Has TS suggested Cuckold Trump yet?

You're probably right. But I still have trouble understanding how you think Trump could possibly be a better president than Hillary.

.

Mr. T








/ thread

There is no strong indication he will be. But remember, we are thinking about who would be less worse, which is always trickier to think about. I think Hillary was much more like to start a nuclear war with Russia. I know that's not so much on people's minds right now. In the public mind the cold war is over. Really, it never ended. Now, the tensions with Russia are the hottest flashpoint going. That crazed witch could have done anything. Trump's warmth toward Russia is actually a good thing on net.

When it comes to the economy, Trumps paranoia and ignorance could actually be to the world's benefit. I doubt he will positively help anything, but I also think he will function as something of a break on neoliberalism as we know it whereas Hillary wanted nothing more than to mash her foot on the accelerator. She is the representative of the corporate elites. These are people with no country, no values, and under Hillary they would have effectively no checks on their power. I would rather fight racists in the streets, if it came to that, than let that nasty woman absolutely crush what is left of labor in this country.

The media ignores that the Defcon nuclear warning was rising rapidly as tensions increased with Russia, and went back to its lowest level on Trump's election. Honestly, that could be more important than anything else Trump does. Heightened states of alert and antagonism and paranoia lead to mistakes, and it only takes one by one person to start a nuclear war.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...5-safest-level

Clinton is an angry, self-interested hard liner with a habit of badly underestimating her enemies and badly misunderstanding reality. No one like that should get anywhere the White House.

If protecting the Eastern bloc from Putin means a return to the cold war, count me in. Do you think Trump will be labor friendly? Do you think Hill would be as much of a threat to our 1st Amendment rights?

.


ok OP, when does the voting start for best nickname please?

Deuce is this your view?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...090634539.html

Mr Precedent.

nice, that's nice

PeeOTUS

President Goldwater

Rainy Day Man

Franpissco Franco

George Splashington

Number One

Trickle Don Economics

His Incontinency

Amerileech Stomper

USA#1 Preserver

SJW Annihilator

Man Resurrector

Peesonit Don Dumps.

Old Yeller

His Majesty Tinkle von Strumpets

Sourpuss

Squirting with Disaster

Slippery when wet.

Pee Wee Hair-Man

thread title is "workshopping names" not "worshiping names"

I can see how someone like you might confuse the two. Don't worry, once we gut education in America, your illiteracy won't stand out.

PeeCzar

would get the additional benefit of calling this whole fiasco PeeCzarGate

Urine Greyjoy

Easy D deserves to be mentioned.

Also, TIL in China, Trump is referred to as Chuan Pu.

Free speech country, right?

When speaking formally, "President Rump", of course
or more socially, "The Rump"
or "The Rumpster" by his close friends

Easy re-election campaign slogan for 2020: "Don't put the Trumpster in the Dumpster"

Did you read that? That is an article critical of both Chomsky and Zizek's views. Did you mean to ask me if I feel the same way about their views as the author? I think you meant do I agree with Zizek, and think that Trump will be the catalyst for deeper reorganization that we desperately need so therefore vote for Trump.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is the thing that got us here, to the point where we are choosing between the most disliked people ever to run- 1 and 2 - think about how many different slots for these positions there are over the years and how many combos are possible. What are the odds of having candidates that awful running at the same time? Always voting for the lesser of two evils seems pretty exploitable. I think the only way to interrupt that exploitation is to introduce a lot of uncertainty into the process, for example, large numbers of people just voting their conscious.

I think the analogy I came up with in the Trump thread is the best one I have yet heard: If someone has you captured and you know they are driving you to the woods to shoot you are bury you in a shallow grave, you should crash the car if you can. You might die in the crash, but you might also live, whereas if you just sit there and let Hillary drive you into the woods you will definitely die.

No fan of Hilary but she was right about Russia and this stuff about nuclear war is nonsense. She always behaved in a greedy, amoral, calculating but ultimately rational manner. Russia will **** with you if it thinks it can get away with it-you are in more danger than ever when you lose their respect.

I don't think people in the US understand how bad the Ukraine situation is. It has two enormous problems:

1) It proves that when the US tells someone that they will defend them, they can't be trusted. The US electorate is incredibly ignorant of this. Other nations notice. For example, you'll note that Pence's admonition to NATO was met with hollow laughter. That's because no one trusts the US any more, even in generally pro-us countries of which there are fewer everyday.

Obama's position on Ukraine was weak, but he was at least doing something. Trump's position is betrayal.

2) It proves that when a country gives up its nukes it will get ****ed. Nuclearl proliferation is the greatest threat to the world, and again the US electorate seems to be entirely ignorant of how much danger Trump's pro-Russian stance is. You would have to be an idiot to give up your nukes now.