The Germans seem to be preparing for a War with Russia!

[muppet]

No idea, just curious as to why you're afraid to answer. So is she an interventionist or not?

Ah I see what's happening here, between the logical fallacies and now this.

From the Ladybird book of negotiation:

"When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. You have as it were, reduced the opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies."

I could play from the same basic template and argue that I am not qualified to judge, etc., etc. But I haven't answered mainly because you are merely trying to deflect from your ludicrous and completely hysterical arguments. It just seems so silly to debate whether or not we can apply some faux intellectual tag to her, when we have a 'she is the biggest threat to world peace since WWII' on the table.

Regarding Hiallry as an interventionist, she is probably more so than Madeline Albright, but less so than Powell and Condi.

[Ulick]

You weren't asked about Albright, Rice or Powell. Is Clinton an interventionist or not?

[muppet]

You weren't asked about Albright, Rice or Powell. Is Clinton an interventionist or not?

Asked and answered.

Since you think she is the greatest threat to world peace since WWII, it is hard to imagine why you need to so desperately try to tag her as an 'interventionist'.

I would give Hilary a maximum of 4 out of 10 as a Presidential candidate. One of the reasons is I simply hate political dynasties. Regardless of the merits of the individuals, it sends the wrong message completely, especially to other members of those dynasties. I feel the same way about re-electing the same government over and over and about very long term leadership of anything. See Pat Hickey for example. And of course Gerry Adams.

However I would refuse to mark Trump at all. I wouldn't put him in charge of an empty car park.

So since Americans have left us with only two possibly candidates, Hillary it is then for me.

[Ulick]

Asked and answered.

No you didn't you just compared her to someone else. Is she an interventionist or not?

[muppet]

Asked and answered.

No you didn't you just compared her to someone else. Is she an interventionist or not?

Look I can understand your need to run away from some of the daftest claims I've ever seen on this board, but I have already said I am not playing your black or white loaded question game.

But I'll help you out.

Maybe english is the problem so I'll try maths.

On the scale of interventionism I would see it like this:

0 Interventionism < Pope Francis < Hillary Clinton < The Provisional IRA < Maximum Interventionism

We use comparisons all the time. They provide context, something you might want to consider, which is far more useful and of course reasonable, than your usual book of tricks.

[seafoid]

Income inequality is the biggest threat to world peace. It was responsible for the French Revolution, the rise of Cromwell and the 2 world wars. Will Clinton do anything about it?

[muppet]

Income inequality is the biggest threat to world peace. It was responsible for the French Revolution, the rise of Cromwell and the 2 world wars. Will Clinton do anything about it?

World poverty is at a historic low and is falling all the time. I am not saying it doesn't exist, obviously, nor that it shouldn't be much better than it is, but it is complete nonsense to say the situation is getting worse. We, the ordinary plebs, have never, ever had it better in our entire history. Easy answer populism will not help to close the gap. The revolutionaries alway simply replace the elites with themselves.

We need another better way of doing things.

Asking about Clinton doing anything about it is as absurd as asking will Trump do anything about it. But at least I balanced up the question.



Asking will Clinton do something about it is absurd. It implies one should vote against her on that basis.

[johnneycool]

Income inequality is the biggest threat to world peace. It was responsible for the French Revolution, the rise of Cromwell and the 2 world wars. Will Clinton do anything about it?

Yip.




She'll make it worse.

[seafoid]

Income inequality is the biggest threat to world peace. It was responsible for the French Revolution, the rise of Cromwell and the 2 world wars. Will Clinton do anything about it?

World poverty is at a historic low and is falling all the time. I am not saying it doesn't exist, obviously, nor that it shouldn't be much better than it is, but it is complete nonsense to say the situation is getting worse. We, the ordinary plebs, have never, ever had it better in our entire history. Easy answer populism will not help to close the gap. The revolutionaries alway simply replace the elites with themselves.

We need another better way of doing things.

Asking about Clinton doing anything about it is as absurd as asking will Trump do anything about it. But at least I balanced up the question.



Asking will Clinton do something about it is absurd. It implies one should vote against her on that basis.

Muppet
I don't understand where your grá for the Clintons comes from. Median income in the US is 10% lower than in 1975. Life expectancy for blue collar Americans is falling . That is a sign of social trauma. Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have never been higher. The richest 1% of Americans own 42% of everything. Productivity is stagnant. Investment is decreasing.  Ordinary people are not getting payrises. Things could be a lot better. Will Clinton drive the system into the wall or will she be a reforming president like McKinley and Roosevelt? 

[omaghjoe]

This well worn phrase about world poverty I dont buy into.

We need to look at what poverty is and how its measured. Presumably this phrase came from a measure of economic activity or to be more precise monetary exchange.

However in my anecdotal experience the worst poverty is actually in areas where it is very hard to live without money, if people in those societies do not have money they find it difficult to source the basics for living, Im thinking along the lines of large cities etc. However in areas where there is not alot of economic activity such as rural areas with strong social bonds people can get by without money by subsistence and exchange of goods and labour as opposed to actual money.

So with increased globalization, and urban expansion then of course world monetary poverty is falling as more and more people earn money in these economic centers, but are people really less poor... I beg to differ they may be a pay check away from going hungry or loosing a roof over their head whereas if they where living in a rural setting such drastic events would be much difficult to fall into.

Then there is the other way of looking at which I think is what seafoid is alluding to is.... are most people that are on the finical system better off or is it just inflation making it look like that? A good measure might be is the average persons slice of the total wealth generated increasing? Its probably another way of looking at wealth disparity, anyway I doubt if it is.