2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

walshyn93

First Up wrote: »

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

Wanna bet?

What does Hillary offer than Sanders doesn't?

I happen to disagree with Sanders on just about everything but there's no doubt he represents the aspirations of the Democrats better than Hillary.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

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:

How is any of this an argument in her favour? Republicans attack their political opponents. Is that supposed to discredit the evidence against her which is mounting by the day?

She has never had to answer to any of these allegations against a Republican on a debate stage. She has never actually debated a Republican. She may find herself up against the most free speaking candidate ever who won't hold back one bit. Trump has already broken Lindsay Graham and Jeb Bush like a pair of little boys. What he could do to Hillary is mind bending. The media will be behind Trump to win the nomination because it means the biggest ever revenues for the Presidential debates.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

How is any of this an argument in her favour? Republicans attack their political opponents. Is that supposed to discredit the evidence against her which is mounting by the day?

You said "Tbh the way you're reacting I think you haven't actually read the allegations."

I replied we've had almost 25 years of republican allegations against the Clintons so yes, we've heard them over and over and over...

Its the reason saunders isnt using them.

First Up

walshyn93 wrote: »

What does Hillary offer than Sanders doesn't?

I happen to disagree with Sanders on just about everything but there's no doubt he represents the aspirations of the Democrats better than Hillary.

If that's the case, he will get more votes in the nomination process.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

You said "Tbh the way you're reacting I think you haven't actually read the allegations."

I replied we've had almost 25 years of republican allegations against the Clintons so yes, we've heard them over and over and over...

Its the reason saunders isnt using them.

Saunders? As in NHL superstar Bernie Saunders?

I'm not suggesting Sanders use the allegations. The allegations speak for themselves and they're coming to the fore now in a big way. I was suggesting that Bernie use the emails scandal but he's too much of a light weight for that.

walshyn93

First Up wrote: »

If that's the case, he will get more votes in the nomination process.

Your evasiveness is showing. We all know that media attention plays a huge role in the nomination process.

What does Hillary offer than Sanders doesn't?

First Up

walshyn93 wrote: »

Your evasiveness is showing. We all know that media attention plays a huge role in the nomination process.

What does Hillary offer than Sanders doesn't?

Evasiveness about what? You say Saunders' policies better reflect the Dems "core" values. If that was the case, he should get the most votes and delegates in the nomination process. He won't, partly because his views don't reflect mainstream Democratic values but more importantly, because the Dems understand that presidential elections are won from the middle and Hillary has far broader appeal to the wider electorate. She also has a track record and far higher profile.

The notion of broad appeal is something that seems to elude the GOP in its current incarnation. Politics is the art of compromise, unless you are part of the Republican base, in which case it is about stating your convictions as loudly and as often as possible.

walshyn93

First Up wrote: »

Evasiveness about what? You say Saunders' policies better reflect the Dems "core" values. If that was the case, he should get the most votes and delegates in the nomination process. He won't, partly because his views don't reflect mainstream Democratic values but more importantly, because the Dems understand that presidential elections are won from the middle and Hillary has far broader appeal to the wider electorate. She also has a track record and far higher profile.

The notion of broad appeal is something that seems to elude the GOP in its current incarnation. Politics is the art of compromise, unless you are part of the Republican base, in which case it is about stating your convictions as loudly and as often as possible.

So there you go and contradict your statement that if he reflects the Dems core values he will win. In fact you indicate that core values are among the least important factors when it comes to winning the nomination.

The Republicans adhere to core values and you say it like its a bad thing. They don't lose because they do this, they lose because they field weak candidates for mass appeal like Romney and McCain. Romney lost because he was too much like Obama anyway.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting Sanders use the allegations. The allegations speak for themselves and they're coming to the fore now in a big way. I was suggesting that Bernie use the emails scandal but he's too much of a light weight for that.

Is that what donald trump said?

I haven't heard any new allegations lately. The Benghazi committee continues to flounder.

The email scandal? Its a figment of republican fantasy.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Is that what donald trump said?

I haven't heard any new allegations lately. The Benghazi committee continues to flounder.

The email scandal? Its a figment of republican fantasy.

Tell me how.

my friend

InTheTrees wrote: »

I replied we've had almost 25 years of republican allegations against the Clintons so yes, we've heard them over and over and over...
.

Clinton rape victim Juanita Broderrick was a democrat, more so an active Democratic Party campaigner for Bill Clinton

Funny that you should attempt to smear Republicans for Clintons crimes

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Deleted post

Is this what passes for debate here?

First Up

walshyn93 wrote: »

So there you go and contradict your statement that if he reflects the Dems core values he will win. In fact you indicate that core values are among the least important factors when it comes to winning the nomination.

The Republicans adhere to core values and you say it like its a bad thing. They don't lose because they do this, they lose because they field weak candidates for mass appeal like Romney and McCain. Romney lost because he was too much like Obama anyway.

I said that IF he reflected Dems core values he SHOULD win. I also said that he won't win - in part because he doesn't reflect the core values of the majority of Dems and also because the Dems recognise that elections are won from the centre and you need a candidate with broad appeal.

But if you think the GOP should field louder and more extreme candidates - go ahead and cheer for them but be prepared for continuing bewilderment at the results.

Fr Tod Umptious

First Up wrote: »

Evasiveness about what? You say Saunders' policies better reflect the Dems "core" values. If that was the case, he should get the most votes and delegates in the nomination process. He won't, partly because his views don't reflect mainstream Democratic values but more importantly, because the Dems understand that presidential elections are won from the middle and Hillary has far broader appeal to the wider electorate. She also has a track record and far higher profile.

The notion of broad appeal is something that seems to elude the GOP in its current incarnation. Politics is the art of compromise, unless you are part of the Republican base, in which case it is about stating your convictions as loudly and as often as possible.

The Dems were fortunate to have a young, charismatic candidate for the last two elections.
Who also happened to be black which brought in a huge number of new voters*.

Prior to that they had two candidates that could not get elected against what many believe to be the worst US president in a century.

It has more to do with the quality of the candidate you have, and far less about some idea of winning from the middle as you suggest.

Hillary may be well known, but she no more popular with the wider American public than Gore, Kerry, McCain or Romney were.

*Will post stats later when on a computer.

K-9

Mod:

InTheTrees and Walshyn93 cut it out please.

These personal spats are becoming a regular thing and derailing the thread. If it persists those who take part in them will get banned from the thread. If you think something is below standard, report it, do not reply as that is what makes train wrecks of threads. Thank you.

ancapailldorcha

walshyn93 wrote: »

Is this what passes for debate here?

If you have a problem with a post, please use the report post function.

Colonialboy

InTheTrees wrote: »

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

:eek:

or put it another way we have had almost quarter century of scandals associated with the Clintons.

and Im pretty sure it was more than just Republicans who were obsessed, the media, various senate oversight committees, various senate investigations, federal judiciaty, state judiciary, national security agency, FBI, CIA,

pretty much every bastion of the US Judiciary system has at one time or another had an investigation into the Clintons.

Thats an awful lot of smoke, and an awful lot of benefit of the doubt to think theres no fire.

First Up

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Prior to that they had two candidates that could not get elected against what many believe to be the worst US president in a century.

Neither Gore or Kerry would set anyone's world alight but if the votes in Florida hadn't been fiddled, Gore would have won the electoral college as well as the popular vote in 2000 and GWB was re-elected on the back of post 9-11 hysteria and militaristic strutting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

walshyn93

First Up wrote: »

Neither Gore or Kerry would set anyone's world alight but if the votes in Florida hadn't been fiddled, Gore would have won the electoral college as well as the popular vote in 2000 and GWB was re-elected on the back of post 9-11 hysteria and militaristic strutting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But they lost that court case so Bush won that election because court judgements are always right and never subject to political bias, right?

First Up

walshyn93 wrote: »

But they lost that court case so Bush won that election because court judgements are always right and never subject to political bias, right?

Your point being???....

walshyn93

First Up wrote: »

Your point being???....

If Bush got elected based on dodgy political pressure then Clinton can get acquitted based on the same thing.

Fr Tod Umptious

First Up wrote: »

Neither Gore or Kerry would set anyone's world alight but if the votes in Florida hadn't been fiddled, Gore would have won the electoral college as well as the popular vote in 2000 and GWB was re-elected on the back of post 9-11 hysteria and militaristic strutting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gore should never have allowed himself to have to rely on Florida.

Colonialboy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Gore should never have allowed himself to have to rely on Florida.

Gore lost the election cos he didnt bring Bill on the campaign trail

Hilary will lose the election cos she did bring Bill on the campaign trail.

First Up

walshyn93 wrote:

If Bush got elected based on dodgy political pressure then Clinton can get acquitted based on the same thing.

Acquitted of what charge?

First Up

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Gore should never have allowed himself to have to rely on Florida.

Agreed, he ran a lacklustre campaign and lacked communication skills. But it is pretty common for the White House to change parties after a two term presidency - which makes the probable Republican failure this time all the more ignominious.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

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.

Yes I would say that right wing terrorism is indeed much more of a threat to society in the United States. I would also say that right wing terrorism as for example the attack on the South Carolina church are all about hate and lots of it sadly. Pretty sure that kind of right wing terrorism and hate which has killed significantly more people in the US since 2001 tears at the fabric of society as well.


No question Islamic terrorism is hate filled and tears at the fabric of society as well it is just that it was significantly less dangerous then domestic right wing terrorism and hate. Despite the constant fear mongering of corrupt politicans and the MSM which as I said in my opinion is part of a concerted effort to allow the government to get away with the continued working of their Orwellian survelience state which of course the private companies are all for as they make out like bandits given much of the work is done by private companies. As well of course as the more tradition defense contractors who want to keep the US spending insane amounts of money on their war machine.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Yes I would say that right wing terrorism is indeed much more of a threat to society in the United States. I would also say that right wing terrorism as for example the attack on the South Carolina church are all about hate and lots of it sadly. Pretty sure that kind of right wing terrorism and hate which has killed significantly more people in the US since 2001 tears at the fabric of society as well.


No question Islamic terrorism is hate filled and tears at the fabric of society as well it is just that it was significantly less dangerous then domestic right wing terrorism and hate. Despite the constant fear mongering of corrupt politicans and the MSM which as I said in my opinion is part of a concerted effort to allow the governent to get away with the continued working of their Orwellian survelience state which of course the private companies are all for as they make out like bandits given much of the work is done by private companies. As well of course as the more tradition defense contractors who want to keep the US spending insane amounts of money on their war machine.

It depends what you define as dangerous. I would rank fear of speaking openly or criticising religion as a result of Islamic terrorism as being more dangerous than some extra deaths as a result of right wing terrorism. That Orwellian surveillance you talk about was ushered in due to Islamic terrorism not right wing terrorism.

If the sole effect of terrorism was casualties then you would be justified in saying that right wing terrorism was more dangerous. But because the dangers of Islamic terrorism are more intangible, the true danger cannot be ascertained by statistics alone.

You just don't have those intangibles with right wing terrorism. The narrative they're trying to promote just isn't as attractive to ordinary Americans as the narrative of Islamic extremists is to ordinary Muslims. There's also a global aspect to Islamic terroris that isn't present with right wing terrorism.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

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

Yes indeed you were clearly attempting to make the comment in a subtle attempt to devalue my opinion because it differs from yours by implying that my opinion is of no validity because according to you a website has a certain political leaning and according to you I have the same political leanings as said website therefore my opinion is not valid. That was the logic of what was as I said a classic throwaway comment attempting in a subtle way to devalue my opinion because I have the audactity to differ from yours.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Yes indeed you were clearly attempting to make the comment in a subtle attempt to devalue my opinion because it differs from yours by implying that my opinion is of no validity because according to you a website has a certain political leaning and according to you I have the same political leanings as said website therefore my opinion is not valid. That was the logic of what was as I said a classic throwaway comment attempting in a subtle way to devalue my opinion because I have the audactity to differ from yours.

Well that's just your opinion:D

Genuinely it's fairly common for people on the left side of the spectrum to think for example that FOX news is more biased than MSNBC and for right wing people to think MSNBC is more biased than FOX news. It's not an insult or devaluing your opinion on anything else. Just pointing out that you may not notice a bias if it's in your favour but would if it was against you. We're all guilty of it.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Well that's just your opinion:D

Genuinely it's fairly common for people on the left side of the spectrum to think for example that FOX news is more biased than MSNBC and for right wing people to think MSNBC is more biased than FOX news. It's not an insult or devaluing your opinion on anything else. Just pointing out that you may not notice a bias if it's in your favour but would if it was against you. We're all guilty of it.

and thus I am calling you out on your disrespectful swipe and attempt to devalue my opinion simply because it does not accord with yours.


As for FOX news and MSNBC I have little respect or time for either channel who are very much part of the MSM media in the US and very much part of the problem as they have little interest in being legit sources of news and information rather then being at their worst outright exteme propaganda outlets and certainly being more interested in pushing agends that do not serve the best interests of the majority of Americans.