2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Conas

Inquitus wrote: »

Is it all over? Trump's campaign is in disarray, he doesn't have fundraising in place, he doesn't have the skillset to campaign at GE level, he can no longer stand at a stump and say the first thing that pops into his head as he did in the primaries.

Nate Silver has Trump @20% odds to win the presidency, he also has Hillary at 20% to sweep the Presidency, the Senate and the House, citing the fact that Trump is going to be a down ticket disaster for the GOP.

Is this a done deal at this point? is there any way back for Trump? Can the GOP overthrow him at the convention? reading the latest news and opinion this is over as a contest! Anyone disagree?

Funny enough I was checking the odds of who's favourite to win the election on Betfair, I'm amazed at how short Hillary Clinton is to win; 1.4 (2/5) Trump is at 4.5 (7/2)

I personally don't see how 99% American could even contemplate voting her in, then again they did elect Bush Jr twice.

Her motto 'Fighting for us', should in reality be 'Fighting on behalf of corporate America'.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

Well the Clinton detractors say the Clinton's are a law onto themselves. To the point some argue they literally get away with murder.

They've been at that since Bill Clinton appointed Hillary to take charge of healthcare reform in the 90's. Republicans do not like healthcare reform, it tends to benefit the less well off.

SO they've been piling on the rumour's and false accusations ever since. Nothing ever comes of it. The impeachment of bill clinton was a failure, just like the eight benghazi committees.

InTheTrees

Conas wrote: »

I personally don't see how 99% American could even contemplate voting her in

Can you explain why? What do you disagree with her about?

Is it the healthcare? the environment? Minority rights? taxes?

InTheTrees

Conas wrote: »

Her motto 'Fighting for us', should in reality be 'Fighting on behalf of corporate America'.

She is the only candidate who will actually get to do something to end the lunatic system of corporate financing of politics.

The republicans create this climate of almost corrupt campaign finance laws and then cry foul when their opponents are forced to use the same system to compete against them.

You think trump would do anything about it? His campaign is busy paying himself millions.

Conas

InTheTrees wrote: »

She is the only candidate who will actually get to do something to end the lunatic system of corporate financing of politics.

The republicans create this climate of almost corrupt campaign finance laws and then cry foul when their opponents are forced to use the same system to compete against them.

You think trump would do anything about it? His campaign is busy paying himself millions.

Well I think her track record as Secretary of state speaks for itself. Played a lead role in the utter destruction of Libya, and the suffering and deaths of millions of people. The American people can vote her in at their peril. But should she get elected, after four years, more misery and suffering will befall the people of the Middle-East and further beyond.

Billy86

Conas, Trump agreed with Libya too. So that's not a leg worth standing on.

Now, outline her role in Libya, exactly what you believe she did wrong in which events, and what would have been done differently.

No one ever seems to go into any detail beyond "Benghazi!!" so I would appreciate for someone to educate us all further on the matter.

Conas

Billy86 wrote: »

Conas, Trump agreed with Libya too. So that's not a leg worth standing on.

Now, outline her role in Libya, exactly what you believe she did wrong in which events, and what would have been done differently.

No one ever seems to go into any detail beyond "Benghazi!!" so I would appreciate for someone to educate us all further on the matter.

It is well known that she pushed Obama into bombing Libya even though he was reluctant to do so. Then there is the well known 'We came, we saw, he died'. and that rotten evil laugh. The video you can see on You Tube.

Black Swan

Conas wrote: »

It is well known that she pushed Obama into bombing Libya even though he was reluctant to do so. Then there is the well known 'We came, we saw, he died'. and that rotten evil laugh. The video you can see on You Tube.

Donald Trump strongly advocated invading Libya. Trump video quote: “Now, we should go in. We should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives.”

Billy86

Conas wrote: »

It is well known that she pushed Obama into bombing Libya even though he was reluctant to do so. Then there is the well known 'We came, we saw, he died'. and that rotten evil laugh. The video you can see on You Tube.

I would Ike a little more detail there, please. It's something that people who love bringing up libya/Benghazi never really do. I would like reassurances basically that people aren't just parroting buzz words they heard or read somewhere. As has been pointed out also, Trump was publicallly in favour too.

I don't agree with the laugh bit either, but if you want to hold that against Clinton, then you've ruled out Trump by default due to his long list of "evil, rotten" comments.

InTheTrees

Conas wrote: »

Well I think her track record as Secretary of state speaks for itself. Played a lead role in the utter destruction of Libya, and the suffering and deaths of millions of people. The American people can vote her in at their peril. But should she get elected, after four years, more misery and suffering will befall the people of the Middle-East and further beyond.

The American people were no friends of Ghaddafi. There may have been more outrage in Europe at his ouster but the americans were all for it.

Healthcare, The environment, Minority rights, taxes, the rich/poor divide, gun control, etc, are far far more pressing issues to the American public than what happened in Libya five years ago.

Conas

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump strongly advocated invading Libya. Trump quote: “Now, we should go in. We should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it and save these lives.”

You have to understand that I'm not a Trump fan, and I haven't advocated for him at all in this thread. I think if Trump got elected he would reform nothing. The different departments of the Executive Branch are a law onto themselves and they would do as they please anyway, even if he were President.
It would be the same old, same old, as far as I'm concerned.
But had Trump been the Secretary of State, and had access to more details and facts, he might not have taken the position he did. Clinton on the other hand was in a position of power and influence, and as far as I'm concerned along with Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy are responsible for the destruction of that nation.
They promised Freedom and Democracy, and delivered nothing of the kind. Look at the migrant crisis in Libya, all the people dying trying to cross from Libya to reach Europe. Those deaths are on their heads, and how dare anyone whitewash it.

InTheTrees

Conas wrote: »

They promised Freedom and Democracy, and delivered nothing of the kind. Look at the migrant crisis in Libya, all the people dying trying to cross from Libya to reach Europe. Those deaths are on their heads, and how dare anyone whitewash it.

They promised some help in getting rid of ghaddafi.

The "freedom and democracy" comes down to the Libyan people. I dont see how the USA can just deliver "freedom and democracy".

It didnt work in Iraq.

eire4

InTheTrees wrote: »

They promised some help in getting rid of ghaddafi.

The "freedom and democracy" comes down to the Libyan people. I dont see how the USA can just deliver "freedom and democracy".

It didnt work in Iraq.

Given that the US is pretty much an Oligarchy run by major corporations and wealthy individuals I would say the only so called freedom and democracy the US is interested in delivering is one that is arranged to the approval of those same major multi national corporations.

Sand

Conas wrote: »

But had Trump been the Secretary of State, and had access to more details and facts, he might not have taken the position he did.

I've yet to see anything that indicates Drumpf is an evidence based thinker or strategist. If Drumpf was Secretary of State he would not have read *any* of the intelligence provided to him. He would have dismissed the 'so-called experts' and just have gone with whatever felt right at that moment in time to a desperately insecure narcissist.

K-9

Conas wrote: »

Funny enough I was checking the odds of who's favourite to win the election on Betfair, I'm amazed at how short Hillary Clinton is to win; 1.4 (2/5) Trump is at 4.5 (7/2)

I personally don't see how 99% American could even contemplate voting her in, then again they did elect Bush Jr twice.

Her motto 'Fighting for us', should in reality be 'Fighting on behalf of corporate America'.

Well betting markets got Brexit wrong!

One of the journalists on NPR was saying a few months back that it comes down to demographics. If things go the way they usually do (and there is no sign they aren't) Hillary need about 30% of the male vote to win. She has high unfavourable ratings amongst men but that looks achievable. The corollary is Trump is even more unfavourable for women!

K-9

Sand wrote: »

I've yet to see anything that indicates Drumpf is an evidence based thinker or strategist. If Drumpf was Secretary of State he would not have read *any* of the intelligence provided to him. He would have dismissed the 'so-called experts' and just have gone with whatever felt right at that moment in time to a desperately insecure narcissist.

Can we cut out the Drumpf stuff please, we asked everybody to call candidates by their proper names a couple of weeks ago. Hopefully we can have less of the name calling that goes on elsewhere on this thread.

KingBrian2

Sand wrote: »

I've yet to see anything that indicates Drumpf is an evidence based thinker or strategist. If Drumpf was Secretary of State he would not have read *any* of the intelligence provided to him. He would have dismissed the 'so-called experts' and just have gone with whatever felt right at that moment in time to a desperately insecure narcissist.

The Democrats and Republicans were calling for intervention all across the world on terms that were favorable to themselves. They did not care about human rights. They don't care about human rights. How many invasions have the Clintons got involved in? They have fought pointless wars. Rwandan Genocide, Breakup of Yugoslavia, the Syrian civil war, Crimean separation from Ukraine & the Israeli wars against Hamas & Hezbollah. The Clintons had their hands all over these conflicts.

Sand

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Democrats and Republicans were calling for intervention all across the world on terms that were favorable to themselves. They did not care about human rights. They don't care about human rights. How many invasions have the Clintons got involved in? They have fought pointless wars. Rwandan Genocide, Breakup of Yugoslavia, the Syrian civil war, Crimean separation from Ukraine & the Israeli wars against Hamas & Hezbollah. The Clintons had their hands all over these conflicts.

That's more of a generalised complaint than anything to do with what I said.

KingBrian2

Sand wrote: »

That's more of a generalised complaint than anything to do with what I said.

You questioned Trumps qualifications to steer his country well if you look at the Clintons they have brought much harm to the world. Now the reason I lay so much at the doorstep of them is because they were the chief advocators of some of these strange decisions.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Rwandan Genocide, Breakup of Yugoslavia, the Syrian civil war, Crimean separation from Ukraine & the Israeli wars against Hamas & Hezbollah. The Clintons had their hands all over these conflicts.

No. They didnt. They didnt cause any of those conflicts.

You're just throwing out blanket blame at whatever American administration was in power at the time without any regard to the makeup of congress or internal US politics at the time. Or even other US presidents.

Which is fair enough, after all this isnt an american forum. US voters will however will be paying a lot more attention to domestic issues.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You questioned Trumps qualifications to steer his country well if you look at the Clintons....

At some point Trump will have to defend his own positions instead of deflecting every question by pointing at Clinton. It wont work and it isnt working for him now.

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

No. They didnt. They didnt cause any of those conflicts.

You're just throwing out blanket blame at whatever American administration was in power at the time without any regard to the makeup of congress or internal US politics at the time. Or even other US presidents.

Which is fair enough, after all this isnt an american forum. US voters will however will be paying a lot more attention to domestic issues.

Clinton's supported are unabashed pro Israeli's. Hillary Clinton approved the attack on Iraq and would have followed that up with an attack on Syria. It was NATO that bombed Serbia to bits and with the Rwandans killing each other while the US president did very little. These are all 90's and 00's wars that the American establishment got 100% wrong.

InTheTrees

K-9 wrote: »

One of the journalists on NPR was saying a few months back that it comes down to demographics.

Yes. Exactly.

You can look at Mitt Romneys numbers in 2012. He lost. SO trump would have to improve on romneys numbers.

Romney had 70% of the white male vote. Trump cant expect to improve on that. Trump needs to improve support from other groups. So Trump will have to quadruple his support from Hispanics and women.

Unless he increases support substantially from Romneys levels he'll lose and not only does he show no sign of doing that, he's still actively antagonizing those groups who he needs support from.

As an example Last week he was off again calling Senator Warren "Pochahantas", obviously he finds that amusing but its causing really bad feeling among native americans.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Clinton's supported are unabashed pro Israeli's.

Americans are pro-israel. It has the largest jewish population. They always have been. Trump is pro-israel.

Its a bit rich to blame the clintons.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary Clinton approved the attack on Iraq

How many senators voted against the Iraq war? was it one or two?

After 9/11 the argument was that you dont deny the president war powers after the country has been attacked.

You may be enraged that she voted for it but the american public arent.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It was NATO that bombed Serbia to bits and with the Rwandans killing each other while the US president did very little. These are all 90's and 00's wars that the American establishment got 100% wrong.

Okay. So you supported Milsovic and the serbians? Can you explain why?

And you're also coming down on the americans for not doing enough in Rwanda and not being 100% right?

And yet you're saying Trump will make all the right decisions?

KingBrian2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Okay. So you supported Milsovic and the serbians? Can you explain why?

And you're also coming down on the americans for not doing enough in Rwanda and not being 100% right?

And yet you're saying Trump will make all the right decisions?

Trump is not part of the est. Those in Congress granted the President with the power to take whatever action he/she wanted regardless of security council votes. Congress have the power to declare war and they declared war on phoney premise. You see in other conflict zones the US wanting to act regardless of what other nations want.

The Serbian crisis is an excellent example. We hear countless times how NATO has kept Europe safe well it caused chaos in the West Balkans and a Chinese Embassy was even bombed. These events further the cause of war they do not prevent war. Trump is not convinced of the benefits of NATO. Lets look at Africa a continent a wash with violence.

Human rights are violated all across the world by allies of America. Trump is saying stop a moment lets reevaluate who we want as friends and allies. This is what is really dumb. Idi Amin that grand old dictator when he left his country ended up a Muslim convert in Saudi Arabia.

Sand

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You questioned Trumps qualifications to steer his country well if you look at the Clintons they have brought much harm to the world. Now the reason I lay so much at the doorstep of them is because they were the chief advocators of some of these strange decisions.

I didn't question Donald's qualifications. He has none to question.

A person made the point that if Donald was the Sec of State he would have reached a different view than the one he expressed at the time due to his greater access to information. I made the observation that Donald has never demonstrated that information or evidence plays a role in his views and policies.

You can give out about Clinton, but I didn't say a word about her.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump is not part of the est.

Trump is part of the "establishment" whatever he may say.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Human rights are violated all across the world by allies of America. Trump is saying stop a moment lets reevaluate who we want as friends and allies.

Trump has proposed bombing the families of suspected terrorists.