2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A lot of big business is against any and all attempts as conservation. The previous GOP was as bad in practice.

Yeah, but as the evidence mounts and the urgency increases it becomes more and more monstrous to ignore climate change. There's a big difference between supporting appeasement in 1936 and 1943...

JPNelsforearm

B_Wayne wrote: »

She's a pretty accomplished politician, so far from failed. Trump on the other hand hasn't had any political career up until now and has primarily courted controversy via making racist and existing remarks, not had one position that remains semi consistent. Praising name calling, alas I have grown beyond that....

How is Hillary Clinton an accomplished politician?


Some failure off the top of my head..

Invasion of Iraq
Withdrawal from Iraq
Arab Spring
Benghazi
Emails
Libya/Gaddafi
Numerous trade deals


What has she accomplished as Secretary of State?

ECO_Mental

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How is Hillary Clinton an accomplished politician?


Some failure off the top of my head..

Invasion of Iraq
Withdrawal from Iraq
Arab Spring
Benghazi
Emails
Libya/Gaddafi
Numerous trade deals


What has she accomplished as Secretary of State?

What the F***, invasion of Iraq..... Are you serious........blaming that on Hillary I would love to hear your explanation of that one? And the rest

ECO_Mental

You are actually blaming the Bush WMD lies for invading of Iraq on Hillary... Now that is just waaay out there comical

JPNelsforearm

Hilary Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, that is a failure on her part, how is it not? Its part of her record as a politician.

ECO_Mental

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hilary Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, that is a failure on her part, how is it not? Its part of her record as a politician.

unbelievable.... I can't argue with that logic and distortion..... is there nothing that you won't blame Hillary on?

K-9

Voting record comes into it.

But slating her for voting for the invasion and the withdrawal seems a bit biased and unfair tbh. It's a no win situation, very The Thick of It.

JPNelsforearm

Look at Iraq since US troops pulled out, ISIS, utterly fragmented, teetering on the brink. Im not blaming her for disbanding the iraqi army police forces etc that led to the mess, only for voting for a withdrawal that made as much military and political sense as the initial invasion did( none) and compounded all the mistakes made during the occupation.

ancapailldorcha

ECO_Mental wrote: »

You are actually blaming the Bush WMD lies for invading of Iraq on Hillary... Now that is just waaay out there comical

Comments like this add nothing to the thread. Please try and be more constructive.

B_Wayne

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How is Hillary Clinton an accomplished politician?

Well, it was in response to Warren... :rolleyes: Not a major fan of Hillary but yep, pretty accomplished. I'll just list some from her time as Secretary of state.

• Co-chairing the U.S-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue
• Diplomatic relations missions to over 100 countries, was also a part of restoring US reputation which was severely damage by Bush legacy.
• Advocated female,lgbt and human rights in general to UN Human Rights Council.
• Worked to restore negotiations between Israel and Palestine
• Also considered significant in terms of relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

She has engaged in plenty politically that I don't agree with but she's highly accomplished as a politician. So far Trump has managed to insult numerous groupings and shown he lacks any diplomatic ability..... Choice as is, Clinton over Trump is far more worthy.

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Look at Iraq since US troops pulled out, ISIS, utterly fragmented, teetering on the brink. Im not blaming her for disbanding the iraqi army police forces etc that led to the mess, only for voting for a withdrawal that made as much military and political sense as the initial invasion did( none) and compounded all the mistakes made during the occupation.

For me the actual invasion itself was the start of it after 9/11, then we'd Madrid and plenty of other attacks.

It becomes a Hobson's choice after that eg.do you really think if they'd stayed things would be any better?

Akrasia

K-9 wrote: »

Voting record comes into it.

But slating her for voting for the invasion and the withdrawal seems a bit biased and unfair tbh. It's a no win situation, very The Thick of It.

Given that this election could come down to the difference between the traditional Whitehall politician and a perceived honest straight shooter, hillarys record of voting for bushes Iraq war could be costly. Especially when the general public knew the reasons for the war were nonsense

KingBrian2

Akrasia wrote: »

Given that this election could come down to the difference between the traditional Whitehall politician and a perceived honest straight shooter, hillarys record of voting for bushes Iraq war could be costly. Especially when the general public knew the reasons for the war were nonsense

It's not just the war. She has not stood up for the Palestinians. And Trump's positions on Islamism are well liked by the public. They are already American policies. Trump speaks harsh on ISIS using torture and taking out their families which appeals to a lot of people. Hillary has shown she would resume America's policies.

Rjd2

Black Swan wrote: »

G Susana Martinez Governor of New Mexico, as well as being chairwoman of the Republican Governors Association may attract the Hispanic voter demographic, given that there has never been an Hispanic VP in US history.

Susanna probably not going to happen:P

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-breaks-nations-only-latina-governor-152738238--election.html


When people question your appeal to females and Latinos, not sure constantly going over Martinez is that canny of a long term move, his hardcore supporters will love it, but those votes have been won.


It won't hurt him to much, but I don't really see the logic in attacking her whatsoever.

Black Swan

Rjd2 wrote: »

It won't hurt him to much, but I don't really see the logic in attacking her whatsoever.

Per your news report cited, it's all too obvious that when (Republican) NM Governor Susana Martinez failed to attend his rally, as well as not endorsing him, Trump went into his typical attack mode bad mouthing her (of course without any substance to back up his claims, just his BIG MOUTH). Which was followed by many Republicans rushing to her aid, like Speaker of the House Ryan: "Susana Martinez is a great governor, she turned deficits into surpluses, she cut taxes."

Methinks that Ryan, et al, Republicans are getting worried about losing some Republican seats in the US Senate and US House because of the all too frequent impulsive, too personal, capricious, and often contradictory statements by rump from his political pulpit. After 8 November the GOP will probably still control the House, even if they lose a few seats, but there is a real worry that they might lose their slim lead in the Senate and fail to have one-party control of Congress and the Executive. Furthermore, there's a mid-term 2018 election worry by Ryan and the GOP that Celebrity Apprentice President Trump with ZERO governance experience fails to make the quantum leap from ZERO to president in the first 2 years of his 1st term, and that they may lose their majority in the House (and Ryan will lose his job as the powerful Speaker).

K-9

Below standard post deleted. There have been enough on thread warnings at this stage.

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

For me the actual invasion itself was the start of it after 9/11, then we'd Madrid and plenty of other attacks.

It becomes a Hobson's choice after that eg.do you really think if they'd stayed things would be any better?

Leaving aside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm and chaos/fragmentation being an actual goal of the invasion, no, I dont think Iraq, or the surrounding states, would be as bad as they are today with 100k plus US troops stationed there and no ISIS.

JPNelsforearm

B_Wayne wrote: »

Well, it was in response to Warren... :rolleyes: Not a major fan of Hillary but yep, pretty accomplished. I'll just list some from her time as Secretary of state.

• Co-chairing the U.S-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue
• Diplomatic relations missions to over 100 countries, was also a part of restoring US reputation which was severely damage by Bush legacy.
• Advocated female,lgbt and human rights in general to UN Human Rights Council.
• Worked to restore negotiations between Israel and Palestine
• Also considered significant in terms of relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

She has engaged in plenty politically that I don't agree with but she's highly accomplished as a politician. So far Trump has managed to insult numerous groupings and shown he lacks any diplomatic ability..... Choice as is, Clinton over Trump is far more worthy.

So nothing tangible then, just "diplomacy" aka meaningless PR.

BoJack Horseman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

So nothing tangible then, just "diplomacy" aka meaningless PR.

This is what Secretary Clinton will be largely remembered for.
Hopelessly miscalculated & Lavrov/Putin knew they had her number there & then.

Her successor was superior in the role.

Rjd2

Black Swan wrote: »

Per your news report cited, it's all too obvious that when (Republican) NM Governor Susana Martinez failed to attend his rally, as well as not endorsing him, Trump went into his typical attack mode bad mouthing her (of course without any substance to back up his claims, just his BIG MOUTH). Which was followed by many Republicans rushing to her aid, like Speaker of the House Ryan: "Susana Martinez is a great governor, she turned deficits into surpluses, she cut taxes."

Methinks that Ryan, et al, Republicans are getting worried about losing some Republican seats in the US Senate and US House because of the all too frequent impulsive, too personal, capricious, and often contradictory statements by rump from his political pulpit. After 8 November the GOP will probably still control the House, even if they lose a few seats, but there is a real worry that they might lose their slim lead in the Senate and fail to have one-party control of Congress and the Executive. Furthermore, there's a mid-term 2018 election worry by Ryan and the GOP that Celebrity Apprentice President Trump with ZERO governance experience fails to make the quantum leap from ZERO to president in the first 2 years of his 1st term, and that they may lose their majority in the House (and Ryan will lose his job as the powerful Speaker).

His camp seem to be back tracking somewhat, understandable really, yeah it plays well with the hardcore Trump fanbase, but ultimately with Clinton's popularity with Hispanics, he probably doesn't need to be getting into a war of words with someone as popular and important as Martinez.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/29/donald-trump-campaign-downplays-chaos-new-mexico-governor

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/29/donald-trumps-campaign-tries-to-walk-back-his-attacks-on-republicans/

hatrickpatrick

InTheTrees wrote: »

Not just climate change. Despite dire warnings from the Centre For Disease Control (CDC) republicans in Congress just went on break without any decision on funding for the coming Zika epidemic .

I have every confidence that the Republicans would block a project to destroy an asteroid which was on a definitive collision course with Earth if it meant increasing federal funding of NASA.

It's almost like they would wear the apocalypse as a badge of honour if it meant they could say "hey, we prevented those communists from spending taxpayer's money!"

Brian?

I'm not really in the habit of posting links to show opinion, but I just read this article and it's so damn sensible I had to post it:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/paul-krugman-do-the-math-but-unfortunately-most-voters-seem-unable-to-1.2666049

K-9

Could you add a couple of lines about what it says please rather than people having to click on it.

Billy86

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

InTheTrees wrote: »

Not just climate change. Despite dire warnings from the Centre For Disease Control (CDC) republicans in Congress just went on break without any decision on funding for the coming Zika epidemic .

I have every confidence that the Republicans would block a project to destroy an asteroid which was on a definitive collision course with Earth if it meant increasing federal funding of NASA.

It's almost like they would wear the apocalypse as a badge of honour if it meant they could say "hey, we prevented those communists from spending taxpayer's money!"

If anyone wondering why the lads south of the wall in Game of Thrones don't seem too worried about the whole white walker thing, this is why.

There is a line from the first or second series about a character called Littlefinger (Aiden Gillen) saying "he would see the world burned to the core if it meant he could rule over the ashes" (paraphrasing) and it's basically US politics in a nutshell.

Billy86

K-9 wrote: »

Could you add a couple of lines about what it says please rather than people having to click on it.

Basically Hillary is the clear favourite. There is a lot of very, very obvious stuff in there and most will learn nothing off the article, but the sad state of affairs is that is precisely why the author wrote it, as he says early on.

Brian?

K-9 wrote: »

Could you add a couple of lines about what it says please rather than people having to click on it.

You're right. Poor form.


Basically it says Clinton is winning, she's the presumptive nominee. She's also ahead in polling for the general and should win based on the numbers. Anything else is hysteria or hyperbole.

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

If anyone wondering why the lads south of the wall in Game of Thrones don't seem too worried about the whole white walker thing, this is why.

There is a line from the first or second series about a character called Littlefinger (Aiden Gillen) saying "he would see the world burned to the core if it meant he could rule over the ashes" (paraphrasing) and it's basically US politics in a nutshell.

Also remember the fundamentalist Christians (and there are a huge amount of them in the USA) believe that The Rapture can only come about at the end of the world.

Its the reason the US hasnt done much to combat climate change.

BoJack Horseman

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its the reason the US hasnt done much to combat climate change.

China, Russia & the middle east must be soaked with fundamentalist christians then!

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

China, Russia & the middle east must be soaked with fundamentalist christians then!

Well now that you come to mention it their are large Christian populations in all those region. Just saying.:o

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well now that you come to mention it their are large Christian populations in all those region

At least we know why the world largely doesn't give a sh*t about climate change!

dem damn Christians.