RugbyRebels

He's going to do it isn't he?

I know there's some way to go before the presidential elections but I can see him calling the White House his second home very soon.

And then i'll call a bunker in Ukrainian farmland my home, as I prepare for WW3.

Less sure now - just whacked £20 on Rubio now Bush has pulled out. Cruz and Trump are vying for the same voters and will split them so long as Cruz stays in the race.

The establishment will rally around Rubio now and he will pick up Bush, Kascich and Carson's votes as the drop out much sooner.

I'm more concerned that b*tch over on the democratic side is rallying.

Zhivago wrote:And then i'll call a bunker in Ukrainian farmland my home, as I prepare for WW3.

Trump is less likely to take the US to war than Cruz, Clinton or Rubio are.

jared_7 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:And then i'll call a bunker in Ukrainian farmland my home, as I prepare for WW3.

Trump is less likely to take the US to war than Cruz, Clinton or Rubio are.

But he is a lot less sane. Which is why WW3 starts to be on the table.

Zhivago wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:And then i'll call a bunker in Ukrainian farmland my home, as I prepare for WW3.

Trump is less likely to take the US to war than Cruz, Clinton or Rubio are.

But he is a lot less sane. Which is why WW3 starts to be on the table.

Trump is an idiot, a bigot, and dangerous to the minorities and less priveleged of the US, but I think he shoots from the hip and will actually be quite an insular president.

Cruz scares me, he is actually psychopathic - a religious, rights-driven crusade in the Middle East is far more likely. Clinton will go to war because it's in her DNA.

They're all scary, really. Other than Sanders who I really like.

jared_7 wrote:They're all scary, really. Other than Sanders who I really like.

This is true.

Trump will close the borders and will hurt US trade

Might have said this on the old board, but I think the biggest danger re Trump is that he makes some fairly mental US politicians look reasonable/middle ground or a safe option.

jared_7 wrote:Less sure now - just whacked £20 on Rubio now Bush has pulled out. Cruz and Trump are vying for the same voters and will split them so long as Cruz stays in the race.

The establishment will rally around Rubio now and he will pick up Bush, Kascich and Carson's votes as the drop out much sooner.

I'm more concerned that b*tch over on the democratic side is rallying.

Rubio seems the more normal of the Republican candidates.

jared_7 wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
Trump is less likely to take the US to war than Cruz, Clinton or Rubio are.

But he is a lot less sane. Which is why WW3 starts to be on the table.

Trump is an idiot, a bigot, and dangerous to the minorities and less priveleged of the US, but I think he shoots from the hip and will actually be quite an insular president.

Cruz scares me, he is actually psychopathic - a religious, rights-driven crusade in the Middle East is far more likely. Clinton will go to war because it's in her DNA.

Cruz does a better job of hiding the insanity.

Bob wrote:Trump will close the borders and will hurt US trade

It's the pursuit of free trade deals that has screwed the west over. NAFTA was a nightmare, all their industry has moved to China, every single leading candidate - Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders and Trump - have denounced the ongoing TTIP/TPPA/etc... deals. They don't want them.

Cheap Levi's and iPhones isn't worth the undercutting of wages and loss of jobs.

Trump is the least likely to start WW3 of all, including Sanders.

Sandydragon wrote:

jared_7 wrote: Rubio seems the more normal of the Republican candidates.

To me he has rather the look of having been designed and assembled by a committee trying to construct a politician. Kasich seems the most normal of the Rs to me, but he's not going to win.

I'm not sure that any candidate, if elected, would be likely to start WWIII, but they may well get caught up in it.

If there is a major conflict, then it might come about because of the tricky spot Turkey has got itself into. Its civil war against its own Kurds could expand into Syrian Kurdistan (which could become a more real entity as a result of the current Syrian situation) and Iraqi Kurdistan (tacitly backed by US arms). Any military ambitions in Syria will inevitably raise tensions further with Russia as will Russia's continuing designs to the north and east of the Black Sea. Turkey's membership of NATO means that the US and Western European powers will find it difficult not to get engaged, but the US in particularly will also be keeping an eye on its responsibilities in Iraqi Kurdistan. The US president could find him or herself between the hard place of backing a Muslim-majority country with neo-Ottomanist territorial aims in the Middle East and the rock of supporting the old foe of Russia (or at least not opposing it, which is of course the US tradition at the start of World Wars). China will remain inscrutable.

Lizard wrote:I'm not sure that any candidate, if elected, would be likely to start WWIII, but they may well get caught up in it.

If there is a major conflict, then it might come about because of the tricky spot Turkey has got itself into. Its civil war against its own Kurds could expand into Syrian Kurdistan (which could become a more real entity as a result of the current Syrian situation) and Iraqi Kurdistan (tacitly backed by US arms). Any military ambitions in Syria will inevitably raise tensions further with Russia as will Russia's continuing designs to the north and east of the Black Sea. Turkey's membership of NATO means that the US and Western European powers will find it difficult not to get engaged, but the US in particularly will also be keeping an eye on its responsibilities in Iraqi Kurdistan. The US president could find him or herself between the hard place of backing a Muslim-majority country with neo-Ottomanist territorial aims in the Middle East and the rock of supporting the old foe of Russia (or at least not opposing it, which is of course the US tradition at the start of World Wars). China will remain inscrutable.

Russia has no 'designs' north and east of the Black Sea. The neocons do. They're also pumping up Erdogan to do something stupid.

And moving a lot of troops and equipment into the excitable and arguably fascist Eastern European colonies bordering Russia. And stirring up ethnic tensions again.

None of it is accidental. These are clear provocations.

The Kurdish elite seem to be endlessly gullible pawns.

Did I imagine Russia's annexation of Crimea, or did I imagine that it's north of the Black Sea?

Lizard wrote:Did I imagine Russia's annexation of Crimea, or did I imagine that it's north of the Black Sea?

Oh don't be stupid.

It didn't happen in a sans neocon vacuum.

I didn't say anything about the context, or the rights or wrongs of it. But it did happen, and countries don't tend to annex bits of other countries more or less overnight without some sort of designs as to that territory (even if those designs were implanted in their head by a neocon conspiracy).

Mind you, most countries haven't had bits of them given away by drunk premiers either.

Lizard wrote:I didn't say anything about the context, or the rights or wrongs of it. But it did happen, and countries don't tend to annex bits of other countries more or less overnight without some sort of designs as to that territory (even if those designs were implanted in their head by a neocon conspiracy).

Mind you, most countries haven't had bits of them given away by drunk premiers either.

You implied the wrong of it. You clearly stated that Russia 'has designs'. Like it isn't reacting to NATO provocations and designs.

They weren't 'implanted in their head by a neocon conspiracy'.

To make light of what the US did in Ukraine as you do is childlike. That was an extraordinary provocation.

Is there nothing the USA and it idiot satraps can do that is just plain immoral and wrong in your mind?

What is wrong with you? Do you have no sense whatsoever of right and wrong? Just teams that you support blindly?

Those questions are rhetorical btw. I know the answers. I know what you are.

Dude. Chill. I'm not taking sides on it. If you inferred I was, you're wrong.

Fuck, I'm glad I didn't mention South Ossetia...

Lizard wrote:Dude. Chill. I'm not taking sides on it. If you inferred I was, you're wrong.

Fuck, I'm glad I didn't mention South Ossetia...

You are taking sides. Maybe you need to review the language you use.

Are you saying that Russia formally annexed the territory of another state without ever having any "designs" at all on that territory?

Actually, you know what? I don't care. I've better shit to do than argue with someone so keen to disagree that they have to tell me what my own state of mind is.

Bye.

Fine by me.

Anyways why hasn't Bernie contested the results in Iowa or Nevada?

He's starting to look like a Gore or a Kerry.