinking. Russia isn't fine, and it's not fine because of its military aggression against neighboring states. Even if Russia spent every last ruble, it's entire GDP, on military spending, it could not outspend the US. The US economy is just that much larger.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/puti...omy-stumbles-on-sanctions-oil-price-drop.html

The US is a global power, your beloved Mother Russia isn't. Russia is a regional power with dreams of becoming a global power. It really doesn't need a big military. It has no natural enemies, other than perhaps China. No one wants Russia. If Western powers wanted Russia they could have easily taken Russia i.e. The Soviet Union after WWII. The could have done so when the Soviet Union collapsed. But they didn't, because no one wants Russia. The country is a basket case. The West abandoned the colonial growth by aggression strategy a very long time ago.

Actually it has them. It develops missiles that cannot be catched by possible future developments. Then, if 10% go through that's enough to destroy the US. So, actually there is a sufficiently large gap which preserved Russian security. And in fact nobody believes that the US will be able to win this new race.

Just think about how to protect the US against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Klub which can be placed on every standard container ship. Think about it, range 2600 km, nuclear warheads possible, supersonic at arrival, and every container around the world is suspect containing such a weapon.

Yes, the fact that age-old Soviet ballistic missiles, export variant, can hit Saudi-Arabian military objects defended by Patriots. And that the same Soviet missiles, internal variant, used by Ukraine against Novorussia, have magically failed to hit anything important.

As previously pointed out to you, if what you assert were true, the Russian government would not be so concerned about American anti-ballistics missile defense capabilities, and clearly the Russian government is very concerned about American anti-ballistic missile capabilities. It's something your beloved Mother Russia doesn't have, but is desperately seeking.

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh, so you think the Soviet Union, i.e. Mother Russia, failed was because of its "extremely stupid economic system". Well, I've got news for you, your current economic system isn't any better.

It is much better. Of course, yet far away from a real free market - but comparable in economic freedom with the actual Western economies.

The US alone can outspend your beloved Mother Russia by more than 10 to 1 on military spending.

The point being? It already outspends Russia 10:1, but the Russian army is nonetheless fine. Russia is in a strategic alliance with China, and the two together are economically already more powerful than the US.

The US alone has more than twice the population of your beloved Mother Russia, and unlike Russia, the American population is growing. Russia's population is shrinking.

Switzerland is very afraid because its population is very small. Liechtenstein even more. As if this would matter. Africa is the real power, its population increases.

It will never be able to compete with the US much less the West, in no small part, because its leader is unwilling to shed itself of the coruption which is eating away its base and eroding its core.

It already competes in the world market, selling weapons, atomic power, as well as wheat. You know, this is a nice combination for bad times: To have wheat, oil, atomic power stations, and high tech weapons to defend all this.

There is no way your beloved Mother Russia can outspend the US. But Russia isn't fine. Russia is suffering a huge recession. It's economy is shrinking.

This was a nice recession, a good preparation for the future. The cause was the sanctions, so that the Russian firms who had credits had to pay them back, and those who depended heavily on import had a bad time. So the Russian firms are now much better, because they have much less debts, and depend less on import. More production from Russia itself.

In fact, the recession itself is essentially over.

And, of course, it makes no sense at all to outspend the US. Because all this military spending of the US is highly corrupt.

and clearly the Russian government is very concerned about American anti-ballistic missile capabilities. It's something your beloved Mother Russia doesn't have, but is desperately seeking.

LOL. Russia has high quality air defense systems, and sells them to other countries afraid of the US. Something the US does not like very much.

 

[joepistole]

It is much better. Of course, yet far away from a real free market - but comparable in economic freedom with the actual Western economies.

The point being? It already outspends Russia 10:1, but the Russian army is nonetheless fine. Russia is in a strategic alliance with China, and the two together are economically already more powerful than the US.

Switzerland is very afraid because its population is very small. Liechtenstein even more. As if this would matter. Africa is the real power, its population increases.

It already competes in the world market, selling weapons, atomic power, as well as wheat. You know, this is a nice combination for bad times: To have wheat, oil, atomic power stations, and high tech weapons to defend all this.

This was a nice recession, a good preparation for the future. The cause was the sanctions, so that the Russian firms who had credits had to pay them back, and those who depended heavily on import had a bad time. So the Russian firms are now much better, because they have much less debts, and depend less on import. More production from Russia itself.

In fact, the recession itself is essentially over.

And, of course, it makes no sense at all to outspend the US. Because all this military spending of the US is highly corrupt.

LOL. Russia has high quality air defense systems, and sells them to other countries afraid of the US. Something the US does not like very much.

Except none of that is true, is it? We have had this discussion many times. Repeating lies doesn't make them any less of a lie.

You have said the Russian recession was over before it began. The fact is Russia's economy shrank by nearly 4% last year and economists expect the contraction will continue. Russia's economy continues to decline, regardless of Mother Putin's puffery.

 

[iceaura]

It already competes in the world market, selling weapons, atomic power, as well as wheat. You know, this is a nice combination for bad times: To have wheat, oil, atomic power stations, and high tech weapons to defend all this.

The American model. Worth imitating - but the strongman rule is going to cause problems with it.

 

[sculptor]

Is the Russian military more efficient than the United States military?

 

[iceaura]

Is the Russian military more efficient than the United States military?

At what?

 

[sculptor]

At what?

bang for the buck

It seems that in Syria they have been more effective for less money.
Accurate?