RCP: Post-debate polls have Trump leading Clinton by slim margin

Well, I don't know about Hillary being suicidal. But I know I'm not suicidal which is why I don't have Europe's back on this, despite pro-European policies. You wanna do the dance with Russia again? Be my guest, but I got a country to save.

I can see nothing but disaster to come from what is to come. And hey, sometimes I'm wrong. If we can utterly diminish Russia off the map, great. But I have a feeling we're going to be in another European theater. Which means one that could have been, should have been avoided.

 

It could have been the greatest speech that a human being ever delivered and you probably wouldn't have heard a word of it.

I was listening to America's version of Vsesoyuznoye Radio - National Public Radio - and the only thing they broadcast from Trump's speech was a snippet regarding the women who have accused him of groping them. That was it - nothing on his ideas, policy proposals, the contrast between his proposals and that of his opponent - nothing. All you heard is what the Leftist MSM wanted the public to hear.

So, the most likely answer to your question is no, and we'll wind up the most venal politician in America becoming president. The good news is that we'll be moving up from an ANSWERnik traitor to an Alinskyite scofflaw.

FORWARD!!

 

Rasmussen (aka: Karl Rove's dank smelly bunghole) has Trump leading. No one else is that biased or stupid, and the average has Clinton up outside the margin of error. No worries.

 

Get a load of this:

I went on Google News today (Mon. 10/24) and you couldn't even find the LAT poll you mentioned on a web search. I had to go over to Bing News to find it.

Now, I "wonder" how that could possibly happen...

 

I honestly don't understand... How do you imagine Putin's thought process is? "oh gee, they put more troops in latvia, I have now no choice but to start ww3 which will mean the death of myself and all russians". I don't like Putin, but he is not that stupid. Putin's rethoric is tough, but he's bluffing. Russia doesn't have much to bargain with. Putin knows it, western leaders know it. The only ones who don't know it is the western electorate, and the russian electorate. And that is why Putin is spending so much effort telling the western electorate of how strong and scary russia is, and why he is telling the russian electorate how russia is surrounded by enemies. He is manipulating. His goal is really to stay in power, and for that he needs external enemies, but he also needs to keep up the charade of that Russia is actually strong, which is why he needs to scare the western electorate into stopping their leaders from calling his bluff.

 

Funny article. One problem. Florida early voting has not even started till today. So yeah you just posted garbage stats.

 

Assuming Putin's bluffing is very similar to assuming Trump was nothing. And we saw when they took out a large percentage of ISIS, military analysts were amazed at the renewed capabilities of the Russian air force. Remember that Russia has not been involved in any large-scale warfare since Afghanistan. And the world for that matter, hasn't either. The reason the War on Terror is lasting longer, is Western restraint, not the capability of the terrorist organizations.

The Western Powers(Europe included) thinks that plucking off a few leaves means that it's ready to take on the Russian State. You equate their economy with their military. And I'm telling you, that's hubris we will greatly regret.

Now, all is splendid if we can defeat the Russian Military State. Then I'll gladly crown Hillary on her head. She would have accomplished what Hitler, Napoleon and Alexander the Great all failed to do. But even in spite of the Russo loss in WWI, it still wasn't enough to bring down Russia.

I simply have respect for what a powerful country Russia is. And I acknowledge that, in my foreign policy.. A clash with Russia, will destroy two world powers. Not even Reagan himself was prepared to go to the steps that a now seemingly unified Western-Europe front is now ready to go through.

 

The guy is kgb. Putin thus knows the value of deception, and exactly how to do it. he is no idiot. Part of this deception is his "madman" show he's putting on. It is actually a real term used in international studies, for a tactic where you portray yourself as mad and irrational in order to scare potential enemies into paralysis.

Russia took out a large percentage of ISIS?

Chechnya, georgia?

two wars in iraq?

Explain to me how the Russians would be able to keep up in an arms race is they go bankrupt, which they are about to do due to the sanctions and oil price. I tell you: they cannot. Their savings are drying up, and soon they will need to make cuts. When they start cutting into pensions, benefits.. and when inflation hits, and unemployment rises.. How much do you think the ordinary russian is willing to give just so putin can have his fancy weapons? It cannot go on forever, indeed it will soon slow down, and then stagnate, then reverse. We just need to keep up the sanctions and russia will decay by itself. The west is many times more richer than russia.. Their gdp is as big as italy's.. It would be like bankrupting the soviets, except ten times easier. I don't think you realise just how weak russia actually is. I tell you, go look up the statistics yourself, it's very funny tbh. Did you know, for example, that they are not even classed as an industrial economy by the IMF anymore? Yes, it's that bad.

Alexander the great was never anywhere near Russia.

also, Hitler would no doubt have won a 1v1 war against the USSR, but he was fighting a two front war.

And finally, it's not going to be an actual war, so don't worry. I agree that invading russia would be hard. No one suggests we do that though.

See, that is where you, and many others on the right, are VERY wrong. and to be honest, I am very suprised that you (plural) get it this wrong, seeing as conservatives should know their history better, no offence. What Reagan did was to start a massive arms race to bankrupt the USSR. He believed in peace through strength. That is what we should do with russia, and as I've said, it will be much easier this time around. What you are suggesting is, to be blunt, appeasement, and we know how well that works.

 

He made history by single-handedly destroying a major political party in an election cycle they should have won by a landslide - no more, no less.

 

Then it should be easy, right? Well, let's hope for the sake of us all that you're right. It's not appeasement. It's looking to maintain the US Superpower, and it's easier to maintain in peace than war.

Yes, you keep confusing an economic power for a military one.

Let's give a close to home example: The United States. For all intents and purposes, we're sadly a military power. Our economic engine has declined significantly when compared to our previous height of power. Military powers indeed fare less than economic ones in combat. But where Russia lacks in raw economics, she has in her vast spaces and in her Low Asian allies in China/Iran. You are severely underestimating how this battle ground is going to unfold. China isn't going to watch Russia capitulate, and neither is Iran. They want to establish 'their own hegemony'.

It will not be easy to undermine or defeat the Russian regime. You're not going to get the same kind of results than Iran. Iran didn't have the pull to start a colonization effort if it wanted. Russia does. Peace with Russia makes more strategic sense for Ukraine, for the EU and for the US. What we're doing now, is a sad cry for humanity. And we will look back collectively, and those who survive(and advocated for it) will come to feel a deep sense of regret.

I said large-scale wars. Desert Storm wasn't a large scale operation . And even the invasion of Iraq was so poorly planned and executed that we had to do the Surge in order to eventually win that war. The US, by and large hadn't fought large scale operations against a world power since WWII.

In fact, that's the last time ANY country had such a confrontation as we're hypothesizing here. As far as Russia's engagement with Georgia and Ukraine. Russia annexed Crimea(a historic Russian part, and I would be willing to give Putin Crimea if he agreed, as he stated that he wants a neutral Ukraine.) and has since mainly taken defensive positions.

The government in Kiev was a coup and the Ukrainian People now have no true representation. Now that's a more immediate and pressing concern than the Russian stalemate(or neutrality) with Ukraine.

We all want a sovereign Ukraine. If that can be guaranteed, the return of Crimea to Russia is a blimp on the map in the long-term. This isn't me sticking up for Putin. This is me looking at the map and going 'how can we resolve this'. Because unlike Liberal pals around the world, my first preference is to avoid war.

After seeing that the rebels were thrown around, Chancellor Merkel decided to negotiate with the Russians. I pray that such negotiations continue so we can reach a peaceful resolution.

It was bad for the USSR and its client states as well. But in the end, when they had to fight off NS Germany or when they competed with the USA, the Russians(and affiliated members of the USSR) decided that it was better to fight to preserve their country(as we would ours) than to let the 'world' do whatever it wanted with them. And unlike Iran, there are no internal pressures for the Kremlin to change, nor has the Kremlin changed in the past century.

This idea that we can 'change' Russia without a shot, only worked with the pressure of Germany. What exists today, to unite the world to change Russia? Nothing, that's what. On the other hand, should Russia fall than Eurasia/ and Lower Asia will be in the hands of Europe/West for the foreseeable future. That's an easy calculation to make.

So China will respond. Regardless of the fact that China wants to rule Eurasia, China wants to make sure a Eurasia exists to begin with. And that can't happen with a superior West involvement. This is going to escalate, the signs of its escalation are there in Syria, with the jet incident. This is not going to be a cakewalk.

This is going to sound 'low-information', but I'm going to admit I thought he was: Since Russia is known as the 'graveyard of Empires'. Nevertheless, Russia's record on defeating would-be invaders is impressive.

Not to get too much into history, but the USSR had deep reserves and that's what really bit them in the ass. The mass man power of the Russians, combined with that 'living space' as Hitler would call it, completely owned them.

You really think that if we amass conventional weapons, US and European allies that it will make Putin back down? No, we'll see Russia re-arm up. Then we'll see other nations also stock up their arms. We've been through this before in history. This is not new. Nations will defend themselves against aggression, real or imagined.(And I think the 'Russian Threat' is greatly overstated)

With enough pressure, Russia will act. But if you leave Russia alone, she'll be fine. Russia has shown to be more rational than North Korea. THAT is what the world should be concerned with.

 

Shut up, you're getting even crankier about Putin than litwin is! Oh, and Mr Swedish Guy!!

 

Glad to see not everyone in the European Continent is glee to fight a war against Russia. Is the Russian situation bearable for Russians? For now, it appears to be the case. Should the world be concerned with it? Not unless it threatens the sanctity of the UN, it threatens the sanctity of other sovereign nations.

Right now, Russia is not a threat. Ukraine is mostly in tact, civil war barring and it will take everyone, not just Russia pulling out their arms to get a concrete Syrian Agreement. We need concrete talks, not pointless bluster.

 

Wow what a post! What a riposte! Superficiality and bias meets insightfulness writ large.

 

I know, and it's why the loonies on here, the West in general, and the vested-interested MSM would like to provoke it into being one?

 

And I'm also a fan of Brexit and I believe either other Euro nations should do the same, or they should finally reform the EU. It was meant to be a trading bloc at first, not this artificial attempt of a country. The US was formed out of several smaller States. This is an attempt to form a union out of several countries. It's several magnitudes more difficult and should have been appreciated as such.

One quick fix would be to have two levers of the economy. One lever belonging to the EU System, and another lever(the national lever) for each and every individual country to deal with their situations, as the matter presented it. That way, they could fund themselves and still be a part of the system.

 

Yeah, it seems like Clinton is going to win. The notion that the election is over and we can stop worrying is simply absurd, she's up by an average of 5%, that's 1-2% above the margin of error. Key swing states are still up for grabs: Florida, Ohio, PA, etc. Sure, she's ahead. Someone always is. But it's a tenuous, slim lead. There's still 2 weeks to go, anything can happen. To pretend otherwise is fantasy.

 

Will you marry me?

 

Well, according to some released cables and otherwise academic papers. The US-pivot(The US here, meaning Pentagon) is that they want to secure the Asian trade routes for the foreseeable future. And to this end, they see China's expanding South Chinese Sea(and the existence of other countries like Russia) as a threat to the US Western Hegemony.

See Here.

Basically, our US Politicians and Washington is too incompetent on a macro-economic level to sustain the country's financial health. So in a financial sense of "living space", the US wants to control other markets so that they have no choice in the matter. It would be far easier, far saner and more peaceful to strengthen our economy but to do that you need sound heads in our financial institutions.

 

The wackos in today's Pentagon would make Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (he of Dr Strangelove fame?) seem like a dyed-in-the-wool peacemaker?

 

I've just read your link, AN - And at a time when the US has a $20tr (probably nearer $25tr by now) national debt? Don't panic, don't panic!!

 

Depends, are you female? If so, I just might have to take you up on that. Loneliness is a drag and people who understand you on a basic level is hard to come by lol.

On a serious note:

I'm actually preparing my run for House of Representatives, hoping that I can make a serious dent in balancing the budget, bringing some of this madness under control. If I can make alliances with key members of the US Chamber of Commerce, I might be able to get some budgetary reforms. And hopefully said reforms and stimulating our economy will make some of this other war madness come to an end.

If not, I did what I could to save this country from stupidity. And if it's ever written, 'the fall of the US', I'd like to record a chapter. 'US Political System being the worst of its kind.'

 

Another 'Wow' - I find myself conversing with (future) greatness! Now to my own 'serious note': all 'empires' fall, and I'm afraid that I believe it's America's turn; there's too much weird stuff going on over there to make me believe otherwise, hence my signature.

 

You do not maintain peace by looking weak. I have already written about this. Read my exchange with ArmySoldier. I explain my position there. If you want to have a discussion about that -which would be interesting- please go to that other thread so I don't have to rewrite everything.
http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/480546-would-you-take-8-more-years-obama.html

Sorry for the frank language, but this is ridiculous. The US is still the world's largest economy, the most developed major economy, with the overwhelmingly largest influence over international trade by virtue of controlling the institutions and the dollar being the reserve currency.

Vast spaces? No one is talking about invading Russia! Stop talking about this as if a land invasion of Russia, or even war at all, is a serious idea. No one says that. No, what we are speaking about is confronting russia outside russia. That makes the vastness of russia itself completely meaningless.

And no, there's is no talk about russia capitulating. There will be no war, there will thus be no capitulations. Russia will have to back down but that's another thing.

as for china and iran.. the only things those three have in common is that they hate the US. What does an authoritarian country like russia, have in common with communists and islamists? Not much. They are not comparable to the west, which are unified by a common liberal ideology. China knows Russia is declining. in a few decades russia will be irrelevant. They don't want to be chained to a corpse. China hasn't recognised crimea, because it's just not worth it. China is just exploiting russia's vulnerability for cheap resources, but they're not exactly an ally.

I don't know what you are talking about here. What results with iran? and what colonisation?

stop with the doomsday rethoric. No, appeasing russia is not the best option. Weakness will invite to more transgressions. See exchange with armysoldier for more on that.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq involved more troops on both sides than did the soviet war in afghanistan...

Neither has Russia. In the wars they did fight -chechnya, georgia- the russian military was mocked because of it's poor performance.

That is called appeasment and weakness, and history shows that pardoning one offence invits the comission of many more. again, see exhcnage with armysoldier

"I saw them at munich; They are worms"

Do you recognise that quote, mr chamberlain? I'm sorry but this is a text book example of appeasment. Russia has spit in your face and humiliates you across the world, and you just want to negotiate. You look weak, no one will respect you.

Actually, there is plenty. The wellbeing of the Russian economy, and thus also of the ordinary russian as well as the oligarchs, depends on good relations with the west. Unlike in communists times, the Russian economy is now very exposed to the west, and the west holds all the levers of power. Economically speaking, we got them by the balls, and we can squeeze very hard. Current sanctions are nothing compared to what we could do. Putin is seeking conflict with the west in large part to boost his popularity, but there are lots of russians who see through his bs and just want good relations with the west so they can have a good economy again. That pressure will keeping growing as things get worse.

Well, the US is supposed to be the hegemon and lead the west, but the USA seems to be having some identity crisis at the moment.

Neither side wants war. We just need good communication.

That's because they're cherry picking. There's plenty of wars where they've gotten their butts handed to them, including when fighting was done inside russia itself. Sweden has campaigned well deep into russia, and won.

If Germany could focus everything on one front, and if the USSR hadn't gotten help from teh allies, germany would have won easily. They almost won in spite of all that.

Yes, we have seen this before: that is how the cold war ended. Reagan started a massive arms race and bankrupted the soviets. Of course russia will re-arm. But they're already doing it! they started the arms race. But russia is dirt poor, so we can easily win any arms race. Let's get the race going. It will be much quicker this time around: russia is almost near breaking point already.

I don't know why you haven't moved to russia. Go ride his stick already, seems that's all you people really want

I put my faith in Trump's yuuge stupidity.

 

I'll ignore that idiotic comment with the contempt it deserves.

 

Were these the polls that left out women, African Americans hispanics and basically anyone not a fervent Trump supporter?