2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you look at the charts I posted you'll see that US production increased gradually and the price remained stable. Saudis ramped up production and the price tanked. I understand the Saudis game. That doesn't mean Obama is directly responsible for reduced oil prices.

Trying to use the oil prices to score party political points is dishonest.

That's true but we know if prices remained the same the critics would be saying Obama did nothing.

More production was a big issue in 08, drill baby drill and all that, so increased production was delivered on.

RobertKK

Sorry if it was already posted.

It was on CNN yesterday that Bill Clinton raped a woman and Hillary helped cover it.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

27% to 42% for whites. So what really is the benefit to saddling Latinos with college debt when the vast majority of them never finish. Its this selective citing of statistics that is the hallmark of the Democrats. They're only focused on creating soundbites.

Huh? So what are you saying? That the stats you cited are incorrect?

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

That's true but we know if prices remained the same the critics would be saying Obama did nothing.

More production was a big issue in 08, drill baby drill and all that, so increased production was delivered on.

We will probably find out in a few months whether this was poorly timed or not.

We've had 0 interest rates since 09 and that has created a bubble. Interest rates will need to be tapered up and that will put pressure on the US oil industry. If this strain had come a year earlier it would be fine, a catch 22 has developed where if they raise interest rates investment may dry up. If they don't raise interest rates the bubble could burst and it could be 2008 all over again. With more debt. It's all well and good fixing the economy temporarily but if you don't reduce debt you end up in a worse situation than before when the economy cycles.

K-9

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think you should too.

Its shows steady US increase since 2009 until just before christmas this year.

Which is also confirmed by the link I posted.

:cool:

Mod:

Nearly missed this, do not tell another poster to go from the thread, joking or not. Way below the standard expected on the forum.

Edit: I may have misinterpreted that exchange between the 2 posters, apologies for that.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Huh? So what are you saying? That the stats you cited are incorrect?

Are you one of those?

Those facts are correct. I said that citing Latino enrollment is selective since it's not enrollment that is of benefit it's the getting of a degree. If more are enrolling and graduation rates aren't increasing significantly then it just means more latinos with more debt.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry if it was already posted.

It was on CNN yesterday that Bill Clinton raped a woman and Hillary helped cover it.

Do you have a link. Haven't had much chance to catch up on the news over the weekend.

KingBrian2

walshyn93 wrote: »

Way to spin it. Totally skews the reality of the situation. I think one person wanted to burn the Koran but he was hounded by both sides.

I'm not one for interventionist foreign policy but if that regime has committed genocide or is harbouring terrorists there's a case to be made.

Why do you wait to get to that point? You allow third party countries to get dragged into civil wars and endemic conflict just so you can take out one rogue regime. Zimbabwe, North Korea are left pretty much alone and we have a ludicrous position that Saudi Arabia is at the UN human rights council. No intervention never works and should be illegal. Nations have shown themselves to be incapable of showing restraint. The UN must be where these decisions are make with the participation of neighbouring countries.

RobertKK

K-9 wrote: »

Do you have a link. Haven't had much chance to catch up on the news over the weekend.

It was on Political Mann on CNN, they showed the tweet as shown beneath and said it is not going to be smooth sailing for Hillary.

https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/684822324227379200

Then it doesn't get any better for the Clintons.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429405/vox-fairly-explains-rape-allegation-against-bill

walshyn93

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Why do you wait to get to that point? You allow third party countries to get dragged into civil wars and endemic conflict just so you can take out one rogue regime. Zimbabwe, North Korea are left pretty much alone and we have a ludicrous position that Saudi Arabia is at the UN human rights council. No intervention never works and should be illegal. Nations have shown themselves to be incapable of showing restraint. The UN must be where these decisions are make with the participation of neighbouring countries.

I just said I'm not one for intervention.

Genocide on the other hand you are obliged by international law to intervene. No question. The fact that the Yazidis were murdered is the real outrage. We had no obligation to Sunni refugees not fleeing persecution but had an obligation to protect the Yazidis. Whatever about invading the rest of Syria and Iraq.
Again, I don't support intervention so would rather not get into a debate with someone I probably agree with.

walshyn93

RobertKK wrote: »

It was on Political Mann on CNN, they showed the tweet as shown beneath and said it is not going to be smooth sailing for Hillary.

https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/684822324227379200

Then it doesn't get any better for the Clintons.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429405/vox-fairly-explains-rape-allegation-against-bill

She has made her own bed on this one. She hitched her wagon to the feminist causes of the day, one of which includes making sure all rape accusers are believed.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

It was on Political Mann on CNN, they showed the tweet as shown beneath and said it is not going to be smooth sailing for Hillary.

https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/684822324227379200

Then it doesn't get any better for the Clintons.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429405/vox-fairly-explains-rape-allegation-against-bill

Valid points about how differently it would be viewed now. I can remember the stories about his womanising in the first campaign and of course Monica Lewinsky but don't remember that one at all.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

Valid points about how differently it would be viewed now. I can remember the stories about his womanising in the first campaign and of course Monica Lewinsky but don't remember that one at all.

The problem about it is that the people who should be most outraged about it are all hypocrites as evidenced by the response to the Cologne attacks. As long as Donald Trump exists and Bernie Sanders is inexplicably a sexist Hillary is god to these people.

RobertKK

walshyn93 wrote: »

She has made her own bed on this one. She hitched her wagon to the feminist causes of the day, one of which includes making sure all rape accusers are believed.

That is right, Hillary said women who say they have been sexually assaulted should be believed. She can't be the sharpest tool in the box, no wonder there is a trail of disaster following her stint as Secretary of State.

K-9 wrote: »

Valid points about how differently it would be viewed now. I can remember the stories about his womanising in the first campaign and of course Monica Lewinsky but don't remember that one at all.

I didn't remember it, but there was so much going on Ken Starr investigated it but it was kept secret and seen by about 40 members of congress, before he was impeached.

Juanita in the interview in the link says she was offered money to tel her story but would take none and will not use the story to make money.

Hillary Clinton asked for this, because if Juanita was raped and Hillary thanked her for staying quiet, then it would make one very angry to hear Hillary Clinton say this last September:
“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”

Donald Trump won't be afraid to use this.

walshyn93

If I was Trump I'd be commissioning a world class director to make a film based on the life of the Clintons with all the names changed and include all the allegations against them.

Colonialboy

Regarding the Trump rally in Vermont last week, it gets even better in my opinion.

The rally was held in Burlington Vermont, a liberal stronghold.
Trump wasnt even invited there by Vermont Republican party.
Burlington Vermont is Bernie Sanders campaign HQ
Bernie Sanders was Mayor of Burlington for 8 years.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

The fact that they single someone out for lie of the year shows they're not impartial. An impartial fact checking organisation checks facts, it doesn't decide subjectively which lies are bigger than others.

And of course people who are on the same side of the political spectrum don't notice when the bias is in their favour.

Well as I said you could argue who has been the biggest lier among the candiddates but Trump was certainly right there in contention so its easy to see how they plumped for him.


I assume that last comment was directed at me. A classic dismissive throwaway comment designed to devalue the opinion of another person because you do not like said opinion.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yes, but many are leading the impressionable to believe that they are a more significant threat to society. They kill people, people die. Islamists kill people, freedom of speech gets a bit less free, integration gets a little bit harder. Its a type of terrorism that damages the fabric of society in a way that the right wing terrorism doesn't. Nothing about American political discourse or social cohesiveness changed because of Timothy McVeigh. That's what I mean by the real threat.

Right wing terrorists such as say the guy who murdered the people in the South Carolina church are a threat to people in the United States. It is not like that was a one off incident. As for your suggestion that some are saying right wing terrorism is a bigger threat to Americans sure I have seen that point being made. But it gets vastly out shouted by the MSM in the United States which loves to up play the fear card and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Why do they do that? Well I would suggest because using the fear card gets the American public to look the other way when it comes to the Orwellian surveilence state never mind how much money that involves for private companies that do so much of the spying. Plus of course all the bombs and bullets etc and all the profits to be made by private companies by constantly having places to bomb.


Despite the constant fear mongering about islamic terrorism being the big danger the reality is right wind inspired terrorism has been a bigger threat in the US since 2001. In fact the average American is way more likely to be killed by a police officer then an islamic terrorist.

K-9

Colonialboy wrote: »

Regarding the Trump rally in Vermont last week, it gets even better in my opinion.

The rally was held in Burlington Vermont, a liberal stronghold.
Trump wasnt even invited there by Vermont Republican party.
Burlington Vermont is Bernie Sanders campaign HQ
Bernie Sanders was Mayor of Burlington for 8 years.

I'm not seeing your point?

Manach

Latest NY Times Polls
"
Bernie Sanders Makes Strong Showing in New Polls


In the Republican contest, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has 28 percent of support and Donald J. Trump has 24 percent in Iowa, but Mr. Trump maintains a commanding 16-point lead over Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, his closest competitor, in New Hampshire, the surveys show.

In Iowa, Mrs. Clinton has 48 percent of support and Mr. Sanders has 45 percent as the competition between the two has become more contentious. Martin O’Malley, the third Democratic presidential candidate, has 5 percent in Iowa, meaning he will most likely qualify for the next presidential debate.
" - http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/10/bernie-sanders-makes-strong-showing-in-new-polls/

Fr Tod Umptious

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry if it was already posted.

It was on CNN yesterday that Bill Clinton raped a woman and Hillary helped cover it.

Its things like this that have, from the get go, failed to convince me that she is a shoe in for President as others have suggested she is.

Going all the way back to Bills day as Govonor of Arkansas there is so much baggage, so may things done and said that can hurt her.

First Up

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Its things like this that have, from the get go, failed to convince me that she is a shoe in for President as others have suggested she is.

Going all the way back to Bills day as Govonor of Arkansas there is so much baggage, so may things done and said that can hurt her.

When the Reps are reduced to this sort of stuff, you know their goose is half way into the oven.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Right wing terrorists such as say the guy who murdered the people in the South Carolina church are a threat to people in the United States. It is not like that was a one off incident. As for your suggestion that some are saying right wing terrorism is a bigger threat to Americans sure I have seen that point being made. But it gets vastly out shouted by the MSM in the United States which loves to up play the fear card and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Why do they do that? Well I would suggest because using the fear card gets the American public to look the other way when it comes to the Orwellian surveilence state never mind how much money that involves for private companies that do so much of the spying. Plus of course all the bombs and bullets etc and all the profits to be made by private companies by constantly having places to bomb.


Despite the constant fear mongering about islamic terrorism being the big danger the reality is right wind inspired terrorism has been a bigger threat in the US since 2001. In fact the average American is way more likely to be killed by a police officer then an islamic terrorist.

By your logic normal murders are more of a threat to society than hate inspired murders. The reason they're not s because hate crimes "tear at the fabric of society" (<Irish court's opinion, not mine).

The same applies to Islamic terrorism because it is intended to cause political unrest and inspire others to commit terrorism. And worst of all it works. So far there's no evidence that right wing terrorism actually works.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Well as I said you could argue who has been the biggest lier among the candiddates but Trump was certainly right there in contention so its easy to see how they plumped for him.


I assume that last comment was directed at me. A classic dismissive throwaway comment designed to devalue the opinion of another person because you do not like said opinion.

I'm not devaluing your opinion on everything. I'm just devaluing your opinion on your own bias. Is that not fair?

walshyn93

First Up wrote: »

When the Reps are reduced to this sort of stuff, you know their goose is half way into the oven.

Have you actually looked at the allegations against her? It's quite clear there is nothing she wouldn't have helped cover up for Bill. If you think voters, particularly young impressionable female voters don't deserve to hear this you're blinded by your own partisanship.

First Up

walshyn93 wrote: »

Have you actually looked at the allegations against her? It's quite clear there is nothing she wouldn't have helped cover up for Bill. If you think voters, particularly young impressionable female voters don't deserve to hear this you're blinded by your own partisanship.

They can shout it from the rooftops if they think it will make any difference to how people will vote. Bill left office fifteen years ago; like the rest of the electorate, the young impressionable female voters you speak of are more interested in the future. If you think they can be persuaded that a President Donald will serve their interests better than a President Hillary it will need something a bit more immediate and a bit more relevant.

As I said, if the Reps think this is their best shot, they really are in trouble.

walshyn93

First Up wrote: »

They can shout it from the rooftops if they think it will make any difference to how people will vote. Bill left office fifteen years ago; like the rest of the electorate, the young impressionable female voters you speak of are more interested in the future. If you think they can be persuaded that a President Donald will serve their interests better than a President Hillary it will need something a bit more immediate and a bit more relevant.

As I said, if the Reps think this is their best shot, they really are in trouble.

It's totally relevant since Hillary paints herself as an ally of women when this proves that it's clearly not true. She's an enemy of women. Few women would do what she did or could justify doing what she did. They won't run into the arms of Trump but they might vote for Sanders.

Tbh the way you're reacting I think you haven't actually read the allegations. If you think this is all about Bill you're mistaken. This is about Hillary going out of her way to cover up rapes committed by her husband. Not only is that a bad thing in and of itself. When worse allegations come to the fore they will be more likely to be believed. And the worst is yet to come for Hillary.

First Up

walshyn93 wrote:

It's totally relevant since Hillary paints herself as an ally of women when this proves that it's clearly not true. She's an enemy of women. Few women would do what she did or could justify doing what she did. They won't run into the arms of Trump but they might vote for Sanders.

So you think this is enough of an issue that Sanders could get the nomination?

Wanna bet?

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Tbh the way you're reacting I think you haven't actually read the allegations. If you think this is all about Bill you're mistaken. This is about Hillary going out of her way to cover up rapes committed by her husband. Not only is that a bad thing in and of itself. When worse allegations come to the fore they will be more likely to be believed. And the worst is yet to come for Hillary.

The Republicans have been after the Clintons since the mid 1990's

All of this also came out in the (failed) impeachment hearings.

Books have been written about all the conspiracies and allegations etc etc

So we've had almost a quarter century of Republican obsession with allegations against the Clintons.

:eek:

Fr Tod Umptious

First Up wrote: »

So you think this is enough of an issue that Sanders could get the nomination?

Wanna bet?

I can't speak for the poster you are quoting, but I do believe that this story is just one of many stories that will come out over the course of the campaign that will be very uncomfortable for Clinton.

She has a lot going against her.

She is not young
She is seeking a 3rd straight Dem election victory, following a less than spectacular tenure from Obama.
She has Bill's and her own baggage.

Why was she not picked 8 years ago ?
Why did she lose out to an first time senator ?

I have always got the feeling that she has never been very popular and that is where she is thanks to her husband and the Democratic party more than anything else.