I voted for Trump so I could watch scared retards like you squirm and make excuses about why Hillary lost. And so I could be right.Losers lose and crybabies cry. Still waiting on those who promised to leave the country and welched on their bets.
I don't like it, but I'm more concerned about trump filling his cabinet with corrupt looters who are about to use their governmental positions to just enrich themselves at the working class' expense than I am about being friendly with putin.With that said, anyone who just wants to toss this under the rug without an investigation has no place in political office.
I don't like it, but I'm more concerned about trump filling his cabinet with corrupt looters who are about to use their governmental positions to just enrich themselves at the working class' expense than I am about being friendly with putin.With that said, anyone who just wants to toss this under the rug without an investigation has no place in political office. I think there needs to be more investigations into Benghazi. That was the real crime.
Even if this was true, have you come equipped with an argument as to why this would be a bad thing?
Even if this was true, have you come equipped with an argument as to why this would be a bad thing? Do we need our resident history major @ThomasFremont to enlighten you on the consequences of a divided Europe? Please list the # of major power conflicts that have occurred in the post-war era, I'll wait.
I voted for Trump to see you cry, and it worked. He won bitch...
Whether you voted for Trump because you dislike Obama/Hillary, dislike the establishment, think he will actually bring back manufacturing jobs, or any other (stupid) reason, you were a useful idiot playing your part in a Russian intelligence operation to undermine the post-WWII western democratic order. Great fucking work, guys.
I voted for Trump to see you cry, and it worked. He won bitch... It's a better reason than thinking he has policies.
Even if this was true, have you come equipped with an argument as to why this would be a bad thing? Do we need our resident history major @ThomasFremont to enlighten you on the consequences of a divided Europe? Please list the # of major power conflicts that have occurred in the post-war era, I'll wait. Do you mean the conflict that would have been between nuclear powers and destroyed the world? I don't think France or the UK could be considered major powers, as the Suez crisis made clear, nor could a divided Germany. So the only major power conflict would have been between the USSR and the USA and we would all be dead now. I mean it did not prevent the horrible wars in Serbia, the Greek coup and Turkish invasion of Cyprus, nor the current conflict in Ukraine. It is not like Europe has been "violence and war free".
Even if this was true, have you come equipped with an argument as to why this would be a bad thing? Do we need our resident history major @ThomasFremont to enlighten you on the consequences of a divided Europe? Please list the # of major power conflicts that have occurred in the post-war era, I'll wait. Do you mean the conflict that would have been between nuclear powers and destroyed the world? I don't think France or the UK could be considered major powers, as the Suez crisis made clear, nor could a divided Germany. So the only major power conflict would have been between the USSR and the USA and we would all be dead now. I mean it did not prevent the horrible wars in Serbia, the Greek coup and Turkish invasion of Cyprus, nor the current conflict in Ukraine. It is not like Europe has been "violence and war free". You answered your own querey. Major conflict between the US and USSR was avoided because the liberal western order was able to hold as a result of NATO and effective nuclear deterrence (France and Britain are nuclear armed as well, FYI). The side skirmishes are abhorrent but preferable to Napoleon's conquest and both World Wars, which left tens of millions dead.The point is that a collapse of this order, which Putin prefers and with Trump potentially obliging, destabilizes the balance of power in the international system and increases the likelihood of major power conflict.
Even if this was true, have you come equipped with an argument as to why this would be a bad thing? Do we need our resident history major @ThomasFremont to enlighten you on the consequences of a divided Europe? Please list the # of major power conflicts that have occurred in the post-war era, I'll wait. Do you mean the conflict that would have been between nuclear powers and destroyed the world? I don't think France or the UK could be considered major powers, as the Suez crisis made clear, nor could a divided Germany. So the only major power conflict would have been between the USSR and the USA and we would all be dead now. I mean it did not prevent the horrible wars in Serbia, the Greek coup and Turkish invasion of Cyprus, nor the current conflict in Ukraine. It is not like Europe has been "violence and war free". You answered your own querey. Major conflict between the US and USSR was avoided because the liberal western order was able to hold as a result of NATO and effective nuclear deterrence (France and Britain are nuclear armed as well, FYI). The side skirmishes are abhorrent but preferable to Napoleon's conquest and both World Wars, which left tens of millions dead.The point is that a collapse of this order, which Putin prefers and with Trump potentially obliging, destabilizes the balance of power in the international system and increases the likelihood of major power conflict. I guess my point is part of the reason there was no major conflict was because of the threat of nuclear war and not necessarily because of a sustainable world order (that is, without nuclear weapons, war might have broken out). Indeed, while the West was aligned against the Soviets, there was hardly consensus (France actually withdrew from NATO in 1966, and part of the reason for UK/French nuclear weapons is because neither county thought they could depend on the US in case of a Soviet invasion). And if what made Europe stable was a large Soviet block, then the Russia should be allowed to exert control over the spheres of influence that it had during the soviet union, since the current order in Europe is radically different from post-1945 Europe. I am certainly with you on the dangers of the US backing away from collective defense, in that it would invite Russian intrusion (more so than is already happening) into the Baltic, but part of the problem is that Russia is in tension with German/EU expansion, just like it was in WWI and WWII. There was actually a long period of peace after the Napoleonic wars which began to unravel with the rise of the unified German state. In many ways the expansion of the EU into the post-Soviet block could be seen as something similar.
