He supports any democratic nominee no matter what. The republicans also have journalists who blindly support them and I find them just as ridiculous.
Why do you think he supports the democratic nominee no matter what? He has been quite critical of Hillary this time round.
Yep, TCAP was from Hansen’s time with NBC. He’s now got an all new show - “Hansen vs Predator”. Howlingly entertaining is that! 
Here is the video of him going after Hillary. You clearly haven’t seen it. I don’t see how the decision to vote for hillary to prevent a donald trump presidency can be thought of merely as “partisan hackery”. Why People Don't Trust Hillary Clinton - YouTube
This is what is so frustrating about the politics of foreign policy. The general population is simply too uniformed to see the full picture. It’s just far too complicated for the average person to reach productive conclusions. Therefore, the validity of publicly stated policy proposals on Syria is hard to make sense of. The reality is there are no good military solutions for outside actors in Syria. However, Hillary clinton did not say that “the geneva convention is the problem”, “bring back torture even if it doesn’t work”, and “you have to go after their families” in regard to Bombing Isis.
::Brace for impact::
As a learner of English, this campaign is a delight, realy. Both Hirally Clinton and Donald Trump are articulate (and entertaining, when it comes to Trump) and I have no trouble to hear what de say. Even their running mates are articulate. I can sit hours and listen to their speeches and debates or interviews.
I can equaly sit hours and watch, time and time again, comedy sketches from Saturday Night Live (on YouTube). These sketches about Hirally and Trump are hilarious and compelling!
I applegize to say that this presidential campaign is rich in comprehensible inputs.
She emphasized that any no fly zone would be achieved through diplomacy. She is far less likely to act on her own impulses than Trump. Will likely work closely with allies and have better relations with Merkel and others than Trump could achieve. International community is already involved in Syria and in “upsetting” Putin, and this will continue. Makes more sense than Trump’s idea of “grabbing Iraqi oil” as payment for US troops.
I still find it mind boggling that anybody takes his “policy” propositions serious. The things that come out of his mouth are laughably ignorant. I can’t believe that it’s even being discussed. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills when I find myself in a discussion with his fans. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if he ran for principal of my local high school… Yet here he is within 2 points of leading the most powerful nation on the globe.
How has he not been disqualified at this point? Am I missing something? Does the Republican Party know something I don’t?
The politica of Russia is like in psychiatric hospital. Without the vodka impossible to understand.
I prefer Donald to Hillary, Bernie to both of them and Vladimir to all of them.
Ah, a big fan of oligarchy then? Go super rich boys, go!
I think that part of it is because Trump and Putin have similar political stances and foreign policies.
Donald Trump might want to make friends with Putin, as he has complemented him, and they seem very similar to me. This is in contrast with America supporting Syrian rebels and Kurds. If Trump gets elected, one thing is for sure: things will get weird.
This Syrian war sounds like something out of the cold war: The Russians supporting a group that is fighting a group supported by the Americans. Somewhat similar to the Vietnam and Korean wars, and that is NOT a good thing. I am simply stating my opinion, and not trying to make a statement about foreign policy. This is a scary dilemma. If America supports the Syrian Rebels more, than there are more tensions between America and Russia, but if they don’t, than the Syrian rebels might loose to the Assad Regime, which would be a horrific sight.
To state it simply:
-
Being the President is a serious job, therefore, it requires a serious person.
-
Trump is not serious.
-
Therefore, he will probably not be a good president.
(This is not pro Hillary Clinton, I don’t like her either).
It sounds like you’ve listened to too much liberal media. What comes out of his mouth is not ignorance, but truth with some degree of political rhetoric. What makes me say this is that you have absolutely zero examples to back up your claims; in other words, just more nonsense. Please point to specifics before you give shit to a presidential candidate, it’s a little more productive.
As for Steve’s post. I agree that she might be working more closely with what she considers to be allies, but that’s not the problem here. The US has worked closely with allies for many years and the middle east and north-east africa is in a worse situation than ever and this is mostly at the cost of the people in the area and American’s lives and American tax payers money. Trump wants to change this by giving other countries more responsibilities and America less; he does not want the US to be the world police any longer.
Hillary’s wish to fight against Assad, put up no-fly zones - Russia wont agree with it -, arm Kurd rebels (which can create serious tension with Turkey) and others, and so on. Hillary’s foreign policy is a disaster compared to Trump.
I don’t agree with all of Trump’s domestic policies such as his protectionism, but as a whole he has the most appropriate policies to make America great again: lower taxes and less meaningless regulation, simplifying/reducing social security spending and so on.
Actually, I listen to a lot of conservative media. I am a fan of Mark Levin.
Okay, sorry, I will give examples to back up my claim.
-
In a country that began partially because of religious freedom, Trump wants to ban Muslims. I agree that we need better national security, but banning a people based on their religion is absurd. Even if he changed his mind, what he said is stupid. Remember this is coming from a presidential candidate.
-
He wants to build a wall. . He says Mexico is going to pay for it because they owe us debt. To show how crazy this is, this is like China saying that they are making a wall (I know they already have one) and having us pay for it immediately because we owe them debt.
-
He says Mexicans are bringing crime and rape. This is a stupid and offensive generalization, and one that isn’t even accurate.
-
He threatens to sue people a lot often for invalid reasons.
-
He blames the Obama administration for pulling out of Iraq too quick, creating a vacuum that Isis would fill. He forgot that George Bush was the one who went in there in the first place, and thus is partially to blame.
-
He is straight up mean. He called Rosie O’Donnell “Crude, rude, obnoxious, and dumb.” He compared Ted Cruz’s wife to his wife, and supposed that Ted Cruz’s father may have been involved in the Kennedy assassination. (I am not going to overlook this, Ted Cruz has also said mean things about Donald Trump, except that they were probably true).
We will probably have to disagree, and thank you for reminding me to back up my claims, as I also find it annoying when people do not back up their claims.
Have a good day : )
Yes good analogies
@Demolitionator I was not actually referring to your claims, but the guy above you but I will reply to your points anyhow.
-
Trump never wanted to “ban muslims”, but rather restrict the inflow of muslims from the middle east, particularly the most crisis-ridden regions. This was also only for a short period of time until we got control over it. I do think restricting immigration from these areas can help reduce the terrorist threat, but obviously it would not eliminate it; how long it would last is ambiguous I agree.
-
I don’t think the wall will be particularly effective, but the idea is not stupid. Having Mexicans pay for it is just a pipedream, trying it does not hurt.
-
Mexicans ARE bringing rape and crime, he never claims that all mexicans do this, but it is clearly a fact that drug lords and the like are coming from Mexico into the US. This is not stupid, but a fact; it can be said differently however.
-
What does “invalid reasons” even mean and what lawsuits are you referring to? As long as the reasons are within the framework of the law, it cannot be said that they are invalid.
-
Bush has zero blame for Obama pulling out early, absolutely zero. He has blame for entering Iraq in the first place, but that is irrelevant in this case as it already happened. Bush is long gone so bringing up is stupid imo
-
Whether what he said was “mean” or not is questionable. I dont know anything about this case other than Trumps statement. The comparison and Cruz’s father being involved are claims that I don’t know anything about so I can’t comment on it. These statements are unnecessary tho, but I don’t think they really matter here.
Imo, what’s important for whether a president is “serious” or not is that he or she intends to commit to the policies he or she is proposing to the public, whether they are proper policies or not is largely irrelevant imo.
I have been watching it. It’s messed up. I am glad that Hansen is doing this stuff again.