Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

Yet another Republic senator calls for death of HRC

Bush Sr voting for HRC

Bush Jr rumored to be voting for HRC

Glenn Beck voting for HRC

What the fuck is going on...

fucking Alt-Right trying to bring literal fascism to America

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:13 AM, Rubin Farr said:

How is a looming trial not hurting him more than it is? This world is upside down.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-campaign-should-be-fair-game-in-trump-university-trial-lawyers/ar-AAjLfTY

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:38 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 11/3/2016 at 8:11 PM, ignatius said:

 

  On 11/3/2016 at 7:09 PM, DerWaschbar said:

this always rly bothered me:

 

 

but at least libya is now a peaceful democracy

 

 

bothered me too. and qadafi was basically used because they didn't want to mix it up w/syria.

 

 

gaddafi was on a campaign of massacring his own people when the united nations voted to impose a no-fly zone. arab spring protests threatened gaddafi's rule so he responded by having his men machine-gun protesters and bomb them from the air. he had begun a sweep of the entire country to enforce submission by literally scouring all inhabited areas and killing anyone showing a hint of opposition. take a look at some news stories from the first quarter of 2011.

 

has nothing to do the vileness of Hilarity's comments there or her attitude to the situation.

Let's all take a moment of silence for Gaddafi, man of the people

(Net worth: $200 billion)

He got what he deserved.

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:38 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 11/3/2016 at 8:11 PM, ignatius said:

 

  On 11/3/2016 at 7:09 PM, DerWaschbar said:

this always rly bothered me:

 

but at least libya is now a peaceful democracy

 

 

bothered me too. and qadafi was basically used because they didn't want to mix it up w/syria. 

 

 

gaddafi was on a campaign of massacring his own people when the united nations voted to impose a no-fly zone. arab spring protests threatened gaddafi's rule so he responded by having his men machine-gun protesters and bomb them from the air. he had begun a sweep of the entire country to enforce submission by literally scouring all inhabited areas and killing anyone showing a hint of opposition. take a look at some news stories from the first quarter of 2011.

 

will do.

i know he was a terrible person but he was courted by the west for a bit there and tony blair even visited showing him as some kind of example.. then when it served a purpose "hey let's kill that guy".  it's typical and standard operating procedure for dictators who are in favor one minute then out of favor the next. we treated sadam the same way. we let him do what he wanted for a while then he went further than he was allowed. 

edit:  not saying it's not good thing that he's gone.. just saying.. the west uses/abuses any foreign government it has ability to.  USA has supported many awful people then decided later it was inconvenient and taken them out for better or worse.. 

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

We refreshed the Tree of Liberty tho

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, usagi said:

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

part of me thinks it's sort of their plan to make a mess of the middle east as a way of keeping it suppressed but other part of me knows they don't really have a plan that's more than 2 parts when it should be 50 part plan.

unintended consequences etc. "we'll take out the oppressor and then they'll become a peace loving democracy"  derp. 

best thing we could've done was do nothing 70 years ago and let the place find its own destiny. same w/iran/saudi/etc etc ad nauseam 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:58 AM, doublename said:

We refreshed the Tree of Liberty tho

we've been doing that for so long even when we don't have to.. we do it just in case. 

  On 11/3/2016 at 8:58 PM, Djeroek said:

 

  On 11/3/2016 at 8:40 PM, Joyrex said:

I thought the (13 years old at the time) girl reportedly raped by Trump was going to have a press conference yesterday about it?

 

Prolly shit, only reported on rumor sites? Like, what about the press conference from Bill Clinton's son;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YKZQQSpf1w

 

I must say the Jerry Springer vibe from this election is hella entertaining. 

 

this is amazing, real life is getting much better than scripted television (it always was imo)

this shit is crazy. worrisome. fragile. wtf. we could've had bernie. 

just want to apologize to the rest of humanity for america.. regardless of who wins.. we're going to be even more unbearable for quite some time. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-clintons-position-is-worse-than-obamas/

  Quote

There’s been a potential breach of Hillary Clinton’s electoral firewall. And it’s come in New Hampshire, a state that we said a couple of weeks agocould be a good indicator of a Donald Trump comeback because of its large number of swing voters. Three new polls of New Hampshire released today showed a tied race, Trump ahead by 1 percentage point and Trump up by 5. There are some qualifications here: The poll showing Trump with a 5-point lead is from American Research Group, a pollster that’s had its issues over the years. And other recent polls of New Hampshire still show a Clinton ahead. But the race has clearly tightened in New Hampshire, with Clinton leading by only 2 to 3 percentage points in our forecast.

If Clinton lost New Hampshire but won her other firewall states, each candidate would finish with 269 electoral votes, taking the election to the House of Representatives. Or maybe not — if Clinton also lost the 2nd Congressional District of Maine, where polls show a tight race and where the demographics are unfavorable to her, Trump would win the Electoral College 270-268, probably despite losing the popular vote.

Couldn’t Clinton win Nevada to make up for the loss of New Hampshire? Or Florida? Or North Carolina? Well… of course she could. All those states remain highly competitive. The point, as we’ve said before, is just that Clinton’s so-called firewall is not very robust. If you’re only ahead in exactlyenough states to win the Electoral College, and you’d lose if any one of themgets away, that’s less of a firewall and more of a rusting, chain-link fence.

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, usagi said:

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

it wasn't american intervention. it was the UN.

  On 11/4/2016 at 3:57 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, usagi said:

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

it wasn't american intervention. it was the UN.

splitting hairs is fun. actually it was NATO, the UN has no power to "intervene" on the ground. guess which is the most powerful and influential state in the NATO coalition.

  On 11/4/2016 at 4:15 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 3:57 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, usagi said:

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

it wasn't american intervention. it was the UN.

splitting hairs is fun. actually it was NATO, the UN has no power to "intervene" on the ground. guess which is the most powerful and influential state in the NATO coalition.

 

obama actually insisted that the united states not lead the effort.

france and britain were very vocal about intervening ahead of the vote. a number of middle eastern countries were demanding that the un act to intervene.

mm.

regardless.. it'll all end in tears. 

then the memes will come. 

  On 11/4/2016 at 4:23 AM, ignatius said:

regardless.. it'll all end in tears. 

 

then the memes will cum. 

a mob sodomized him with a bayonet lol

  On 11/4/2016 at 4:29 AM, DerWaschbar said:

a mob sodomized him with a bayonet lol

the look on his face when they cut his head off!  totally classic. 

Almost unbelievable, but there's a piece on HRC's proposed policies. Yeah, really. Policies! Nothing about emails or het supposed character, or health even. Just the policies.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/3/13318750/hillary-clinton-vision-government

  Quote

Hillary Clinton often gets described as an incrementalist, with a relatively modest agenda. This makes sense, given that she spent the past two years or so running against a literal democratic socialist and Donald Trump.

 

But this depiction misleads more than it informs. Amid her blizzard of plans and white papers, the scope and ambition of Clinton’s program often gets missed. Just imagine, for a second, what a world in which it all became law would look like.

  On 11/4/2016 at 4:15 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 3:57 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, usagi said:

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

it wasn't american intervention. it was the UN.

 

splitting hairs is fun. actually it was NATO, the UN has no power to "intervene" on the ground. guess which is the most powerful and influential state in the NATO coalition.

 

Wait, then what does UNATCO do?

  On 11/4/2016 at 9:39 AM, triachus said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 4:15 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 3:57 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, usagi said:

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

it wasn't american intervention. it was the UN.

 

splitting hairs is fun. actually it was NATO, the UN has no power to "intervene" on the ground. guess which is the most powerful and influential state in the NATO coalition.

 

Wait, then what does UNATCO do?

 

Things that were never asked for.

lol Don't know if this is true but it sure is funny

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states

  On 11/4/2016 at 11:45 AM, kloffy said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 9:39 AM, triachus said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 4:15 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 3:57 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, usagi said:

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

it wasn't american intervention. it was the UN.

 

splitting hairs is fun. actually it was NATO, the UN has no power to "intervene" on the ground. guess which is the most powerful and influential state in the NATO coalition.

 

Wait, then what does UNATCO do?

 

Things that were never asked for.

 

Deus Ex reference, nice. Blast from the past.

  On 11/4/2016 at 3:14 AM, ignatius said:

 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:55 AM, usagi said:

nah, let's shitpost instead about how he was a terrible human being which somehow justifies a cavalier attitude to American intervention. self-interested intervention which ends at simply removing him without doing anything to support and build up the country in his absence.

 

 

part of me thinks it's sort of their plan to make a mess of the middle east as a way of keeping it suppressed but other part of me knows they don't really have a plan that's more than 2 parts when it should be 50 part plan.

 

unintended consequences etc. "we'll take out the oppressor and then they'll become a peace loving democracy"  derp. 

 

best thing we could've done was do nothing 70 years ago and let the place find its own destiny. same w/iran/saudi/etc etc ad nauseam 

  On 11/4/2016 at 2:58 AM, doublename said:

We refreshed the Tree of Liberty tho

 

we've been doing that for so long even when we don't have to.. we do it just in case. 

 

I'm probably more cynical, realpolitik tolerant watmmers but I have to admit even today the lynch mob-esque killing of Gaddafi was fucked up. His rein of Libya, relationship with the west, and legacy as a dictator is long and complicated. (copied from a reply within a post i made on reddit)

TBH I feel uneasy about that being his fate. He was ousted out of power long after his worst abuses and ironically not as he became more distant and dangerous to the world, but right after his most cooperative era with the West. Yes the guy was about as bad as most cold war era eccentric and dangerous dictators get and I'm by no means a Qaddafi apologist, but the way the US and EU help kill him was a bit cheap. Despite all the shit he pulled in the 80s as a terror sponsor and warmonger in Africa he was a key collaborator with the US after 9/11: our relations warmed tremendously and he actively and voluntarily disarmed his WMD program. The same man the Reagan administration tried to kill in an airstrike was literally handshaking Bush in 2003. He became very close to the EU as an oil supplier and economic partner...and the West literally pulled a 180 on him when the Arab Spring occurred. The same man who was being courted and escorted to VIP functions in Italy by their PM was being attacked from NATO jets flying out of Italy just years later.

I would of preferred to see him tried at Hague. Hell, even a sham trial and hanging would of been more apt. Instead NATO jets literally pinned him down to a highway culvert so a NTC lead mob could sodomize and humiliate him as he was killed. That's no way to transition from despot rule to a fledgling democracy, even in the context of an armed revolution, and feel any sense of pride and justice. In a greater context, if were to really intervene in the Arab Spring in 2011 for moral reasons, it would of been in Syria, not Libya, but the latter was a more apt opportunity for the West. I know realpolitik is what rules as policy in the middle east for strategic and pragmatic reasons, and the brutal way that Gaddafi was killed was essentially the means to an end of a historically brutal dictatorship in an oil rich North African country, but it's still a hard pill to swallow.

^

TLDR: Intervention in Libya involved the West literally ousting one of the most "reformed" dictators in existence, even if he was a eccentric and bombastic statesman. It was arguably a betrayal, quasi-assassination, and intervention of convenience.