1. What do you think are his chances against Hillary, which seems to be not very popular even with democrats voters? Given how everyone thought he would never make it to become the republican candidate, might he once again suprise everyone?

Simpsons already did it! To quote Kang in Treehouse of Horror VII, ironically after eliminating Clinton: Ha ha ha, what are you going to do. You have to elect one of us [Kang or Kodos]. Or you can throw your vote away.

So, seeing how people have to elect someone, I think they might as well elect Trump. He is, despite all, the "more american" candidate.

What are the consequenses? Might he be able to make the US loose their last arabic ally, the Sauds? Is he able to mend the relationship with israel which have worsened under Obama? Or will he make everything worse again?

One has to be realistic about that. The Saudis are not allies, they are enemies. The Saudis know that and already live by it, and to the USA, anyone not-USA is at best a not-immediate enemy anyway, so there are no big surprises ahead. Trump may be more vocal about it, but it's not like that makes a big difference, the Saudis are not stupid.

It may not turn out being such a great time living in the USA if you're Mexican (or any latino) or black, although I believe that the effect will overall be relatively moderate.

First, it's not like the police doesn't already shoot blacks for dubious or non-existent reasons and bludgeons them to death under a democratic administration. So, how much worse can it get, really. Second, and more importantly, the USA urgently need these people. The average fat, lazy American doesn't want to do the work that the starving Mexican will happily do for very little money. Someone has to do the work, though. All propaganda left aside, Trump certainly knows that. You cannot run a country without people who do the work.

TTIP discussions

Most likely. That may however be a good thing (for us, not for the USA). He might overdo it so much that, although the hope is very, very, very small, it's just enough so the last corrupt EU commisioner says -- under massive public pressure -- that and TTIP is off the table for the time being. Which would be the best thing to happen in years. But unluckily, that's probably just a dream.

And who will pay for these sometimes outlandish ideas? Will the cost of these projects cost him the second term?

The American people will pay, obviously. You don't really think Mexico will pay that wall, do you. That's assuming the wall is built at all (though it is already present in the second Machete movie, prophetic...). Will it cost him the second term? Well, let's see. How many politicans who served a second term have kept their promises? Can you name one?

current racial unrest thanks to shootings of blacks by the police, and police officers now getting attacked?

This is a hard to solve issue, and Trump is certainly not going to solve it (but neither will Hillary). There are two very different sides to that same thing. There's the racist thing, and there's the other side.

Police shooting people, and police being attacked is a serious problem. I'm all for police shooting people, and I'm certainly for shooting blacks in the same manner as whites. Not because of their skin color, but because they are criminals who are a threat to innocent people. Being black can as little serve as a reason not to be shot (in fear of instrumentalization) as it can be a reason to be shot.

We had such an upsetting event only two days ago in Germany. An selfmade-IS Afghan severely severely injured people (still uncertain if some will die) in a train with knives and an axe, then got off the train and injured another woman in the nearby town. Police shot him.

Now, in a country where things are right, everybody would say: "Well done, officer. You have prevented other innocent people from being hurt or killed, here is your medal". However, in an ultra-left country like Germany, what an elected representative from the Green Party has to say to that is: "But couldn't you shoot more carefully, so to stop but not kill him", and some totally fucked up social worker has her big five minutes on evening TV: "Oh the poor boy, he was only 17, and he was such a nice person".

Well yeah, the fucker is dead now, shot by the police, and he was only 17. How very sad. But he was also a cynical liar, and someone who just knifed and axed half a dozen people, and he was a present and immediate threat to others, let's just not forget these tiny details. Police didn't shoot an innocent poor underage fugitive. They shot a dangerous criminal who demonstrably lied about fleeing from violence and who made a cynical video about his planned murder spree the day before, and who slaughtered innocent people whom he didn't even know. If you're the one swinging the axe, you definitively aren't a victim. If you are old enough to slaughter people, you are old enough for being shot by the police, too.

Besides, it's not like shooting someone is a lot of fun to the police man who has to do it, no matter whom he is shooting. It's most certainly not a rewarding job to shoot at a human (for someone with a normal psyche, anyway), no matter what kind of a rotten person you're shooting at. But it is definitively "right" given the good circumstances, and it deserves praise, not shame.

On the other hand of course, there are plenty of occasions (much more frequent in the USA) where one might argue that police didn't have all that great motives about bludgeoning or shooting someone, and that it was more related to skin color than to anyhting else. But there's probably also cases where a shooting was well justified, and still all that remains is "Boo! Police shoots blacks". It's hard to tell, sometimes you cannot know for sure.

This whole thing is alltogether extremely convoluted, and something that will always lead to controversy. Getting it right is near impossible. No doubt Trump will be unable to do that, no surprises ahead.

So really, I am asking myself if we need another politician that might turn out to be a wolf in a sheeps clothing.

Well, I consider the new Adolf Hitler in the east who just successfully orchestrated a Reichstag-fire last week the much more serious threat than a crazy American business man with crackpot ideas. Am I the only person in the world worrying that history is repeating itself exactly, to the letter?

1. Yeah, it really is choosing between the lesser of two evils. I fear most people do not really inform themselves what is the lesser evil, the will again vote on whims and half truths. Not that it would be easy to find out the lesser evil before they had the stage to work their evil (as presidents or the US of A).

2. Well no, don't think that is accurate. The Saudis and americans work quite well together. Some influential Saudis finance terror, SOME businesses and people in the US profit. These influential Saudis profit from that because they have big stakes in US weapons manufacturers and stuff.

Then there is the thing with the Iran, which for whatever reason is more evil in the eyes of US officials than other regimes in the region. The Iran is seeing itself as the leader of the Shi'ites, while the Saudis are kind of the leader nation among the sunnites. With the "religious" conflict between these two religious groups being the main fuel of conflict in the region, and the US still painting the Iran as being the root of all evil and trying to keep the Iran down at all costs (see the whole sh*t going down in iraqu for the last few decades as for "at all costs"), the Saudis will stay a very close, and very good ally, even though they are quite fickle and not as united as they say.

Of course, with the situation in Syria, and the IS being kind of "a sunnite thing", things will only get more complicated. More and more possibilities for the US to F*ck it up once again in this region.

But I have to say, at least they are doing SOMETHING. Just as Russia is. Both might not be there to help someone other than their own best interests... but its still better than the EU and their lazy, corrupt politicians doing nothing.

But I went off on a tangent... let me get back ontopic.

3. Personally, I think the EU and europe in general has to learn to stand on their own legs. The US is not a trustworthy ally anymore. Hasn't been for a long time. Neither are Russia, or Turquey. Nor is China, or any other big player.

But Turquey is just at the EUs doorstep. The EU has to deal with them, somehow. Russia is on the same continent, and europe is even more dependent on them than on the US. China at least was quite predictable in the last few years - you do business with them? Welcome to the party, friend. Just leave a tip in the hat over there (lets hope the chinese government is not overdoing it in the conflict with japan and the other neighbouring countries).

TTIP is just another thing where europe has to make a statement. You want to do business in europe? You better follow our rules. You are pissed that there are too many rules because of to many countries involved? Well, lets see if the chinese are more ready to follow the rules around here.

4. Of course the US citizen will have to pay the bill. Going to be interesting if its again mostly the middle classes who pay, while the higher ups involved in the bad political decisions can legally avoid paying taxes thanks to lax tax laws (yes I know US taxes are high, for some people. But seemingly not all of them). But this is again a completly different topic.

Question is, will there even be an uproar among people if Trump rudders back on its promises? Given that the people that didn't vot for him would most probably be happy about that, and many will have only voted for him to avoid Hillary, he might get BETTER chances to serve a second term by doing nothing.

5. Hey, I am all for self defense and stuff. Problem in the US is many of those shootings were NOT self defense. Often caught on camera (how you can do stupid stuff like that and expect to get away with it, officer or not, at a time and age where there is a camera on every street corner is a mystery to me).

I don't think ANYONE can deny there is something wrong in the US. Might not just be the police, but the society in the US as a whole (though the police in ANY country attracts sometimes dubious characters, and the guys who should filter them are not as proper as they should be often. As they say, Power corrupts... and as a police officer, you have A LOT of power ready to be abused)...

I think the US is becoming more and more polarized. As such, people feel empowered to voice their more extreme opinions, and get away with it. Among them the racists that exists in any country of this planet.

On the other extreme, the lefties and their tree hugging mentality of "lets be nice to each other and no one gets hurt"... this is the reason why the EU is in the middle of this fugitive crisis, and still has no boots on the ground in Syria. I think this should have consequences for many EU politicians, AND country leaders that influenced the EU (you know who I mean).

As for Trump, if anything, he has the ability to make it worse. He seems to be pretty much hated in many black communities by now thanks to his thinly veiled racism, and in a climate where some more extreme people already have started to attack the police, imagine what damage some well (or rather not so well) placed racist tirades of his as US president could do....

6. Yeah, here too its time the EU and other european countries make a clear statement. If Erdogan wants to turn east to Russia, or China, or starts to dabble in the Syrian conflict, let him. If he wants to get burned by dealing with bigger sharks, or is going to get caught up in a conflict which will have no winner in the end, that is his own business.

Don't get caught up in a dictators self interests or you are gonna regret it. Cut ties, and re negotiate terms of trade and travel.

Just as with russia, of course Turquey is still an important part of the eurasian continent and you cannot ignore them. You don't need them as best friends to do business with them though.

this is the reason why the EU is in the middle of this fugitive crisis

As someone who called Trump winning early, and switched to Republican to vote for him in the primary (Previously I've worked for the democrats/voted democrat for the past 3 elections), good. Now I don't need to vote for Hillary in a Ted Cruz vs Hillary Clinton situation. I think/hope he's going to win the general election as well.

Why? Because Mike Pence is going to shore up the religious right's votes, and Trump will pivot to the left on his positions and show he's more liberal than Hillary on social issues/not as much of a war hawk as her, securing the left's vote.

The wall will be regotiated to a fence/patrols, most likely. Or maybe he'll go through with a tariff and actually force Mexico to pay for it that way, which would be interesting.

Also, I don't know where the line of thought that Trump's more racist than Hillary came from. "Off the reservation" "super predators"

Remember the 2008 campaign?

"If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed" "I have no shame, or no problem, with people looking at Barack Obama in his native clothing, the clothing of his country … if we’re supporting a woman or an African American for president, we ought to be able to support their ability to wear the clothing of their nation."

This -

I mean... It goes on and on. She's a weak candidate, and you'd be surprised how many democrats are looking for any reason to ditch her. My mother (who's a delegate) put it this way "I have to hold my nose and vote for her at the convention, but in the election I may hit the wrong button".

Some influential Saudis finance terror

Some, that includes the royal family which is the country's government. But oh well, it's not like the CIA didn't actively support terror and like the USA (Germany too, by the way) wouldn't benefit from selling weapons. Everybody lies.

But my point is... it can't get much worse with Trump than it already is, except Trump will actually say: "Fuck you! Fuck your country, and fuck your Allah, we will kick your butts! I will personally build a 300 meter high wall through the Atlantic ocean, and you will pay it!" whereas Clinton will say: "Well, let's all be friends and talk about this on a cup of tea. Oh, I don't know about any black ops, sorry" while they still do the same hostile stuff, none more and none less, as they've been doing for the last 40 years. Do you think the CIA even cares who the president is?

Problem in the US is many of those shootings were NOT self defense.

I am ready to agree on that, although I have to admit it is a "I don't really know for sure thing", but an impression from what I see on TV. This may of course be a deliberately wrong impression (who knows if media over-dramatize the shootings for some reason). I wouldn't be able to tell... but I agree that from what it looks like, yes, that seems to be the case.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a cop's place when having to decide "shoot" or "don't shoot". Maybe they're just fucking racists, yeah. But maybe they just had a nervous finger because another cop was shot the day before, or maybe they even saw a gun (or thought they saw one). Maybe there was a gun, and a bystander stole it in the turmoil, so later it was not to be found any more. Who knows.

Judging someone is easier than being right about what happened. But yes, the sheer number of incidents shown on TV is of course an indicator.

There are seemingly a lot of these incidents and the last few that I vaguely remember (might not be 100% accurate since I am only listening with one ear to "yet another such story" whenever it happens, bear with me) were a black person in handcuffs entering a police car healthy, and exiting feet first with a smashed skull, and a black man being shot after having had a pistol in his hand some time earlier. I'm all willing to agree that by how these cases are presented, both cases are... uh. Not good.

I mean, owning a gun is not precisely against the law in the US as such (though holding it in your hands in the street in presence of police probably is). But seeing how the gun was apparently inside his pocket again at the time of the shooting, telling him to get down on the knees and arresting him would surely have done the trick, no need to shoot. I don't quite get how it can be necessary to bludgeon someone who is already handcuffed to death, either. But who knows what happened there, I didn't witness. But certainly, it doesn't look good. It indeed looks like the reason is "because black".

Either way, shooting someone who has already harmed innocent people and is about to do it again is 100% right. It's not like someone is forcing you to threaten someone's life. However, when I said "upsetting" in the context of that event, I did not refer to the actual crime or the fact that the guy was shot. What I found upsetting was the reaction to it. You know I'm not particularly fond of the police in general, but this reaction was totally no-go. Police was perfectly right in what they did.

Keeping up civil order and protecting citizens from harm is what we have police for. The sad thing is that this is rarely what happens here. Why not? It is the fault of politicians failing to deliver and judges following in Rudi Dutschke's steps. Release the murderers, punish the common man.

Whenever police works really hard to arrest a seriously bad criminal (against non-trivial legal hurdles), sometimes risking their own lives doing so, some darn judge releases the criminals free. Oh right, parole. But parole is effectively "free". Some have 5 or 6 paroles stacked. I don't even know how that is possible. In my understanding, if you get criminal while on parole, you serve both terms...

It is no surprise that police are frustrated, and lacking the possibility to go after the real criminals, they turn against the citizens on petty stuff. There was a statement from some politician (I forgot who) following the Cologne incidents: "It is hard for the average citizen to understand that there was enough police around to record so and so many thousand traffic speed violations that night, but not enough police to actually protect people from harm". Well, go figure why! Because when they actually do their job, they are only being yelled at for doing it wrong (no matter how they do), and the criminals laugh at them because they walk free the next day. And for that, police risk their lives. Are you surprised that they search something more "rewarding" to do instead?

Staying with that Cologne thing for an instant, the police did a really, really outstanding job at identifying the culprits (from surveillance footage, witnesses, etc). That's a very difficult job, but they did really, really well. Close to 100 (I think the exact number was 97?) were identified, and warrants for arrest were given for 17 -- why only 17, I can't tell. An entire 3 were arrested and to be tried, again why only 3 I can't say. Foreigners with temporary staying permit, and on parole. How that is even possible, I don't know. There's nothing wrong with being a foreigner (I'm a foreigner in 192 countries worldwide!), but a staying permit is just that, a permit. It is not an inalienable right. It's something another country grants you for as long as you follow the rules (... or revokes at any time!). Not anything different. So really... parole? I don't get it how you can be on parole in a foreign country and not be expelled.
One of the three said he was only 17, so skip that, no penalty. Only just a kid, eh. Old enough to rape a woman, but not old enough to get a sentence. Again, I can't understand this. If you are old enough for one, you are old enough for the other.

Of the remaining two, one got parole and you haven't heard back whether the other was tried at all (I guess so... but... dunno? Did not see anything in the news?). Now, government said very clearly in January: "No more tolerance for crime, even parole means: Get out. Out, out, out". Did you hear he was expelled? I didn't. And you wonder why police is frustrated? You wonder why people do not have the least respect for the police or for the state?

Now, on that representative's reaction... While you and me and everybody else as private persons may have as queer opinions as we want (and may say it), as an elected representative, you do not have that liberty.

As a representative, anything and everything you say in public is "kinda official", thus you either have to keep your opinion to yourself, or your statement has to be: "Well done, police". You cannot, you just cannot attack police in such an unjustified way for doing their job since that undermines the foundation of the state. Police exists to protect the citizens. That is exactly what they did, and this was right. No other opinion is valid, not from a representative.

boots on the ground in Syria

Meh... I've said it before, "boots on ground" is no solution to the problem. You only burn the lives of tens of thousands for nothing.

Earlier this week, Falluja was taken (yes, I know it's not in Syria, it was still taken), and they were surprised to find that all the "civil houses" were full of highly specialized bomb factories. Well, go figure, what a surprise. This has been known for many months, not as super secret military intelligence info, but publicly available information. There have been greatly detailled evening-filling reports on how IS operates on TV, you did not even need to do an extensive internet search to know. IS have been living -- for years -- rather comfortably far away from the combat lines in three or four cities in both Iraq and Syria where there is virtually no "innocent" person around otherwise (those who aren't pro-IS have fled a year or two ago). All the propaganda machinery and weapon manufacture safe, and remote from the combat line.

Instead of sending wave after wave of soldiers against ever replenished waves of soldiers from northern Africa in a war that cannot be won while the IS guys laugh at how stupid everybody else is (both Europeans and Africans), the correct thing to do would have been to drop 3 or 4 MOABs on those select few places. Makes the comfortable hideout a little less comfortable in one second. Suddenly, nobody is laughing any more. Suddenly, sympathizing with IS is not that great any more, is it. War is over a week later (well OK, maybe not... but at least it becomes winnable).

But of course, nobody has a real interest in ending the war quickly. War is good for business.

its time the EU and other european countries make a clear statement. If Erdogan wants to turn east to Russia, or China, or starts to dabble in the Syrian conflict, let him

It's not about making statements or about turning east or something. What's so worrying is that everything, really everything he has been doing during the last years is not just somewhat similar, but identical in a sheer scary way to what Adolf has done. Which means you can extrapolate what will with high likelihood happen next. Which is also a reason why I prefer having our "boots" here, not in Syria.

Did you just imply that blacks (or those killed) are most likely to be criminals?

No. Not sure where you pulled that one from. I am saying that if someone is an immediate threat (... pulls a gun, swings an axe, whatever) being shot by police is OK. That's a good thing, they prevent innocents from taking harm. I am not saying "shoot all criminals" or "shoot everybody", and I am definitely not saying "blacks are criminals" or any other similar thing.

I am saying blacks should be shot none more, but also none less than whites. Which means if a white person pulls a gun, he should be shot, and if a black person pulls a gun, he should be shot (in the same way). However, there should be no public uproar for one guy (because he was incidentially black). The fact that someone is of race/color/gender XYZ should neither be a reason to shoot someone, nor a reason not to (in fear of public uproar).

I have the impression (though I obviously don't know for sure) that both is the case in the USA. Yes, there are definitively racism-related killings by cops, and the way it looks like from what you see on TV, there's quite a few (how many really, I'm not sure, the media could be "cheating", too). But also there are some which are dramatized although the killings may have been "OK" (that is, cop rightfully shot someone who was incidentially black, and there's people in the street for that). Neither way is good, neither way is correct.

police are always quick to say "I feared for my life". The policeman who shot the black man running away from him in the back [...] gun down a 12 year old black boy with a toy gun"

Well yeah, shooting someone in the back isn't precisely justifiable, not doubting that. Then again, I wouldn't want to be in the cop's place when a 12 year old pulls something that looks like a gun. It's not like a 12 year old couldn't conceivably pull a gun and shoot the cop. It's all too easy to yell "racist" at the cop in retrospective, but he maybe had only 0.5 seconds to decide "shoot or be shot" -- from his perspective anyway. Quite possibly, he is a racist, too. But quite possibly, he feels bad after finding out it was a toy gun, too. I wasn't there, and wouldn't want to judge that. And I wouldn't want to be in the cop's place.

Yep, you are so eager to make your point that you selectively quoted the left-most party only.

There was nobody else to quote. Nobody else made such an offensive statement in public.

The Green party will always say that.

Which is the exact problem. But it was not "the Green Party", it was one representative. Still, it's bad enough as a statement.

I mean, be realistic. We are not talking about someone who maybe could have done something slightly wrong or who could even have been innocent. We are not talking of some poor boy who was shot by the evil racist police who hate him for being from Afghanistan.

This is about someone who did wrong on so many levels... starting with pretending to be a victim fleeing from war, then making a cynical video about how he has been "living in your house" and is now going to kill you, and then actually picking up weapons and attacking people. Not innocent in any way, not a victim.

In addition to being a heinous murderer, what he did is also highly unfair towards those people who are maybe really fleeing from war and violence. If there is a way of giving them a really hard time, it's just that kind of thing. Who will want to host an Afghan in his house now?

For the record, no conservative I know wants Trump. Conservatives are not Trump's voting base. Over and over I hear "This has got to be a joke", "I feel like I'm about to wake up from a dream", "How could this have happened?", "NOW what do we do?".

Every Christian I know, and every borderline-christian-but-still-conservative adamantly dislike Trump.

(personally, I didn't have high hopes for Republicans winning this nomination anyway, and haven't set my hopes on any specific human as a savior who's going to magically make everything better, so Trump's nomination hasn't hit me as hard as it's hit some)

With Trump getting the nomination, it feels like the final nail in the coffin of Conservatives being left behind by the Republican party.

And while not quite as far along, it also feels like Libertarians are being increasingly left behind by the Democrats.

I call this election for Hillary (I half-thought this election would be a Democrat election even prior to Trump running, just the way the nation has been leaning), and I'm honestly not sure which nomination I fear more. Essentially, I have two presidential nominees running for office, neither which represents me, neither which stands for what I stand for, neither which I feel are competent leaders, both of who lie repeatedly, and both of who I feel are self-centered and wanting the presidency for their own benefit rather than sacrificing themselves in service for the country as a whole. Oh boy.

I'm honestly undecided on what to do. Do I vote Trump purely so he can nominate Supreme Court justices? Or depressingly stay home? Do I vote third party as a protest vote? Yea, 'cause that's worked so much in past elections. :rolleyes:

If Trump gets nominated, he'll probably get in a fist fight with Putin, and China will probably continue to grow in power, knowing how to flatter Trump and manipulate him. At least Hillary knows how to play backroom politics on the international scene... the problem is the politics she plays wouldn't be to my liking. :(

Sounds more like voting for the lesser evil