America faces a terrible choice between Sanders and Trump

Watch
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#81
Report 3 weeks ago
#81
I'm against sanders and trump, and I read that economist article a few days ago and agree with what it said. Will be a lesser of two evils with trump getting another 4 years, which I don't want.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#82
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by QE2)
Just done that, and according to the OED, "quasi" does not mean "not" or "isn't".
No, it means;
"apparently but not really; seemingly."
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#83
Report 3 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by Napp)
No, it means;
"apparently but not really; seemingly."
Sanders does not seem to be, and is not apparently, a Stalinist.
So if you agree that he is not a Stalinist, why attempt to attach the label?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#84
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by QE2)
Sanders does not seem to be, and is not apparently, a Stalinist.
So if you agree that he is not a Stalinist, why attempt to attach the label?
This is starting to get extremely tedious having to repeat myself ad nauseum, it was a flippant insult. Thus there is absolutely no requirement for it t be overly true. although the fact of the matter is he is still a hard left socialist and has described himself as such for years.
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#85
Report 3 weeks ago
#85
(Original post by Napp)
I'm aware, whats your point though?
Thank you for admiting im right on this point by choosing to try and set up for an insult instead of repplying to the argument

(Original post by Napp)
I would point out Syria doesnt have much oil.
Indeed I would not but then again given that he's bombed Syria im not about to support his position there regardless.
You have trump derangement syndrome, presidents for the last 2 ish decades have bombed other countries and trump is the only one slowing that down but you just cant be happy about that can you, got to hate the orange man right. I bet trump could save a pregnant woman from a car pille up and you would criticise him for it.

(Original post by Napp)
Irony alert again.
At any rate i would have said that regardless of who did it, the fact Trump gets the shame is but a nice cherry on top.
no they arent. They're fighting an insurgency, the Taliban (by the Pentagons own word) are not terrorists.
Maybe, then again if the US hadn't have created the breeding ground for the Taliban by arming the warlords during the cold war this wouldnt be an issue. Where do you think they got the guns, training and money from to take Afghanistan to start with? the CIA, ISI and KSA (amongst others)
Irony alert
Its not trumps shame he didnt go into Afghanistan and never supported the war. Doesn't matter if they aren't defined by the pentagon terrorist (if that is even true god knows you are the biggest liar on the site), the point was you cant beat insurgents using guerrillas tactics unless you are willing to just massacre people and permanently occupy a country. Also they didn't loose, they just decided they didn't want to occupy the middle east anymore. It would be like if I broke all your bones and then decided i didn't want to murder you, you didn't win because I walked away. finally its deeply immoral to shame a man for ending a war because you don't like his politics, why cant you jsut be happy somone steped up to end this instead of trying to insult the man.


(Original post by Napp)
Where did i make comment on being "pro illegal immigration" ? :lol:
You said the wall was 0/10, can only infer you are infavour of illigal immigration since the wall was a resounding success in stopping illigeal immigration

I wouldnt call him honest but i'll agree with you on the second bit.

(Original post by Napp)
Personally, I highly doubt it. His crackpot schemes might appeal to large segments of America but i seriously doubt many would be able to stomach the fact hes a self described socialist.
Wasnt talking about the largest segments of america i was talking about deomocrat members

(Original post by Napp)
You don't say.
No no no, dont try and skip over this. You literally said that trump did the same thing as Hillary and I just proved he didnt so admit your wrong and dodnt try and dodge.

(Original post by Napp)
Hilary Clinton won 2.1% more of the popular vote than trump though, this isnt a debatable proposition and it matters not if you like Trump or not.
They're both pretty corrupt :lol:
So what you are saying is trump is corrupt because the US isnt a direct deomocracy? That makes total sense kid. The US electoral system was made to give each state equal representation in electing the president not each citizen.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#86
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by Ragman75)
Thank you for admiting im right on this point by choosing to try and set up for an insult instead of repplying to the argument
What insult? Or is this you being generation offended again?


You have trump derangement syndrome, presidents for the last 2 ish decades have bombed other countries and trump is the only one slowing that down but you just cant be happy about that can you, got to hate the orange man right. I bet trump could save a pregnant woman from a car pille up and you would criticise him for it.
Umm sure?

Irony alert
Its not trumps shame he didnt go into Afghanistan and never supported the war. Doesn't matter if they aren't defined by the pentagon terrorist (if that is even true god knows you are the biggest liar on the site), the point was you cant beat insurgents using guerrillas tactics unless you are willing to just massacre people and permanently occupy a country. Also they didn't loose, they just decided they didn't want to occupy the middle east anymore. It would be like if I broke all your bones and then decided i didn't want to murder you, you didn't win because I walked away. finally its deeply immoral to shame a man for ending a war because you don't like his politics, why cant you jsut be happy somone steped up to end this instead of trying to insult the man.
Er yes it does, or at best it simply shows you have no idea what a terrorist is.
Wrong. go look at the Malaya campaign as but just one example.
Afghanistan isnt in the ME :rolleyes:
You have an odd fixation on straw men don't you.


You said the wall was 0/10, can only infer you are infavour of illigal immigration since the wall was a resounding success in stopping illigeal immigration
How have you managed to misspell illegal in two different ways in one sentence? At any rate no it means nothing of the sort, as anyone with even a modicum of impartiality on the matter would know.

No no no, dont try and skip over this. You literally said that trump did the same thing as Hillary and I just proved he didnt so admit your wrong and dodnt try and dodge.
Read what i wrote again.

So what you are saying is trump is corrupt because the US isnt a direct deomocracy? That makes total sense kid. The US electoral system was made to give each state equal representation in electing the president not each citizen.
Your ability to read things that don't exist is extremely impressive :lol: You are aware that my comments on this are public and anyone who cares to look can see that i said nothing even remotely close to that?
Also why are you calling me a kid Josh?
that's why i spoke of the popular vote dear, not the electoral college, try and keep up
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#87
Report 3 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by Napp)
This is starting to get extremely tedious having to repeat myself ad nauseum, it was a flippant insult. Thus there is absolutely no requirement for it t be overly true. although the fact of the matter is he is still a hard left socialist and has described himself as such for years.
"Extremely tedious" is my middle name.
You broke it, you buy it.
0
reply
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#88
Report 3 weeks ago
#88
This thread aged badly.
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#89
Report 3 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by Napp)
What insult? Or is this you being generation offended again?
By not addressing the argument you have conceded and admitted i'm right

(Original post by Napp)
Umm sure?
By not addressing the argument you have conceded and admitted i'm right

(Original post by Napp)
Er yes it does, or at best it simply shows you have no idea what a terrorist is.
Wrong. go look at the Malaya campaign as but just one example.
Afghanistan isnt in the ME :rolleyes:
You have an odd fixation on straw men don't you.
No you dont understand the situation at all, the Taliban are terrorist they only dont have the designation from the state department because it would hinder peace negotiations. In every understanding of a terroist they are one, they go out of their way to commit violence against innocent people intentionally to cause terror in an effort to gain politically. Also the white house designated them terrorist

"White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT)"

your example is apples to oranges the Taliban is not a global faction engaged in a global war


(Original post by Napp)
How have you managed to misspell illegal in two different ways in one sentence? At any rate no it means nothing of the sort, as anyone with even a modicum of impartiality on the matter would know.
By not addressing the argument you have conceded and admitted i'm right

(Original post by Napp)
Read what i wrote again.
I did and what i said was a response you claimed that trumps is just as corrupt as hillary citing his election to becoming the republican nominee, and i showed you that the RNC nominee process is not corrupt as it follows the will of the people unlike the dems. I didn't miss anything you are just too much of a child to admit when you are wrong.

(Original post by Napp)
Your ability to read things that don't exist is extremely impressive :lol: You are aware that my comments on this are public and anyone who cares to look can see that i said nothing even remotely close to that?
Also why are you calling me a kid Josh? you're a teenager :lol:
that's why i spoke of the popular vote dear, not the electoral college, try and keep up
Your ability to not be consistent or make any actual arguments is extremely impressive

Im calling you a child because i would think an adult would have the intellectual capability to do basic maths and use basic reasoning. An adult would be able to realise that my account showing im that studying a levels is probably not accurate since i made this account in 2015, and that what is likely is that I made this account while i was studying a levels and have only recently came back to the site which is why I didn't update my credentials.

Dont call me Josh, the next time you do i will report you.

There is nothing to keep up with you arent making sense, you are saying trump is corrupt because he entered a presidential race using a system you don't like. Thats nonsensical, where is the corruption?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 3 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by 82134)
Trump is delivering his promises


Building wall

Leaving Afganistan (14 month plan to leave)
He hasn't done squat for the blue collar workers of the rustbelt states who put him in office. Many more of them are out of work now than when he was elected, thanks to his protectionist policies and stumbling incoherence on economic management.

He lied and lied to the voters of states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. He claimed he stood for the ordinary people there. In fact, he only stands for crony capitalism and handing pork to his friends and relatives.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#91
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by Ragman75)
By not addressing the argument you have conceded and admitted i'm right



By not addressing the argument you have conceded and admitted i'm right
Nil point.
No you dont understand the situation at all, the Taliban are terrorist they only dont have the designation from the state department because it would hinder peace negotiations. In every understanding of a terroist they are one, they go out of their way to commit violence against innocent people intentionally to cause terror in an effort to gain politically. Also the white house designated them terrorist
[
No of course I don't :rolleyes:
Nope.
I like how you politely glossed over the fact you were demonstrably proved wrong in your attempted assertion that no army has ever beaten a guerrilla force though. Nor your geographic illiteracy on where Afghanistan even is.
The White house can do what they like, they arent the sole arbiter on whom is or isnt a terrorist. You really need to learn the difference between what a terrorist group is (which the Taliban is not) and a group who uses terror tactics as part of their tactics.
your example is apples to oranges the Taliban is not a global faction engaged in a global war
Where did i say there were?
By not addressing the argument you have conceded and admitted i'm right
:rofl: It's like debating a 5 year old
I did and what i said was a response you claimed that trumps is just as corrupt as hillary citing his election to becoming the republican nominee, and i showed you that the RNC nominee process is not corrupt as it follows the will of the people unlike the dems. I didn't miss anything you are just too much of a child to admit when you are wrong.
Because he is, never mind the fact he was found guilt yof missusing charitable funds, even something Clinton wasnt :lol:
Okay dear
Your ability to not be consistent or make any actual arguments is extremely impressive
Uhuh
Im calling you a child because i would think an adult would have the intellectual capability to do basic maths and use basic reasoning. An adult would be able to realise that my account showing im that studying a levels is probably not accurate since i made this account in 2015, and that what is likely is that I made this account while i was studying a levels and have only recently came back to the site which is why I didn't update my credentials.
Of course dear Although the fact you cant write 1 single comment without a weird recourse to name calling would probably show the opposite actually :lol:
Dont call me Josh, the next time you do i will report you.
For using your name? Oh heaven forbid :lol:
There is nothing to keep up with you arent making sense, you are saying trump is corrupt because he entered a presidential race using a system you don't like. Thats nonsensical, where is the corruption?
You really don't know a thing about him do you? It seems to be an alarminging common theme with your supposed 'knowledge' on any given topic being poked full of holes immediately.
0
reply
Em.-.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#92
Report 3 weeks ago
#92
Why is it always bad candidates? In the US and here. I can never really like a politician. Anytime I agree with something, I always find something I totally dislike about them,
1
reply
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report 3 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by Em.-.)
Why is it always bad candidates? In the US and here. I can never really like a politician. Anytime I agree with something, I always find something I totally dislike about them,
You have to be a certain type of person to get into politics, and thst kind of person isn't a good candidate.
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#94
Report 2 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by Napp)
Nil point.
No its not its called a drop, I know you dont know what that means because the idea of intellectually honest discourse is demonstrably a concept more foreign to you than pluto to you but so google it kid.

(Original post by Napp)
[
No of course I don't :rolleyes:
Nope.
I like how you politely glossed over the fact you were demonstrably proved wrong in your attempted assertion that no army has ever beaten a guerrilla force though. Nor your geographic illiteracy on where Afghanistan even is.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: are you seriously still trying to argue the imperial Japaneses army's conquest and occupation of malaya is the same as the US war on terror in Afganistan. Look kid if the US wanted to occupy Afghanistan Like the Japanese did in ww2 they could have. This is why its apples to oranges, both sides in the malay campaign where countries that wanted to stay and occupy the region, only one side in the war on terror wants to stay in Afghanistan and only one side is a conventional army. The US at most wanted to maybe have an embassy and leave enough troops to protect oil contractors. This just makes no sense at all, i get that you dont have a solid grasp on these things but wow.

(Original post by Napp)
The White house can do what they like, they arent the sole arbiter on whom is or isnt a terrorist. You really need to learn the difference between what a terrorist group is (which the Taliban is not) and a group who uses terror tactics as part of their tactics.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: its like you just forgot your what you wrote before do you even look back to make sure you don't contradict yourself? you said "the Taliban (by the Pentagons own word) are not terrorists.", so what is it are US government organisations respectable sources or not? Or is it that conveniently the departments of the US you deem to be credible are the objectively trust worth ones. You are such a joke. (I know you wont reply to this)

These organisations obviously do not apply the definition of terrorist consistently because there is policy in place that when they do they are bound by the law to follow through with certain procedure, and some times said procedure hinders their goals. Like in this situation the Taliban are terrorist as per the definition of dictionary terrorist, but not all parts of the US government will define them as such because they want to have peace talks so they can pull out.



(Original post by Napp)
Where did i say there were?

Well kid when you try and disprove an argument with a counter example like you did you are by defualt saying the important parts (like how big each army is and what its motives are in the war are) are the same.

(Original post by Napp)
:rofl: It's like debating a 5 year old

yes it is I feel like I have to teach you how to argue and how to speak English

(Original post by Napp)
Because he is, never mind the fact he was found guilt yof missusing charitable funds, even something Clinton wasnt :lol:
Okay dear

Wow you really have TDS don't you, so let me get this straight you are arguing Hillary who: destabilised a country so bad that country has open air slavery; supported both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; stole the nominee democratic from the candidate more people voted for; wanted to go to war with russia over syria; is married to a guy who is probably a paedophile and a serial rapist, is equally as corrupt as trump because trumps campaign took control over his foundation and gave money out to charities he liked. For god sake man before he ran for office the charity gave money out to groups he liked anyway, also it wasn't even a criminal case he settled a civil suit. Drastic false equivalency.

But that isnt even it because since you do no research you didn't know that the Clinton foundation is drastically more corrupt. They literally use the foundation to take political bribes from investment bankers where the clintons will give a speech that is "so amazing" they get paid 10s of thousands of dollars

"It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons," says Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group.

(Original post by Napp)
Uhuh

= i cant respond but Im too much of a child to admit it.

(Original post by Napp)
Of course dear Although the fact you cant write 1 single comment without a weird recourse to name calling would probably show the opposite actually :lol:

So you cry at name calling but the obviously disrespectful and condescending use of "dear" is just fine, its like you dont read anything you write. At least try and stay consistent in each sentence. Inb4 your response is: some meaningless throwaway insult because you cant respond or you try and argue its not disrespectful using some backwards logic/ignorance of the English language.

(Original post by Napp)
For using your name? Oh heaven forbid :lol:
dont do it, as i told you next time its a report ive already talked to a TSR mod about this and you will get reprimanded.

(Original post by Napp)
You really don't know a thing about him do you? It seems to be an alarminging common theme with your supposed 'knowledge' on any given topic being poked full of holes immediately.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: where are the holes kid, I just gave you an argument you have dodge twice; ill give you a 3rd shot poke some holes in it if you can. Its like your arguments are all just recounts of what happened to an imaginary friend instead of someone who is actually going to be critical.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#95
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by Ragman75)
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: are you seriously still trying to argue the imperial Japaneses army's conquest and occupation of malaya is the same as the US war on terror in Afganistan. Look kid if the US wanted to occupy Afghanistan Like the Japanese did in ww2 they could have. This is why its apples to oranges, both sides in the malay campaign where countries that wanted to stay and occupy the region, only one side in the war on terror wants to stay in Afghanistan and only one side is a conventional army. The US at most wanted to maybe have an embassy and leave enough troops to protect oil contractors. This just makes no sense at all, i get that you dont have a solid grasp on these things but wow.
I'm talking about the Malaya emergency dear, not WWII. If you're going to try and act smart at least get your history right.
Oil contractors in Afghanistan aye? A country famously bereft of any oil industry? yeah you're totally right there



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: its like you just forgot your what you wrote before do you even look back to make sure you don't contradict yourself? you said "the Taliban (by the Pentagons own word) are not terrorists.", so what is it are US government organisations respectable sources or not? Or is it that conveniently the departments of the US you deem to be credible are the objectively trust worth ones. You are such a joke. (I know you wont reply to this)
Strangely enough because The WH is rather untrustworthy on such matters, like its designation of an army as a terror group. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but the WH is political dear :lol:
These organisations obviously do not apply the definition of terrorist consistently because there is policy in place that when they do they are bound by the law to follow through with certain procedure, and some times said procedure hinders their goals. Like in this situation the Taliban are terrorist as per the definition of dictionary terrorist, but not all parts of the US government will define them as such because they want to have peace talks so they can pull out.
Oh dear, your grasp of war studies isn't great is it? One would suggest you go and consult an actual expert on the matter - your far right blogs and wiki articles decidedly not falling under that rubric




yes it is I feel like I have to teach you how to argue and how to speak English
Irony :rolleyes:




[/quote]
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#96
Report 2 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by Napp)
Where did i say there were?

Well kid when you try and disprove an argument with a counter example like you did you are by defualt saying the important parts (like how big each army is and what its motives are in the war are) are the same.

(Original post by Napp)
Oh dear, your grasp of war studies isn't great is it? One would suggest you go and consult an actual expert on the matter - your far right blogs and wiki articles decidedly not falling under that rubric
"war studies" not even gonna comment on that one its just too bad.
"your far right blogs" :rofl::rofl: where seriously tell me the far right blogs.

(Original post by Napp)
Of course dear Although the fact you cant write 1 single comment without a weird recourse to name calling would probably show the opposite actually :lol:

So you cry at name calling but the obviously disrespectful and condescending use of "dear" is just fine, its like you dont read anything you write. At least try and stay consistent in each sentence. Inb4 your response is: some meaningless throwaway insult because you cant respond or you try and argue its not disrespectful using some backwards logic/ignorance of the English language.



(Original post by Napp)
You really don't know a thing about him do you? It seems to be an alarminging common theme with your supposed 'knowledge' on any given topic being poked full of holes immediately.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: where are the holes kid, I just gave you an argument you have dodge twice; ill give you a 3rd shot poke some holes in it if you can. Its like your arguments are all just recounts of what happened to an imaginary friend instead of someone who is actually going to be critical.

(Original post by Napp)
Because he is, never mind the fact he was found guilt yof missusing charitable funds, even something Clinton wasnt :lol:
Okay dear
(Original post by Napp)
Strangely enough because The WH is rather untrustworthy on such matters, like its designation of an army as a terror group. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but the WH is political dear :lol:
Child, the pentagon backed the lie that started the the Iraq war. Do better please.


Wow you really have TDS don't you, so let me get this straight you are arguing Hillary who: destabilised a country so bad that country has open air slavery; supported both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; stole the nominee democratic from the candidate more people voted for; wanted to go to war with russia over syria; is married to a guy who is probably a paedophile and a serial rapist, is equally as corrupt as trump because trumps campaign took control over his foundation and gave money out to charities he liked. For god sake man before he ran for office the charity gave money out to groups he liked anyway, also it wasn't even a criminal case he settled a civil suit. Drastic false equivalency.

But that isnt even it because since you do no research you didn't know that the Clinton foundation is drastically more corrupt. They literally use the foundation to take political bribes from investment bankers where the clintons will give a speech that is "so amazing" they get paid 10s of thousands of dollars

"It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons," says Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group.

(Original post by Napp)
Nil point.
No its not its called a drop, I know you dont know what that means because the idea of intellectually honest discourse is demonstrably a concept more foreign to you than pluto to you but so google it kid.

(Original post by Napp)
I'm talking about the Malaya emergency dear, not WWII. If you're going to try and act smart at least get your history right.
Oil contractors in Afghanistan aye? A country famously bereft of any oil industry? yeah you're totally right there
Post 86 your words "Malaya campaign" wow this self contradicting thing is a real theme with you maybe soon i will be able to argue against you with your own words
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#97
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#97
(Original post by Ragman75)
"war studies" not even gonna comment on that one its just too bad.
"your far right blogs" :rofl::rofl: where seriously tell me the far right blogs.
Of course you won't, wouldnt expect anything less from an academic troglodyte such as yourself though. With that being said, i'm nothing if not helpful to the ill-educated so one suggests you go look at what it actually is - especially as a significant number of military officers across the world are educated in it
You literally post them on a regular basis, in particular on your crack pot thread about the "alt right".





:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: where are the holes kid, I just gave you an argument you have dodge twice; ill give you a 3rd shot poke some holes in it if you can. Its like your arguments are all just recounts of what happened to an imaginary friend instead of someone who is actually going to be critical.
Are you utterly incapable of speaking sense as opposed to rattling off on some weird tangent?




Child, the pentagon backed the lie that started the the Iraq war. Do better please.
does this make you a fetus? :rolleyes:

Wow you really have TDS don't you, so let me get this straight you are arguing Hillary who: destabilised a country so bad that country has open air slavery; supported both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; stole the nominee democratic from the candidate more people voted for; wanted to go to war with russia over syria; is married to a guy who is probably a paedophile and a serial rapist, is equally as corrupt as trump because trumps campaign took control over his foundation and gave money out to charities he liked. For god sake man before he ran for office the charity gave money out to groups he liked anyway, also it wasn't even a criminal case he settled a civil suit. Drastic false equivalency.
TDS?
What i find odd is you profess to know my opinion on something yet make an utter clown out of yourself by stating it as something that is manifestly untrue :lol:
Quickly followed by your complete ignorance of specific legal terms.
Either way, i have never defended Clinton nor professed she is a particularly pleasant person.



Post 86 your words "Malaya campaign" wow this self contradicting thing is a real theme with you maybe soon i will be able to argue against you with your own words
A military campaign in Malaya? :lol: If you want to try and palm off your ignorance of colonial history and British military campaigns be my guest, dear.
0
reply
Ragman75
Badges: 15
#98
Report 2 weeks ago
#98
[
(Original post by Napp)
Where did i say there were?

Well kid when you try and disprove an argument with a counter example like you did you are by defualt saying the important parts (like how big each army is and what its motives are in the war are) are the same.

(Original post by Napp)
Oh dear, your grasp of war studies isn't great is it? One would suggest you go and consult an actual expert on the matter - your far right blogs and wiki articles decidedly not falling under that rubric
"war studies" not even gonna comment on that one its just too bad.
"your far right blogs" :rofl::rofl: where seriously tell me the far right blogs.

(Original post by Napp)
Of course dear Although the fact you cant write 1 single comment without a weird recourse to name calling would probably show the opposite actually :lol:

So you cry at name calling but the obviously disrespectful and condescending use of "dear" is just fine, its like you dont read anything you write. At least try and stay consistent in each sentence. Inb4 your response is: some meaningless throwaway insult because you cant respond or you try and argue its not disrespectful using some backwards logic/ignorance of the English language.



(Original post by Napp)
You really don't know a thing about him do you? It seems to be an alarminging common theme with your supposed 'knowledge' on any given topic being poked full of holes immediately.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: where are the holes kid, I just gave you an argument you have dodge twice; ill give you a 3rd shot poke some holes in it if you can. Its like your arguments are all just recounts of what happened to an imaginary friend instead of someone who is actually going to be critical.

(Original post by Napp)
Because he is, never mind the fact he was found guilt yof missusing charitable funds, even something Clinton wasnt :lol:
Okay dear
(Original post by Napp)
Strangely enough because The WH is rather untrustworthy on such matters, like its designation of an army as a terror group. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but the WH is political dear :lol:
Child, the pentagon backed the lie that started the the Iraq war. Do better please.


Wow you really have TDS don't you, so let me get this straight you are arguing Hillary who: destabilised a country so bad that country has open air slavery; supported both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; stole the nominee democratic from the candidate more people voted for; wanted to go to war with russia over syria; is married to a guy who is probably a paedophile and a serial rapist, is equally as corrupt as trump because trumps campaign took control over his foundation and gave money out to charities he liked. For god sake man before he ran for office the charity gave money out to groups he liked anyway, also it wasn't even a criminal case he settled a civil suit. Drastic false equivalency.

But that isnt even it because since you do no research you didn't know that the Clinton foundation is drastically more corrupt. They literally use the foundation to take political bribes from investment bankers where the clintons will give a speech that is "so amazing" they get paid 10s of thousands of dollars

"It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons," says Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group.

(Original post by Napp)
Nil point.
No its not its called a drop, I know you dont know what that means because the idea of intellectually honest discourse is demonstrably a concept more foreign to you than pluto to you but so google it kid.

(Original post by Napp)
I'm talking about the Malaya emergency dear, not WWII. If you're going to try and act smart at least get your history right.
Oil contractors in Afghanistan aye? A country famously bereft of any oil industry? yeah you're totally right there
Post 86 your words "Malaya campaign" wow this self contradicting thing is a real theme with you maybe soon i will be able to argue against you with your own words
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#99
Report 2 weeks ago
#99
Why socialists are holistically bad at politics:

"You can’t escape the game by pretending it isn’t happening, you can only lose it. Republicans recognize that the aim of politics is to crush the other guy; Barack Obama spent eight years refusing to recognize this. There’s nothing noble about being too polite to fight for dominance; it just means that the people you’re supposed to fight for will continue to be the ones dominated. In Heer’s pejorative use of “dominance politics” we can get a good insight into why Democrats are bad at politics: they actually seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that you’re supposed to be trying to win. In this worldview, compromise is a goal rather than a tactic, and it’s almost tawdry to say that you believe your side should win and the other side should lose."

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/...-of-domination
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#100
Report 2 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by Ascend)
Why socialists are holistically bad at politics:

"You can’t escape the game by pretending it isn’t happening, you can only lose it. Republicans recognize that the aim of politics is to crush the other guy; Barack Obama spent eight years refusing to recognize this. There’s nothing noble about being too polite to fight for dominance; it just means that the people you’re supposed to fight for will continue to be the ones dominated. In Heer’s pejorative use of “dominance politics” we can get a good insight into why Democrats are bad at politics: they actually seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that you’re supposed to be trying to win. In this worldview, compromise is a goal rather than a tactic, and it’s almost tawdry to say that you believe your side should win and the other side should lose."

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/...-of-domination
It isn't wrong to be concerned about how you win. Trump won by lying, deceiving and involving Russia in disseminating false information to US voters. The result is that he's placed a stain on the reputation of the US that will be hard to shift for decades to come. I wonder if it will still look worth it to Republicans in the coming years?
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With HE fairs postponed, would a virtual HE fair be useful?

Yes (45)
60%
No (30)
40%

Watched Threads

View All