2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

BoatMad wrote: »

its shows the priorities of people that value so called " national security " over proper healthcare, affordable schooling, proper tax structures . social mobility etc

We have some of the best health care in the world... We spend more on education per student than anyone else... We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world... and Clinton is huugge supporter of the rich Wall Street crowd. And Hillary wants to make everything worse.

I figure at least Trump didn’t trade away the majority of our nation’s uranium (you know… the stuff to make atomic bombs) to our enemies so a foundation and spouse could rake in millions of dollars.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Both sides have been alleging that Trump & Hillary are habitual liars. You can't claim only one side namely the Trump supporters are a bunch of liars which is the impression given.

When Trump supporters steadfastly refuse to talk about anything related to policy or proposals of his, and when they flat out come out and say his lies are one of the things they like most about him, then they lose their credibility. Simple as.

The equivalent would be people saying Clinton's lie about being in the line of fire in Bosnia is a "great thing, because it shows she knows how to get people to care." In other words, a farce.

Amerika

BoatMad wrote: »

where one to apply the exact strictures of the law to any president of the USA, I suspect that in secret or in public all are law breakers of one kind or another ( or maybe the secret kind doesnt count huh )

IN reality all our " leaders " are flawed , only the USA seems to insist some how that the leaders must publicly be whiter then white virginal types, ( when in reality they are just even bigger shysters behind the scenes , but thats all right )

The public virtues , private vices stuff has now reached nonsense levels

personally Im looking for an experienced leaders with a known stable policy perspective

Trump has none of these qualities , Hilary has " some " , both are flawed

In most cases however the devil you know is better then the devil you dont

Sounds like the perfect candidate was Romney. But it didn't matter.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Sounds like the perfect candidate was Romney. But it didn't matter.

Nope. Emails.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Nope. Emails.

From the article, it seems like Romney complied with the laws back then. Or are you contending he set up a deeply flawed basement server where he housed and illegally shared classified and top secret information, and mixed suspect foundation 'donation work' with regular government work?

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

We have some of the best health care in the world...

accessible only to those that can afford it and your health outcomes are not at the top ( http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf) They are good , but they are not the best , Norway , france etc are better

We spend more on education per student than anyone else

not quite , Austria, Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland spend more per student, ( source : OECD) and again the outcomes of such spending lag well behind other developed nations at 14th ( source https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/category/education/)

Ireland is 9th overall by the way

( USA is 23rd is average internet download speeds , 24th in literacy etc )
ps: dont start believing the American dream propaganda anyway soon , facts tend to suggest other wise

The reasons are many and complex , but this isn't the place for them

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world...

yes , not that this is necessarily good or bad,

and Clinton is huugge supporter of the rich Wall Street crowd. And Hillary wants to make everything worse.

and trump is a claimed billionaire !!!!. they should get on famously

I figure at least Trump didn’t trade away the majority of our nation’s uranium (you know… the stuff to make atomic bombs) to our enemies so a foundation and spouse could rake in millions of dollars.

"In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.

He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.”

( source http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0)

I would contend that the Russian deal , was a failure of both the US and Canadian Administrations rather then anything specific to the Clintons

( as to whether Russia is your enemy is a question that AL-Assad might feel compelled to answer !!!)

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

When Trump supporters steadfastly refuse to talk about anything related to policy or proposals of his, and when they flat out come out and say his lies are one of the things they like most about him, then they lose their credibility. Simple as.

The equivalent would be people saying Clinton's lie about being in the line of fire in Bosnia is a "great thing, because it shows she knows how to get people to care." In other words, a farce.

Lets put it on the table then. Not everything George Bush did as President of the United States was in error. He followed the Clinton line in pursuing the terrorists and for a period their was an international consensus on dealing with these issues.

Where Bush lost his support from the people the current President is continuing these policies. Trump articulates the opposition to Obama's failed foreign policy. President Obama has still not wrestled power away from the neocons that advocate yet more militarization.

Trump is correct in his analysis that the threat is Al Qaeda like organizations that are a threat to all Nations and peace loving Muslim people. That threat has not gone away has only been ignored and requires cooperation and up front dialogue with sectarian states to resolve the problem.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Lets put it on the table then. Not everything George Bush did as President of the United States was in error. He followed the Clinton line in pursuing the terrorists and for a period their was an international consensus on dealing with these issues.

of course that the way politics works, policies are continued until changes occur .

Where Bush lost his support from the people the current President is continuing these policies.

Thats a gross over simplification , Obama was faced with situations that continued to requre US involvement , his hand was forced by previous actions off a previous administration

Trump articulates the opposition to Obama's failed foreign policy. President Obama has still not wrestled power away from the neocons that advocate yet more militarization.

Trump advocates a simplistic , child of 4, type policy that people , that care not to learn or question accept as " solutions " Trump has developed no policies that can actually deliver these " articulations ". Its one thing to shout " lets get out" its another to actually do it

Trump is correct in his analysis that the threat is Al Qaeda like organizations that are a threat to all Nations and peace loving Muslim people. That threat has not gone away has only been ignored and requires cooperation and up front dialogue with sectarian states to resolve the problem.

A statement of the blindingly obvious , and one that is attempted every day . I suspect there would be no real practical differences between Trumps policy and Clintons from a day to day perspective

( you already bemoaned the fact that successive presidents carry on their predecessors aims , Trump would be no different )

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

where one to apply the exact strictures of the law to any president of the USA, I suspect that in secret or in public all are law breakers of one kind or another ( or maybe the secret kind doesnt count huh )

IN reality all our " leaders " are flawed , only the USA seems to insist some how that the leaders must publicly be whiter then white virginal types, ( when in reality they are just even bigger shysters behind the scenes , but thats all right )

The public virtues , private vices stuff has now reached nonsense levels

personally Im looking for an experienced leaders with a known stable policy perspective

Trump has none of these qualities , Hilary has " some " , both are flawed

In most cases however the devil you know is better then the devil you dont

That's not an acceptable excuse. This an individual looking to hold the most powerful office in the land, who has been shown to have broken the law, supported others doing so (either tacitly or by example) and then lied about it.

Saying sure everyone is at it behind the scenes, doesn't some how make those actions acceptable. There is undoubtedly constant corruption happening, which makes it all the more important to punish those responsible when it is uncovered.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That's not an acceptable excuse. This an individual looking to hold the most powerful office in the land, who has been shown to have broken the law, supported others doing so (either tacitly or by example) and then lied about it.

Saying sure everyone is at it behind the scenes, doesn't some how make those actions acceptable. There is undoubtedly constant corruption happening, which makes it all the more important to punish those responsible when it is uncovered.

so do we subject every politician to extensive polygraph tests , ??

There are legal issue hanging over Trump and Clinton , both are flawed individuals. I suspect many Americans would have preferred neither candidate to run. But the fact is engaging in moral equivalences over whose hands are " less" dirty is a rather futile undertaking

perhaps this election is the singsong of a morally corrupt two party political system , I dont know , but both Clinton and especially Trump may have done it terminal damage

KingBrian2

BoatMad wrote: »

of course that the way politics works, policies are continued until changes occur .


Thats a gross over simplification , Obama was faced with situations that continued to requre US involvement , his hand was forced by previous actions off a previous administration




Trump advocates a simplistic , child of 4, type policy that people , that care not to learn or question accept as " solutions " Trump has developed no policies that can actually deliver these " articulations ". Its one thing to shout " lets get out" its another to actually do it



A statement of the blindingly obvious , and one that is attempted every day . I suspect there would be no real practical differences between Trumps policy and Clintons from a day to day perspective

( you already bemoaned the fact that successive presidents carry on their predecessors aims , Trump would be no different )

Trump is breathing awareness. The people are capable of learning for themselves and making their own minds up. They can chose to hear him out or they can elect other more suitable candidates. The problem with the other candidates is that they are not changing their policies. They are stuck in a headlock with the military establishment.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump is breathing awareness. The people are capable of learning for themselves and making their own minds up. They can chose to hear him out or they can elect other more suitable candidates. The problem with the other candidates is that they are not changing their policies. They are stuck in a headlock with the military establishment.

This is an " opinion", since Trump is a completely untested politician , we have to assign a large credibility issue over what he says.

as for breathing awareness, another term is simply telling lies and falsehoods that gullible people accept.

as for "The people are capable of learning for themselves and making their own minds up" clearly polls like Brexit , show that the average voter simply listens to " soundbites and factoids " and bewildered by 24/7 fast moving media and unconstrained social media , just accepts mis-truths without investigation. most people have neither the inclination or time to actually examine claims in detail and tend to just " like " whats seems to suit them , irrespective of its sensibility or implementability

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

From the article, it seems like Romney complied with the laws back then. Or are you contending he set up a deeply flawed basement server where he housed and illegally shared classified and top secret information, and mixed suspect foundation 'donation work' with regular government work?

Also from the article...

The private email accounts raise questions about why Romney and his aides sometimes bypassed Massachusetts' official communications system — and how many of those emails remain and whether they could be disclosed to the public. Late last year, Romney acknowledged that near the end of his governor's term in 2007 he approved a sweeping purge of executive emails from the state government's computer servers, and the removal of top aides' hard drives and computers. Romney justified the purge as legal, prompted by privacy worries.

Now why is it that you, and GOP in general, are not up in arms about finding out what was in those emails? It could have pertained to national security, after all!

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Both sides have been alleging that Trump & Hillary are habitual liars. You can't claim only one side namely the Trump supporters are a bunch of liars which is the impression given.

Ha? I'm directly responding to a list that purports to lists Clinton's history of lying. It doesn't. When did I call Trump a liar? When did I say Hilary isn't a liar? The list linked is what I'm responding to.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Lets put it on the table then. Not everything George Bush did as President of the United States was in error. He followed the Clinton line in pursuing the terrorists and for a period their was an international consensus on dealing with these issues.

Where Bush lost his support from the people the current President is continuing these policies. Trump articulates the opposition to Obama's failed foreign policy. President Obama has still not wrestled power away from the neocons that advocate yet more militarization.

Trump is correct in his analysis that the threat is Al Qaeda like organizations that are a threat to all Nations and peace loving Muslim people. That threat has not gone away has only been ignored and requires cooperation and up front dialogue with sectarian states to resolve the problem.

Brian... you just said that Obama's failure that he is pursuing terrorists... and that his Obama's failure is ignoring terrorists... in the same post.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

Ha? I'm directly responding to a list that purports to lists Clinton's history of lying. It doesn't. When did I call Trump a liar? When did I say Hilary isn't a liar? The list linked is what I'm responding to.

I'm responding to the allegations made here that Trump is the only liar and it should disqualify him as president. If we were to judge both candidates on that it would become a contest on who lies more frequently.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Brian... you just said that Obama's failure that he is pursuing terrorists... and that his Obama's failure is ignoring terrorists... in the same post.

President Obama kept the war on terror which is good and all that but when it came to actually prosecuting the enablers of terrorism he has retreated on that. He was picking favourites.

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

so do we subject every politician to extensive polygraph tests , ??

There are legal issue hanging over Trump and Clinton , both are flawed individuals. I suspect many Americans would have preferred neither candidate to run. But the fact is engaging in moral equivalences over whose hands are " less" dirty is a rather futile undertaking

perhaps this election is the singsong of a morally corrupt two party political system , I dont know , but both Clinton and especially Trump may have done it terminal damage

Not the worst idea ever.

I expect those who are shown to have broken the law to be punished, period. If Trump is shown to have done so, then he should suffer the consequences.

Clinton has been shown to have done so, yet is going without punishment. That I find untenable, and the fact others are happy about that, unfathomable.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Not the worst idea ever.

I expect those who are shown to have broken the law to be punished, period. If Trump is shown to have done so, then he should suffer the consequences.

Clinton has been shown to have done so, yet is going without punishment. That I find untenable, and the fact others are happy about that, unfathomable.

in an ideal world your comments are entirely correct
we dont live in that world however

justice only applies to those that get caught unfortunately

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

President Obama kept the war on terror which is good and all that but when it came to actually prosecuting the enablers of terrorism he has retreated on that. He was picking favourites.

Who are you referring to here, exactly?

Because the experts seem to disagree, if you are talking about figurehead/leader types.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/18/who-killed-more-terrorists-obama-or-bush/

Gartenstein-Ross agreed that Bush likely killed more combatants, but Obama engaged in more targeted attacks, which would mean his operations likely killed more people who would be considered "terrorists" under a strict definition.

Similarly, Obama’s claim is likely true if by "terrorist" he was referring specifically to leaders of al-Qaida and its affiliates and the Islamic State, said Stephen Van Evera, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"Obama has put higher priority on killing the leadership and cadres of the most dangerous global terrorist organizations, and has in fact killed considerably more of these leaders and operatives," Van Evera said, comparing Obama with Bush.

Billy86

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Not the worst idea ever.

Except for the fact that polygraphs don't work very well at all.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

Who are you referring to here, exactly?

Because the experts seem to disagree, if you are talking about figurehead/leader types.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/18/who-killed-more-terrorists-obama-or-bush/

The mujahedeen are going strong in Iraq.:o

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

in an ideal world your comments are entirely correct
we dont live in that world however

justice only applies to those that get caught unfortunately

Clinton has been caught

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The mujahedeen are going strong in Iraq.:o

You mean the same Mujahideen that got involved in Iraq after BushCo invaded and have been active in Iraq since 2004? Explain what you're actually getting at here, how Obama has been 'ignoring' any chances to 'prosecute' them, because right now you're really not making any sense?

InTheTrees

I just watched an interview with newt gingrich on the convention floor. He said Trump shouldn't try "courting any groups that may have hurt feelings".
Wtf? Is he actually suggesting the Hispanic vote doesnt matter? Womens votes dont matter? I really dont understand this republican party strategy of contracting down to their base of White Men.

Meanwhile the Colorado delegation has walked out.

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

You mean the same Mujahideen that got involved in Iraq after BushCo invaded and have been active in Iraq since 2004? Explain what you're actually getting at here, how Obama has been 'ignoring' any chances to 'prosecute' them, because right now you're really not making any sense?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-us-weapons-fall-into-the-hands-of-terrorists/383095/

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Clinton has been caught

yes but everyone is deciding if its a misdeamor or a high crime:p

BoatMad

InTheTrees wrote: »

s".
Wtf? Is he actually suggesting the Hispanic vote doesnt matter? Womens votes dont matter? I really dont understand this republican party strategy of contracting down to their base of White Men.

because thats all thats left

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump is correct in his analysis that the threat is Al Qaeda like organizations that are a threat to all Nations and peace loving Muslim people. That threat has not gone away has only been ignored

So when you were referring to 'Al Qaeda like organizations' you actually meant the mujahideen (that being Islamic for those engaged in jihad)? Ok, fair enough...

KingBrian2 wrote: »

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-us-weapons-fall-into-the-hands-of-terrorists/383095/

And when you said Mujahideen you actually meant the literal Iraq army? Notice how the work Mujahideen does not show up one single time in this article?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

President Obama kept the war on terror which is good and all that but when it came to actually prosecuting the enablers of terrorism he has retreated on that. He was picking favourites.

And when you are blaming for Obama for the failings of the Iraq Army/Mujahideen/Al Qaeda/whatever it is that you're talking about, you seem like you want to give a free pass to BushCo who were the guys that set them up and trained them? Badly, as it turns out.



Or are you trying to claim that despite killing less people but more actual leaders/figureheads/etc, Obama is unpopular for not taking some Iraqi army officials to court?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Of course she’s crooked and corrupt, and her lies and deception extends in throughout her personal, professional, and political life.

How is this any different than Donald Trump's record in business going back decades? One difference is that Donald Trump had been adjudicated a law breaker and fined several times in the past, but I do not recall Hillary Clinton being convicted in a court of law. Personally I dislike both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but to say one is better than the other is an absolute joke (Éire: craic!) given that the bar for both is so low that neither deserves to be elected president 2016.

To say that Donald Trump is the lesser of evils requires major historical revisionism for Donald Trump's history (e.g., Trump Tower illegal Polish workers; fined for discriminating against Blacks; etc.), as well as a massive filtering-out of today's 3 class action suits in the states of New York and California, ignoring Florida Attorney General Bondi's timely (only 4-days apart) reelection campaign donation by Trump, and her 2013 decision not to prosecute Donald Trump, and selectively not hearing all the gender, racial, ethnic, religious, national-origin, and related bigotry and angry violence-prone outbursts that have come out of Trump's MOUTH during presidential 2016; consequently, a vote for Trump is a vote for bigotry. A vote for Trump-Pence is a vote for torture (Pence confirmed Trump's position on torture policy in their first CBS 60 Minutes interview together).