Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mikeb85 | Hacker News Reader

> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter.

Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war.

By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant towards pragmatism and deal-making.

I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone.

The Clinton/Bush/Obama dynasties have not made the world a better place, have not contributed to anything positive IMO, and judging by all the leaked emails, they're all corrupt as well.

View on HN

Given his attitude, Trump seems way more likely to invade other countries and n general sable rattle.

Also, I wouldn't call what Obama did sable rattling. Russia did invade several countries in the last years (Georgia, Ukraine, and maybe I'm missing one more?). If you don't have a good response for that, then how can you be trusted to defend your other allies (Poland, etc.)

Georgia attacked first, after the US-sponsored 'Rose Revolution', and the US also sponsored 2 'revolutions' in Ukraine. Crimea was hardly invaded, it was a region which had tried in the past to separate from Ukraine.

Again, both actions you cite were reactions to US meddling in the region in the first place.

The fact Trump hasn't threatened any new invasions is already an improvement.

PS. Do you know who Mikheil Saakashvili is, what he did, where he is now, and why he's exiled from his own country? And have you seen Victor Yushchenko's face recently, what it looks like? The answers to both of these questions give a lot of insight into US actions in the region.

Crimea was hardly invaded

Right -- the several thousand army and special forces troops that Putin has since openly acknowledged sending there to size buildings and other strategic checkpoints were just out on vacation.

I don't know if you know this, there's never not been Russian troops in Sevastopol...

Actually the Russians are relative newcomers, having just arrived in 1783. Before that time it was controlled by the Crimean Tatars (you know, the people Stalin deported en masse in 1944). And before that, by Khazars, Bulgars, Huns, Goths, Scythians, Romans, Greeks (most significantly), and scads of others.

Either way -- the main point is (and presumably you do know this), the leased military base at Sevastopol != the Crimean peninsula.

I mean, those are talking points but it doesn't change the fact geopolitics is more complicated then "Putin invaded Ukraine"

Actually it's not that complicated in this case. Except for the small matter of nearly 10,000 people needlessly killed.

Trump's tone is abrasive, but do you remember the time he sucker punched someone he was yelling at instead of continuing to debate? Me neither. Despite what we want to infer from his personality, you don't get to his level by being out of control or incredibly impulsive. Besides, he's already started sabre rattling, but the threats are usually for the US to stop doing X, rather than to start doing Y. It creates a whole new set of incentives, and that's really the only way to change the world situation.

The entire world knows that a Clinton presidency would degrade our already weak relationship with Russia. Russia has said this, pretty much every news source (partisan or not) has said this, and Clinton has openly attacked Russia multiple times.

Trump would improve relations with Russia.

> I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone.

I'm struggling to comprehend how you can look at Trump's statements and come out thinking that he'll improve world stability. Trump thinks that NATO is obsolete - he's happy for the US to abandon it and totally change the balance of power in Europe. He has stated that nuclear proliferation is a good thing, even encouraging an Asian nuclear arms race between the DPRK and ROK/Japan. He's asked, "why can't [the US] use nuclear weapons?"

You are very astute, I only wish that my fellow countrymen would wake up to the truth.

I truly believe Trump is a populist reformer, trying to help the Everyman.

But keep in mind that even though the Populares were nominally "for the people", they only used them for their own ends. They were very much as political as the Optimates.

It's a sad state of affairs when a relative madman looks like a saner alternative to a truly sick and twisted authoritarian war-hawk.

But perhaps a madman is needed to tear down this malfunctioning and corrupt system where a few elites benefit at the expense of the common man.

It wouldn't surprise me if this election is the last one we'll ever have.

Scott Adams has noted how Trump's views evolve to the people's, I do agree in thinking he's a populist. Would any of the other GOP candidates have had a gay man speak at the RNC?

Populists can be dangerous, but they can also do a lot of good. It seems worth a chance in the current environment, though ever since I read this passage from http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm I've been wary of those with mass support: "Nero, Heliogabalus, Otho, Vitellius, and such other monsters of nature, were the minions of the multitude and set up by them. Pertinax, Alexander, Severus, Gordianus, Gallus, Emilianus, Quintilius, Aurelianus, Tacitus, Probus, and Numerianus, all of them good emperors in the judgment of all historians, yet murdered by the multitude."

Thanks for the link, it definitely gives me something to ponder over.

While there are elements of Trump's desire to burn the system to ground that appeal to folks even on the left (like myself), I cannot dissociate the ideas from the man - the very disgusting man.The very thin skinned man who can be easily goaded into self-destructive behavior.

The POTUS can literally end humanity with a few words. That's not an exaggeration. I want change as much as the next guy, but not if it means handing the power to start the apocalypse to a man like Donald Trump.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com