Ramsay Gimp

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ramsay Gimp

  • Rank
    Fighter of the Nightman

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. He was accused i think but nothing came of it because the judge tossed it out. With good reason if I'm remembering law school correctly
  2. Yet somehow they have recruits traveling all the way from China and the U.S. to join their caliphate, even though we're not reenacting the "Rains of Castamere" on their people. Are we waiting for them to spontaneously realize that ISIS is bad and America is good, because we're only bombing them lightly? How delusional are we? We'd have to change our major policies in the region to see a real drop in Jihadist recruitment or attacks against us. Like stop supporting Israel, withdraw from all Muslim lands, stop supporting Arab dictatorships, etc. Our rules of engagement and ending waterboarding have failed to win us hearts and minds. Why should the locals give a shit when we still bomb them daily? You really think they're grateful for our restraint? We tried winning local sympathy already in Iraq, and it only worked until we left and the old grudges resurfaced. So it never was for real, no real progress was made. As soon as the Sunnis got pissed off again, ISIS was back and running the show. Is that what we have to look forward to? A new jihadist threat, and a new bombing campaign, every time the Sunnis and Shias can't work out their shit? Are the choices between that and constant occupation?
  3. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL This has to be a parody, right? If not I'm saving it for future generations.
  4. So you don't think he bought it? I just gave my best impression of a guy taking the high road but its hard with no experience
  5. I'll even forgive the toxic homophobia* on your part, even though that kind of hate-filled rhetoric is what's preventing westeros.org from coming together to pass meaningful legistlation *Actually, there IS anything wrong with that
  6. Let's just call it a draw, agree to disagree, whatever. This argument is becoming a wankfest over our egos rather than anything constructive. I'm glad you liked the Genghis Khan shout-out, even if you took it a tad literally in your zeal to insult me. Partisan sniping about which candidate has the best election chances, and all our awesome insights about voting behavior and blah blah isn't worth getting worked up about. This isn't MSNBC and no one cares about our predictions anyway
  7. Extreme escalation is just hyperbole, and phrasing it as fact doesn't make it so. Apart from the fact we kill families all the time, Trump's remark was a whole 2 seconds, of-the-cuff, where he could have been easily thinking out loud. I've been assuming he really advocated doing that only for the sake of argument That's charitable of you. In fact I provided you with a concrete list of 6-7 examples verifying my claim, but you've gone too far to admit defeat now! -Despite saying its the worst deal ever, Trump has repeatedly rejected the idea of negating or ignoring the Iran deal. He says that he intends to honor the agreement now that its been signed. -Re. bolded: Obama says the exact same thing. Isn't that the whole point of the nuclear deal? -Go back a few pages, I posted a link of Trump realtalking Israel to a group of Jewish Republicans. He was booed for questioning their commitment to peace, said that the Palestinians would have to get some things they want too, and accused the Israel lobby of buying politicians with their money. He's not Israel's lapdog, far from it. You have to distinguish platitudes like "I love Israel!" or "I'm the most militaristic person here!" from actual policy statements and ideas. Trump is framing his alternative foreign policy in nationalist rhetoric, so he can appeal to GOP voters. But the details are less hawkish than practically everyone else -Clinton opportunistically criticized the Iran deal when she had the chance to come to Obama's defense. You give no support for the statement that Trump wants to "put us on a path to war with Iran" so yeah... -Even if all your comment was true (its not), Trump still wouldn't come close to Hillary's record and stated policy preferences. Why is it so important to you that Trump be the more hawkish one, despite all the evidence saying the opposite? No need to die on a hill for Hillary's honor here...
  8. How could the Ironborn have ever held the Riverlands?

    Agreed about the Ironborn being different now, a pale imitation of what they thought they were But what bugged me about this section is how the Ironborn conquer the Riverlands and then just leave everything in place. They took no castles for themselves, not even the Bracken's after he rebelled against Harwyn. It's another case of GRRM making everything too static to be plausible
  9. Clinton has advocated ground troops, so has Trump. Fair enough. But Clinton wants a no-fly zone. He does not. Clinton wants to arm the rebels. He does not. Clinton wants to topple Assad. Nay for Trump. Clinton rides the anti-Russia bandwagon. Trump wants to get along. Clinton wants greater military aid to Ukraine. He does not. Clinton cheered for Iraq and Libya. Trump did not. Nope, no pattern here! Genghis Khan could run to Hillary's left on foreign policy. The fact she is within the mainstream only proves the larger point I was making. I'm sorry you don't want to actually think about real issues instead of partisan sniping (again proving my point) but I'm correct either way.
  10. "Platitudes" does not describe Trump.
  11. Trump says we should win the war we're already in, and be willing to work with former adversaries to accomplish our shared goals. Clinton says we should try to start some new wars, on top of those we're already fighting, but we can't work with anyone unless they're perfect. So why the fuck should I care which candidate would kill the family members of ISIS? Tactics like that are fucking trivial when compared to the question of whether we ought to go to war at all. You're taking the common liberal route of focusing on minutia to avoid the real issue. Advocating for more war but leaving the nasty bits unmentioned makes Hillary worse than Trump, not better. People just get the vapors because Trump refuses to sugarcoat his opinion, and we prefer lots of sugar when talking about our brave heroes and the awesome things we make them do around the world. Fact is, the military kill innocent families all the time. Are we better people because we don't say it out loud? The American public demands dead families every time they demand Obama "do something" about ISIS. Accordingly, our President has chosen to kill thousands of Arab families by slowly sending troops back into a catastrophe they can't win. These families were sacrificed for Obama's approval rating, nothing more, but Trump is somehow the monster? Nah, he's just once again bringing an uncomfortable truth out in the open, intentionally or not. If our country is going to be a militaristic superpower/hegemon, I'd prefer we strike terror in our enemies if it prevents us fighting a new war (but also the same war) every two years. The USA treats war like a game, or a partisan feud, or boring geography, and nobody seems bothered that these wars tnever end. As long as its nameless Afghans getting killed and not American troops, it could go on forever with no complaint. Everyone has adjusted to our constant occupation of a foreign country as normal, the default state of affairs, and nobody acknowledges how insane that is. We love war in America, and yet we also love being the good guy, so we've settled on the solution of not asking for any details about it. Fuck that. The hypocritical and willfully blind attitude attitude most Americans take toward war is far more disgusting than Trump's comments, frankly. How long can we hide behind arbitrary bullshit and changing the subject before we realize that war means killing? And if Trump's hypothetical terror tactics ended the war on ISIS faster, they'd be a kindness anyway.
  12. I love how you say this like it would disqualify him in my mind Bernie has said some interesting things about immigration. But it seems to me like he's torn between love for the working man and love for immigrant groups (not saying immigrants don't work, so don't even try you guys). Immigration isn't just about the economics though. It's also about slow demographic shifts, which will result in white people becoming a minority some time in the future (this should get some nice reactions ). For any other group this would be called "displacement" and loudly decried. So shifting the conversation about massive third-world immigration is more important than building a literal wall. Putting aside that he's an open and avowed socialist, my biggest obstacle is a (seeming) lack of conviction on issues I care about. Sanders has passion and dedication on income inequality, no doubt, but if that's not a huge concern for me (even on a ideological level) what else is he going to address? I've never seen Bernie make a strong statement on foreign policy one way or the other. If I'm going to vote for a goddamn socialist he at least better be anti-war. Bernie just seems like a wishy-washy liberal interventionist, or just unsure/indecisive/uninterested in foreign affairs. In our political culture, a President with no strong convictions or instincts about foreign policy will be pushed into stupid wars. Like Obama, who has repeatedly shown that he doesn't really care about wars overseas, and would rather move on to something less depressing. But this means he can't muster the energy to aggressively fight the war party, and he ends up giving into pressure and starting a new military conflict. It's happened several times, like clockwork. And does he ever talk about the NSA and civil liberties? I remember his classic "Edward Snowden broke the law" remark but thats it. It seems to me that Bernie is a strong champion on one or two issues, which I respect, but other than that he'd be another Obama. How is Trump corporate America first? He is speaking to working people and thats where his support comes from. He isn't anti-big business in principle like Sanders is, but neither are most people.
  13. Gadaffi. Hillary chucked about his death and said "We came, I conquered," or some other PLEASE PRETEND I HAVE A PENIS bullshit. It's not so much the laughing at torture that bothers me; it's more that her comment shows zero reflection on her part about the military invasion she helped bring about. After her support for invading Iraq (to this day), such blasé arrogance is unforgivable. But since she brought down a "genocidal" dictator, got to look tough on camera, and no American troops died it obviously wasn't a war. It was a cisgendered police action or whatever the trendy name is now. Never mind the fact that "genocide" was not actually occurring in Libya (unless that word has lost all meaning, like "xenophobic" has ). Never mind that NATO was only authorized to protect Libyan civilians under attack, but chose to fly into regime territory where there was no fighting and then bombed civilians instead. Never mind that America skipped town as soon as the big bad dictator was dead, because they knew no one would give a fuck after that. Never mind that Libya is now in constant civil war and is a major stronghold of ISIS. Ignore all that, and focus on how Trump doesn't phrase "you Jews" correctly.
  14. He doesn't have Hillary's impressive foreign policy record. Which means (I gather from the talking heads) he hasn't destroyed an impressive amount of countries like she has. Trump may be an asshole, but I don't remember him ever giggling like a schoolgirl because someone was sodomized with a knife and then tortured to death. Hillary did that.
  15. Is there a single candidate who says they won't bomb ISIS? I wish there was but that's not the world we live in. The only difference is that Trump says "I'd bomb the shit out of them", whereas Hillary says "America needs to lead, we can't just stand by because leadership matters in a global world. That's why I'd enact a no-fly zone in Syria RIGHT NOW, so we can fight Assad and Russia and ISIS at the same time!! Oh, did I mention our moderate rebel allies? Isn't it about time we sent them lots of money and guns? LOOK HOW SMART I AM BECAUSE I WANT TO DO EVERYTHING" To people who like to feel intelligent without thinking anything through, Clinton's statements sound smarter. Because they're full of empty slogans and meaningless (but inspirational-sounding) claptrap that has been honed for decades to justify American hegemony. But if you look at the meat of Trump's position it is much more reasonable and much more honest. It's also much less aggressive, since Trump doesn't advocate attacking people who are fighting ISIS like Hillary does. War crimes you're gonna have to bark up another tree. We initiate wars too frequently, and too recklessly, but we don't fight them too ruthlessly. We agonize about hearts and minds that will never be ours and dance around the fact that war requires murdering lots of people. War is not not about convincing foreigners to like us, or accept Israel's right to exist, or watch the Kardashians. Killing a large number of civilians is a sad but necessary element of any scenario where ISIS goes away. I don't like it either, which is why I'm non-interventionist. But (referring to people generally, not you) please don't cheer for America to go war and then cry when a goddamn war happens. Americans are nauseatingly awful about doing that, because we've been so sheltered from the effects of war throughout our history.