2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"easier to recruit":rolleyes: the torture program was only recently revealed, US interventionism is only a relatively recent phenomenon, explain over 1500 years of war and islamic expansionism. That victim blaming argument is the flip side of the "they hate us for our freedoms" defense.

Then why would the CIA implement it? To say torture doesnt work because a political committee says so, is a weak point. The French intelligence/military dismantled the FLN in Algeria through the use of pretty brutal torture, could they have used other methods, possibly, was it "morally wrong", yes, utterly reprehensible, were innocents harmed, yes. But did it work, absolutely yes, they completely dismantled the FLN.

"Endorsing", its hardly an endorsement to say it has its place, violence, or quasi violence in the case of water boarding and stress positions, have their place in the intelligence/defense of ones country, to put them off the table on ethical grounds is a dogmatic position.

War and national defense are grey areas, to take absolutist moral positions about what is and is not acceptable, no matter the situation on the ground, is an immature and inflexible position to adopt. As the US marine corp tactical doctrine dictates.
"Maneuver warfare is a way of thinking in and about war that should shape every action. It is a state of mind born of a bold will, intellect, initiative and ruthless opportunism. It is a state of mind bent on shattering the enemy morally and physically by paralyzing and confounding him, by avoiding his strength, by quickly and aggressively exploiting his vulnerabilities, and by striking him in a way that will hurt him most.
"
That is how national defence and anti terrorism operations are conducted in the modern era. To suddenly start boxing yourself in whilst the enemy has no qualms about butchering people in the streets is a naive worldview.

The reason we are fighting terrorists is because we are better than them. We believe that there is a better way to live than the hatred they spew. To give and stoop to their level would be the same as losing. What rights will we be left with when the terrorists have been defeated? Your past line is essentially it is fine cos ISIS do it which is flawed moral logic to say the least. If we can't win without torture then we need to go back to the drawing board about we defend ourselves cos we messed up bad.

What if the next time the terrorists look like me? Then suddenly they could grab me by mistake. Or my family. Don't give me any of that bull about only getting terrorists red handed you know that isn't how it works.

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

The reason we are fighting terrorists is because we are better than them. We believe that there is a better way to live than the hatred they spew. To give and stoop to their level would be the same as losing. What rights will we be left with when the terrorists have been defeated? Your past line is essentially it is fine cos ISIS do it which is flawed moral logic to say the least. If we can't win without torture then we need to go back to the drawing board about we defend ourselves cos we messed up bad.

What if the next time the terrorists look like me? Then suddenly they could grab me by mistake. Or my family. Don't give me any of that bull about only getting terrorists red handed you know that isn't how it works.

No we are not, that is imperialism, we may objectively be "better" then ISIS et all, but that is irrelevant, the reason we are fighting is that they are a threat to the Western world, albeit minor. What ISIS says and does in a non European context is irrelevant, no matter how abhorrent they may be, they only are an issue when they threaten, or plan to threaten Europe etc. Terrorism only matters when it affects our safety and security, then you strike a killing blow from the off, no negotiation, other then that, live and let live.

As for us losing rights due to terrorism, that is purely at the feet of proponents of mass immigration, left and right.

jobbridge4life

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

If Trump set off on foreign expeditions, voted to use military force, etc etc, organised regime change, then obviously yes, I wouldnt support him, but as you aptly put it, its all "rhetoric", and it concerns terrorism, not foreign adventurism. Words are not worse then action, Trump could say he is going to put all muslims in camps or something equally outrageous, and it still would be less damaging to Muslims that everything Barack Obama and Clinton have done overseas. mean words<millions of dead muslims

If Trump's words, which explicitly call for war crimes, religious persecution, torture and the punishment of innocents are meaningless then why do you support him? Even as the 'least bad' candidate? Either he means what he says and you endorse it, or you think he is lying and manipulating the body public and you still endorse him. So which is it? Is it an aspiring-torturer and war criminal or a shameless charlatan who you think is the best option for President?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I'm not a Trump supporter btw,

No not all, your're just an apologist for his ALLEGED social conservatism, protectionist policies, pro-torture activism, violent rhetoric and shameless flip-floppery.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I am just enjoying the show,

Describing exactly what is wrong with democracy at present.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I think someone like Gary Johnson would be the best option, Trump is merely the least worst, plus he is making a mockery of both parties, which is a huge plus.

A libertarian... You mean to tell me you are really a libertarian underneath it all... when the candidate you have devoted time to defending couldn't be anymore diametrically less libertarian... Protectionism, racialism, war-mongering, social-conservatism, religious rhetoric, etc etc. If you genuinely support Gary Johnson then you couldn't countenance supporting Trump.

KingBrian2

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If Trump's words, which explicitly call for war crimes, religious persecution, torture and the punishment of innocents are meaningless then why do you support him? Even as the 'least bad' candidate? Either he means what he says and you endorse it, or you think he is lying and manipulating the body public and you still endorse him. So which is it? Is it an aspiring-torturer and war criminal or a shameless charlatan who you think is the best option for President?

These are only words and his campaign is backed by millions of everyday Americans that want violent terrorists to be shown no mercy. The years of false reporting of world events coupled with cronyism and letting Wall Street off the hook has created this angry mood in the country. The anger is palpable, you hear it howling out of the radio and news stations. Ranting about the eligibility of candidates. Washington has got to start fielding better candidates to chose from.

Manach

Meanwhile on the Democratic side, the selective loss memory of one candidate seems to be playing her false yet again.
"Hillary Questioned Bernie's Record on Health Care and The Internet Made an Epic Correction" - http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42965/hillary-questions-bernies-record-on-healthcare/

K-9

Manach wrote: »

Meanwhile on the Democratic side, the selective loss memory of one candidate seems to be playing her false yet again.
"Hillary Questioned Bernie's Record on Health Care and The Internet Made an Epic Correction" - http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42965/hillary-questions-bernies-record-on-healthcare/

Ouch!

Trump kept going on about bad dude protestors before the rally in the University in Chicago, yet at that time the only charges brought by police was against a Trump supporter. CNN journalist reported no violence by protestors until that point either. At this stage it is getting to the stage that any statements made by Trump should be assumed to be lies until proven otherwise.

ancapailldorcha

We're veering off topic again. Back on topic, please.

Akrasia

Sanders has been surging in the polls before tomorrows primaries.

It's amazing. a week ago in Illinois, Sanders polled at 37 points behind Clinton. Yesterday, A CNN poll had him ahead by 2 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/il/illinois_democratic_presidential_primary-5567.html

That's insane.

Similar results are coming in for Ohio, Clinton went from +20 to +9 in less than a week

In Florida, Sanders is still 20 points behind, but much of the polling was before the debates last week where Sanders really went after Clinton

Based on the data currently available, the trends show that Sanders is looking like he might win Illinois and Missouri, he could tie Ohio and run Clinton close in Florida. North Carolina still looks like a comfortable Clinton win

If this happens, the odds of Sanders taking the nomination are hugely improved given how favourable the remaining states are. He could expect to take an average of 60% and higher in the remaining states and those numbers secure him the victory.

JPNelsforearm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If Trump's words, which explicitly call for war crimes, religious persecution, torture and the punishment of innocents are meaningless then why do you support him? Even as the 'least bad' candidate? Either he means what he says and you endorse it, or you think he is lying and manipulating the body public and you still endorse him. So which is it? Is it an aspiring-torturer and war criminal or a shameless charlatan who you think is the best option for President?

They all are aspiring "war criminals" and all are shameless charlatans .

No not all, your're just an apologist for his ALLEGED social conservatism, protectionist policies, pro-torture activism, violent rhetoric and shameless flip-floppery.

Social conservatism? Not me. Apologist? in the context of actual war criminals like Hillary it doesnt hold much weight... and advocating the use of torture against ISIS, which as i have outlined above, they are an insurgency and torture is an acceptable part of any counter insurgency program, not in support of imperialist endeavors.
Nothing wrong with violent rhetoric if its in self defence.

A libertarian... You mean to tell me you are really a libertarian underneath it all... when the candidate you have devoted time to defending couldn't be anymore diametrically less libertarian... Protectionism, racialism, war-mongering, social-conservatism, religious rhetoric, etc etc. If you genuinely support Gary Johnson then you couldn't countenance supporting Trump.

Libertarianism is is dead, it has no chance in hell of ever taking off, the state has gotten far too large, far too many entitlements and programs. In the context of the state being an immutable object, Trumps protectionism and border enforcement is the best option in the face of a rigged political system and crony capitalism, the only true outside left in the race. As I have said before, the least worst candidate.

Black Swan

Akrasia wrote: »

If this happens, the odds of Sanders taking the nomination are hugely improved given how favourable the remaining states are. He could expect to take an average of 60% and higher in the remaining states and those numbers secure him the victory.

The super delegates are a problem for Sanders, and an advantage for Clinton, which may ultimately decide the nominee if the numbers are close between them. If by some chance that Sanders did get the nomination, I doubt that anyone can reliably predict (with polls or other methods) the outcome of the 8 November 2016 election in advance.

If Sanders does win the nomination, and Trump wins the Republican nomination, there will be a clear distinction between the two candidates, in that Trump is a billionaire, and exemplifies the concentration of wealth in a tiny few Americans, which Sanders has been against since beginning his presidential campaign. Sanders has extensive experience in governance (mayor, US House, and US Senate), and Trump has zero.

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

The super delegates are a problem for Sanders, and an advantage for Clinton, which may ultimately decide the nominee if the numbers are close between them. If by some chance that Sanders did get the nomination, I doubt that anyone can reliably predict (with polls or other methods) the outcome of the 8 November 2016 election in advance.

If Sanders does win the nomination, and Trump wins the Republican nomination, there will be a clear distinction between the two candidates, in that Trump is a billionaire, and exemplifies the concentration of wealth in a tiny few Americans, which Sanders and been against since beginning his presidential campaign.

The super delegates really are such an awful idea, and this election could wind up showing it - nobody should lose to Trump in a general election, but Clinton is simply not all that likable whereas Sanders I reckon would eviscerate Trump during the campaign. I think that is pretty apparent to most following the primary campaigns so far, but for the sake of establishment (what!?) the super delegates might well put forward the candidate less likely to win, knowing they are the candidate less likely to win.

Thargor

Manach wrote: »

Meanwhile on the Democratic side, the selective loss memory of one candidate seems to be playing her false yet again.
"Hillary Questioned Bernie's Record on Health Care and The Internet Made an Epic Correction" - http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42965/hillary-questions-bernies-record-on-healthcare/

Clinton seems to be internet illiterate when it comes to lying about things, most politicians seemed to grasp the danger of instant fact checking in the last couple of years but she just keeps stepping on the rake like Sideshow Bob, its really bizarre.

Except for Trump of course, he just doesnt give a sh1t

JPNelsforearm

Thargor wrote: »

Clinton seems to be internet illiterate when it comes to lying about things, most politicians seemed to grasp the danger of instant fact checking in the last couple of years but she just keeps stepping on the rake like Sideshow Bob, its really bizarre.

Except for Trump of course, he just doesnt give a sh1t

"How not to PR"

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/708734988431196160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

She should have just Trumped it out.

eire4

Billy86 wrote: »

The super delegates really are such an awful idea, and this election could wind up showing it - nobody should lose to Trump in a general election, but Clinton is simply not all that likable whereas Sanders I reckon would eviscerate Trump during the campaign. I think that is pretty apparent to most following the primary campaigns so far, but for the sake of establishment (what!?) the super delegates might well put forward the candidate less likely to win, knowing they are the candidate less likely to win.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record the super delegates are just another exmaple of how broken and corrupt the Democratic party is. They as a party have clearly never wanted a real primary campaign on the Democratic side and the block vote of the super delegates for Clinton right from the get go was part of the party making sure Clinton won. I have said before and I stand by it if Clinton needs super delegates to win the Democratic nomination and they rig it for her then the Democrats will really risk shooting themselves in the foot come November as it is just that sort of behaviour that is one of the rallying cries that has brought so much support to Sanders.

JPNelsforearm

Ah, Bernard, some mildly rigorous questioning and you crumble, one law for the people you dont agree with, another for yourself.... A Hilldog-esque flip-flop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn7fCT7zkaQ

AbusesToilets

I'd be curious what the thought process will be for the Democratic leadership as they choose the nominee. They surely recognise the likelyhood of a victory for either candidate in the general. What consideration have they given to their legislative agenda post-election?

While Hillary would be capable of winning the Presidency, she is apt to face an almighty push back from the Republicans in Congress. Sanders has a much stronger record of bipartisan legislating, and is a much less polarizing figure. This should play into their electoral calculus.

cHaTbOx

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Ah, Bernard, some mildly rigorous questioning and you crumble, one law for the people you dont agree with, another for yourself.... A Hilldog-esque flip-flop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn7fCT7zkaQ

Show the full answer and not one to perpetuate your agenda.

Billy86

cHaTbOx wrote: »

Show the full answer and not one to perpetuate your agenda.

Hilarious given it came from the guy claiming Trump was misquoted on issues that there are videos of the full answers and Trump even doubling down on.

Trump doesn't like Muslims, it makes him infallible to some with similar interests...

JPNelsforearm

Its more the fact that somehow Bernard is absolved of his fans organising to "shut **** down" at a Trump rally, yet Trump being being blamed for the Bernie people organising and threatening a riot.... Trump gets blamed for one of his fans punching a Bernie person, yet the opposite is not true. Basically only one type of rhetoric is to be allowed, otherwise your speech could "incite" and provoke violence, the left using the threat of violence to shut down speech is the issue and then victim blaming.

I think Bernard is right, in that just because someone who supports him does something stupid he should not be blamed, but that holds true for Trump also. Same with "celebrity" endorsements from headcases, eg David Duke for Trump and Bill Ayers for Sanders, has Sanders disavowed Bill Ayers yet?

The people who started this line of attack are the democrats and Republican establishment, its just another line to try and stump the Trump, blame him for Sander affiliated groups attacking him.....makes sense.

WarZ

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I think Bernard is right, in that just because someone who supports him does something stupid he should not be blamed, but that holds true for Trump also.

Trump has actively condoned violence. He has stated that he would love to punch that protester in the face, has asked his supporters "to rough him up a little" when a protester was being ejected and has offered to pay the legal fees of a man who committed an act of violence at his rally (this same man later said that next time he might have to kill the victim)

He is absolutely responsible. Bernie has repeatedly said that while he supports peoples right to protest he does not in any way condone violence. Trump has said he doesn't condone violence but looking at his numerous statements to the contrary it would seem that he is lying as usual

Black Swan

Billy86 wrote: »

The super delegates really are such an awful idea

Superdelegates are about 15% (747/5083=14.69) of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention. This means that 747 of the 5,083 delegates attending the 2016 Democratic National Convention can choose whichever candidate they prefer.

eire4 wrote: »

At the risk of sounding like a broken record the super delegates are just another exmaple of how broken and corrupt the Democratic party is.

The Republicans have a slightly greater percentage of "unpledged delegates," which function essentially the same as the Democrats superdelegates; i.e., Republicans call them by a different name.

Out of 2,470 total delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2016, 437 are unpledged delegates, or about 18 percent of delegates (437/2470=17.69), who play the same role as superdelegates. Of the 437, 168 are members of the Republican National Committee.

I agree with Billy86 and eire4 that the Democrat superdelegates are troublesome for a democracy, but in like manner the Republican unpledged delegates are also troublesome. Such superdelegates or unpledged delegates exemplify the troublesome nature of the 2 party system as warned by John Adams:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Overheal

Donald Trump demonstrates the genius of a superdelegate system....

walshyn93

cHaTbOx wrote: »

Show the full answer and not one to perpetuate your agenda.

The full answer is no different in meaning to the one in the video. The fact is, neither Bernie nor Trump can control the actions of their supporters, and Trump supporters aren't behaving like Brownshirts going in and breaking up Bernie's meetings. I don't think that Sanders is responsible even if he does court the support of radical leftist groups, but he his undeniably a hypocrite.

walshyn93

WarZ wrote: »

Trump has actively condoned violence. He has stated that he would love to punch that protester in the face, has asked his supporters "to rough him up a little" when a protester was being ejected and has offered to pay the legal fees of a man who committed an act of violence at his rally (this same man later said that next time he might have to kill the victim)

He is absolutely responsible. Bernie has repeatedly said that while he supports peoples right to protest he does not in any way condone violence. Trump has said he doesn't condone violence but looking at his numerous statements to the contrary it would seem that he is lying as usual

Bernie has yet to disavow the disruption in Chicago caused by Anti-Trump campaigners, which can't be called a protest since it was outside of the designated protest area, and was in fact illegal under HR 347. By failing to disavow this, as well as the actions of said campaigners in blocking an ambulance from getting to the venue he is allowing it to continue. He could put an end to this violence by disavowing it, but he won't because social unrest and minority angst is what his campaign feeds off. He has yet to specifically disavow Tom DiMassio, who, for a moment looked as though he was attempting to assassinate a presidential candidate. Making a general statement like "I don't condone violence" clearly isn't enough because Trump has said the same many times. Bernie won't be hounded like this because of the media bias against Trump.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

Ouch!

Trump kept going on about bad dude protestors before the rally in the University in Chicago, yet at that time the only charges brought by police was against a Trump supporter. CNN journalist reported no violence by protestors until that point either. At this stage it is getting to the stage that any statements made by Trump should be assumed to be lies until proven otherwise.

A cop was smashed over the head with what looked like a bottle. Trump is extremely pro-cop, I find it difficult to believe one of his supporters assaulted a cop. There is ample video evidence showing counter demonstrators blocking an ambulance trying to get through. 6 cops move them out of the way but make no arrests. The reason no counter demonstrators were arrested (according to you) is more likely to do with Chicago's internal politics and the tension between CPD and the Black Lives Matter movement than the preponderance of violence by one group or another. Needless to say, Trump fans didn't shut down their own rally.

walshyn93

Billy86 wrote: »

Good thing you're more qualified to discuss this than military, psychological, interrogative, and all other forms of experts.

If the military doesn't want to waterboard they won't. Trump loosening the laws on waterboarding won't force the military to do something they don't think is necessary.

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

I wouldn't mind his failed companies if he simply owned up to the failures. Instead he lies, bare faced, about them and shouts about his success.

Do you realise that his perception of success is what makes his brand a success? So you're demanding that he actively harm his own company's brand to satisfy your need to see someone humbled.

He has owned 551 companies and only about 12 have been pointed out as failures. There could be more I'm not aware of, but it's still irrelevant.

Mitt Romney's business record has a less than 50% success rate yet he's an undeniably skillful and successful businessman. That's the nature of business. It's not your failures that define your success, because more often than not the profits from your successful business ventures will far outweigh your losses on the unsuccessful ones.

Attacking a billionaire's business success is a total non-starter. There are some elements of Trump's record you could attack. But he's a multi-billionaire. His business career is above reproach. Saying otherwise is pure desperation.

The stunt he pulled with the steaks in FL was a genius bit of campaigning too. Even if it's no longer in business, that's not what the media picked up on and that's really all that matters at the end of the day.

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its more the fact that somehow Bernard is absolved of his fans organising to "shut **** down" at a Trump rally, yet Trump being being blamed for the Bernie people organising and threatening a riot.... Trump gets blamed for one of his fans punching a Bernie person, yet the opposite is not true. Basically only one type of rhetoric is to be allowed, otherwise your speech could "incite" and provoke violence, the left using the threat of violence to shut down speech is the issue and then victim blaming.

I think Bernard is right, in that just because someone who supports him does something stupid he should not be blamed, but that holds true for Trump also. Same with "celebrity" endorsements from headcases, eg David Duke for Trump and Bill Ayers for Sanders, has Sanders disavowed Bill Ayers yet?

The people who started this line of attack are the democrats and Republican establishment, its just another line to try and stump the Trump, blame him for Sander affiliated groups attacking him.....makes sense.

Trump is going around saying he'll pay supporters legal bills if they attack protestors, no other candidate is.

Maybe you can try and spin that one.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

Trump is going around saying he'll pay supporters legal bills if they attack protestors, no other candidate is.

Maybe you can try and spin that one.

You're the one who's using spin here. I don't even know if you could call it spin, it's totally false actually. He said he would pay one person's legal bills, not everyone's. It happened to be a 78 year old man who punched a young lad for obnoxiously sticking a middle finger in his face and Trump sympathised with him. As do I. Hardly a carte blanche to all his supporters. If anything it just shows that Trump is generous to those who are loyal to him, which is something to be admired in a politician, not condemned.

Why do you lie about stuff like this? What do you actually get out of it?

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

...media bias against Trump.

It is highly recommended that folks who believe that there is a "media bias against Trump" read Trump's 1987 book The Art of the Deal. If I recall the pages correctly (on about pages 56 or 57) Trump writes about how to manipulate the press by saying "outrageous" and sensationalist things, whereupon the press (media) flock to report his latest "outrageous" statements, providing him free media coverage, as well as keeping Trump before the national audience more than his other Republican or Democratic competitors. Trump has said "outrageous" things about Mexicans, Muslims, the Pope (pawn), "torture works," etc., etc., and the du jour "outrageous" statements about punching and roughing up protesters. Trump is brilliant when it comes to manipulating the media (press), and is following the advice he gives in his 1987 book, and is getting exactly what he wants from the so-called "media bias against Trump" (including playing the victim of the "media bias" quite well).

And the second that the media fails to cover Trump, he will say another "outrageous" thing to draw them immediately back to him. Just like Huey Long of Louisiana, Trump understands that "Good news is best news, bad news is 2nd best news (so-called media bias), and no news is bad news for a politician." If the media stopped reporting his "outrageous" statements, Trump would be dead in the water, and his competitors would catch him. So if he can keep the media focused upon him (including GOOD and BAD news, which are BOTH GOOD according to Huey Long and Trump in his 1987 book), he will win the Republican nomination and the 8 November 2016 presidential election.

The craic I've found in the 2016 presidential election is how Trump has brilliantly manipulated and controlled the media in content and context on a daily basis keeping him before the American people unlike any of the Republican or Democrat candidates, and having spent less than any other candidate through his expert manipulation resulting in free Trump airtime. Love or hate Trump, everyone is talking about him daily across the pond, and such talk drives up ratings and profits for the so-called "media bias" to where it's a win-win for Trump and the media. And the biggest craic of all occurs when his believers rush to defend Trump against the so-called "media bias," which Trump keeps churning with continued "outrageous" statements per his 1987 book. I would guess that most of the Trump believers have NOT READ OR UNDERSTOOD the content of The Art of the Deal by Trump. If they did, they would see how the so-called "media bias" is being fostered by Trump on a daily basis to keep him in the public eye, which is a winning strategy.