'Murica! (144 Viewers)

[GordoDeCentral]

You don't know why we ended up with soldiers in those nations? Or do you just think that we've had them there long enough and it is time to move out?

Shoulda let the huns and the reds rape their collective candy asses, buncha ingrates

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

Shoulda let the huns and the reds rape their collective asses, buncha ingrates

True that. But then a german friend of my parents wouldn't have any of his crazy stories about defending west germany from the russians.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

True that. But then a german friend of my parents wouldn't have any of his crazy stories about defending west germany from the russians.

His name was dieter?

 

[Fr3sh]

Clinton is status quo, if anything she would expand overseas deployments. Trump said he doesn't see the value in it, but we'll see, even if he wanted to change it he might not get the approval of congress or whoever. The military industrial complex outlasts any President.

They are both unsuitable but I see Trump as far less worse. Hillary is like Obama without charisma and 5x the bad parts.

For international community Hillary is a way bigger threat then Trump. There's no way Trump would have the same backing as Clinton if he wanted to recreate another Libya.

 

[Seven]

Hope he wins as well.
Wonder how much he'll try to sell Alaska for.

Obviously you're joking, but it's part of why people want Trump to win: morbid curiosity.

 

[Fr3sh]

Obviously you're joking, but it's part of why people want Trump to win: morbid curiosity.

Nah man I genuinely want him to win. As a matter of fact first time that I wished I lived on the other side of our border

I got no love for America. That's why I want him to win.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Nah man I genuinely want him to win. As a matter of fact first time that I wished I lived on the other side of our border

I got no love for America. That's why I want him to win.

You wish to be in america under a Trump presidency , but you want him to win coz you know hed be a destructive force, as coherent as ever muchacho

 

[Enron]

His name was dieter?

Rhiner (not sure spelling).

- - - Updated - - -

Nah man I genuinely want him to win. As a matter of fact first time that I wished I lived on the other side of our border

I got no love for America. That's why I want him to win.

Silly Maria. We all know you secretly want to live in America.

 

[Fr3sh]

You wish to be in america under a Trump presidency , but you want him to win coz you know hed be a destructive force, as coherent as ever muchacho

Rhiner (not sure spelling).

- - - Updated - - -





Silly Maria. We all know you secretly want to live in America.

 

[Valerio.]

You don't know why we ended up with soldiers in those nations? Or do you just think that we've had them there long enough and it is time to move out?

actually i disapprove of any soldiers in another country if it's not for a war.
Cause it's a treat to that country national security.
See what happened in centre-America how someone screwed poor peoples so bad.
Or like how people in Sicily don't want that american military structure which is bad for health and so on.
Tell me what's the point to deploy 13k soldiers in Italy, 30k in Germany and 50k in Japan uhu? uhu? we're in 2016

- - - Updated - - -

Shoulda let the huns and the reds $#@! their collective candy asses, buncha ingrates

dude what you're talking about? you're just imposing with military strenght. Tyrant that's why everyone hate America. Bunch of tyrants thinking themself good.

- - - Updated - - -

@ and why would you wage war against some country which is 5000km away from your borders? oh right stealing resources

 

[GordoDeCentral]

actually i disapprove of any soldiers in another country if it's not for a war.
Cause it's a treat to that country national security.
See what happened in centre-America how someone screwed poor peoples so bad.
Or like how people in Sicily don't want that american military structure which is bad for health and so on.
Tell me what's the point to deploy 13k soldiers in Italy, 30k in Germany and 50k in Japan uhu? uhu? we're in 2016

- - - Updated - - -



dude what you're talking about? you're just imposing with military strenght. Tyrant that's why everyone hate America. Bunch of tyrants thinking themself good.

- - - Updated - - -

@ and why would you wage war against some country which is 5000km away from your borders? oh right stealing resources

As trump would say, i was being sarcastic but not that sarcastic

 

[campionesidd]

For international community Hillary is a way bigger threat then Trump. There's no way Trump would have the same backing as Clinton if he wanted to recreate another Libya.

Not true.
Look at Clinton's endorsements. They're all from US allies like Italy, France, UK etc.
Meanwhile look at the leaders hoping for a Trump victory: Putin, Kim Jong Un, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump has repeatedly asked whether the US can use its nukes. If that isn't a dangerous person, I don't know who is.

 

[Fr3sh]

Not true.
Look at Clinton's endorsements. They're all from US allies like Italy, France, UK etc.
Meanwhile look at the leaders hoping for a Trump victory: Putin, Kim Jong Un, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump has repeatedly asked whether the US can use its nukes. If that isn't a dangerous person, I don't know who is.

The thing is the president isn't as powerful as he's perceived to be. Theres no way he'd get the appropriate backing from within to deal with Russia, N. Korea or whatever other fucked up country.

However, Clinton with her allies will gladly nuke whatever nation for the fuck of it and get supported, example: Libya.

Now you tell me who's more dangerous, an impotent cult hero or a psychotic woman with an unquenchable thirst for foreign interventions, not to mention she has all the necessary backings within the country and outside.

- - - Updated - - -

If anything Trump will cause irreparable division within the nation. :xfinger:

50 new countries :xfinger:

 

[campionesidd]

The thing is the president isn't as powerful as he's perceived to be. Theres no way he'd get the appropriate backing from within to deal with Russia, N. Korea or whatever other fucked up country.

However, Clinton with her allies will gladly nuke whatever nation for the fuck of it and get supported, example: Libya.

Now you tell me who's more dangerous, an impotent cult hero or a psychotic woman with an unquenchable thirst for foreign interventions, not to mention she has all the necessary backings within the country and outside.

- - - Updated - - -

If anything Trump will cause irreparable division within the nation. :xfinger:

50 new countries :xfinger:

If you want the US to fail miserably, obviously you'd want Trump to win.

 

[Enron]

actually i disapprove of any soldiers in another country if it's not for a war.
Cause it's a treat to that country national security.
See what happened in centre-America how someone screwed poor peoples so bad.
Or like how people in Sicily don't want that american military structure which is bad for health and so on.
Tell me what's the point to deploy 13k soldiers in Italy, 30k in Germany and 50k in Japan uhu? uhu? we're in 2016

Our troops are there based on the agreements after the defeats of Germany, Italy and Japan in WWII. So its not like we decided to just put em there one day.

But I agree it is time for a downsize in Europe. We also have troops in England and bases in Spain. But Japan probably is a different story since theyve only been able to have standing army recently.

 

[Fr3sh]

If you want the US to fail miserably, obviously you'd want Trump to win.

Essentially what am trying to say is that a Trump presidency wouldn't be as bad as people make it to be. He'll have the same type of harsh opposition that Obama has received during his tenure at the big seat.

 

[Post Ironic]

The thing is the president isn't as powerful as he's perceived to be. Theres no way he'd get the appropriate backing from within to deal with Russia, N. Korea or whatever other fucked up country.

However, Clinton with her allies will gladly nuke whatever nation for the fuck of it and get supported, example: Libya.

Now you tell me who's more dangerous, an impotent cult hero or a psychotic woman with an unquenchable thirst for foreign interventions, not to mention she has all the necessary backings within the country and outside.

- - - Updated - - -

If anything Trump will cause irreparable division within the nation. :xfinger:

50 new countries :xfinger:

Nah. Congress is republican at the moment, so Trump would have nowhere near the partisanship to deal with that Obama did, or Clinton will likely have.

Aside from this, President isn't all that powerful domestically, but for some reason, Presidential powers are far more unchecked when it comes to foreign policy and military. Trump would be a scary fellow with the keys to the military and the strategic nuclear arsenal.

That sort of pandering populism is a dangerous sign, and it has generally led to quite terrible leaders.

All the same, if he does get elected, while depressing, I shall also find it quite amusing.

 

[Fr3sh]

Nah. Congress is republican at the moment, so Trump would have nowhere near the partisanship to deal with that Obama did, or Clinton will likely have.

Aside from this, President isn't all that powerful domestically, but for some reason, Presidential powers are far more unchecked when it comes to foreign policy and military. Trump would be a scary fellow with the keys to the military and the strategic nuclear arsenal.

That sort of pandering populism is a dangerous sign, and it has generally led to quite terrible leaders.

All the same, if he does get elected, while depressing, I shall also find it quite amusing.

Didn't know about that tbh. Thought the president was regulated just as much when it came to exterior affairs.

When it comes to opposition, I still do think that the Congress would not being doing Trump any favors whether it's Republican or Democratic, dude has waaaay to many enemies not to mention the Republican party is going to quite some lengths to separate themselves from Trump.

Like you said will be amusing nonetheless

 

[Post Ironic]

Didn't know about that tbh. Thought the president was regulated just as much when it came to exterior affairs.

When it comes to opposition, I still do think that the Congress would not being doing Trump any favors whether it's Republican or Democratic, dude has waaaay to many enemies not to mention the Republican party is going to quite some lengths to separate themselves from Trump.

Like you said will be amusing nonetheless

Most president's have expanded Presidential powers, for the last 50+ years. Especially in Foreign policy. Here's a good article on it:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/power-and-the-presidency-from-kennedy-to-obama-75335897/?all

A brief excerpt:

In meeting the challenges of his time, Kennedy sharply expanded the power of the presidency, particularly in foreign affairs. The 50th anniversary of his inauguration highlights the consequences—for him, for his successors and for the American people.


To be sure, the President’s control over foreign affairs had been growing since the Theodore Roosevelt administration (and still grows today). TR’s acquisition of the Panama Canal Zone preceded Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter World War I, which was a prelude to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s management of the run-up to the victorious American effort in World War II. In the 1950s, Harry S. Truman’s response to the Soviet threat included the decision to fight in Korea without a Congressional declaration of war, and Dwight Eisenhower used the Central Intelligence Agency and brinksmanship to contain Communism. Nineteenth-century presidents had had to contend with Congressional influences in foreign affairs, and particularly with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But by the early 1960s, the president had become the undisputed architect of U.S. foreign policy.

One reason for this was the emergence of the United States as a great power with global obligations. Neither Wilson nor FDR could have imagined taking the country to war without a Congressional declaration, but the exigencies of the cold war in the 1950s heightened the country’s reliance on the president to defend its interests. Truman could enter the Korean conflict without having to seek Congressional approval simply by describing the deployment of U.S. troops as a police action taken in conjunction with the United Nations.

 

[Fr3sh]