2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Peist2007

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Trump himself said the following



The Playboy quote was a few years after the book was published , whereas the denial came recently , after he stood for the nomination.

You can make your own decision as to which of Trumps views on the book and it's contents are more likely to be true.

Ah so Trump's quote about it "being probably true" relates to the actual memoir rather than the specific comment about blacks.

Not my decision to make but there is now two removals from Trump actually saying it. Moving further away from anything that could stick.

Christy42

Peist2007 wrote: »

100% agree. This is a vanity project for Trump as shown by him offering Kasich a VP role which would effectively involve Kasich doing everything. Hillary is an incompetent psycho however with an awful track record. She will bring the US into far more wars than Trump.

How do you figure. Trump has threatened to treat NATO agreements as a pay for protection service and wishes to increase the size of the military. These seem like very destabilising policies to me.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Most of the jobs created have been good, well paying jobs.

The fragile recovery is being experienced world wide. The recovery has been far stronger in the US than elsewhere.

Where is the evidence for that?

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

That means nothing. Did he say it or didnt he?

So the fact that Trump admits it probably is true, doesn't mean anything? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.

I'm not surprised, given you just tried to claim his lies are a good thing a few posts back re. "full of bluster."

No comment o make kn the central park five, his racist rental practices or mob connections, by the way?

Black Swan

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I was open to the idea that trump may be better than hillary purely on the fact that he wasnt bought and paid for...

That is not true, because there is a Donald Trump superPAC, Rebuilding America Now, launching ads against Hillary, so Trump is now being bought just like Hillary, and just like all the politicians in Washington. He is no different.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

How do you figure. Trump has threatened to treat NATO agreements as a pay for protection service and wishes to increase the size of the military. These seem like very destabilising policies to me.

NATO member states pay their fair share towards NATO is what he asked for.

If the members don't pay their fair share, then who is destabilising it?

Peist2007

Christy42 wrote: »

How do you figure. Trump has threatened to treat NATO agreements as a pay for protection service and wishes to increase the size of the military. These seem like very destabilising policies to me.

Believing anything either candidate says now is foolish. They are playing to the electorate. Trump, until yesterday, was attempting to gain the Republican nomination. Therefore he has to cosy up to all of the Republican yahoos that we have seen spouting all sorts of offensive sh1te over the past few days. That's his core audience. Hillary is doing the same with her audience.

Your comment above deals with a hypothetical situation. Trump has never been in any power. Who knows what he will do. We do sadly know what Hillary will do. She has been in power. Nothing hypothetical there.

Hillary is clearly the more dangerous candidate in terms of geopolitics. She gets in and expect more war and more fostering of extremism while her Wall Street and fossil fuel donors get what they want.

I don't like Trump. He's a narcissistic header. But he isnt fundementally evil. Hillary is.

Call Me Jimmy

Black Swan wrote: »

That is not true, because there is a Donald Trump superPAC, Rebuilding America Now, launching ads against Hillary, so Trump is now being bought just like Hillary, and just like all the politicians in Washington. He is no different.

But at the time he hadnt taken money iirc

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

So the fact that Trump admits it probably is true, doesn't mean anything? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.

I'm not surprised, given you just tried to claim his lies are a good thing a few posts back re. "full of bluster."

No comment o make kn the central park five, his racist rental practices or mob connections, by the way?

No it doesnt mean anything actually. Here's a hint before you take on any defamation actions in future - don't do it if your evidence consists of someone loosely referring to something vaguely about someone else's recollection of the alleged event in question. You will lose and costs will be awarded against you.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Where is the evidence for that?

From Bloomberg:

The second chart in the note emphasizes the same point, about high-wage occupations accounting for the bulk of job gains over the last several years.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

A true racist would never believe the race they are against is good enough and wouldn't let them anywhere near a position of major influence in their business.

Bloody hell, we're falling back on "no true racist" fallacies now.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

NATO member states pay their fair share towards NATO is what he asked for.

If the members don't pay their fair share, then who is destabilising it?

Oh ffs. Letting Russia invade the Balkans because they are a little behind on their payments (given none of them are exactly well to do states) is destabilising. The answer to your question is both sides(and Russia obviously for invading) but far more of the blame goes on Trump, given the economic situation in the Balkans while all Trump has to do is say a few words and the situation doesn't lead to death for plenty of innocent Balkans.

And for the rant which decided to ignore everything that has been said by either candidate and assumes Trump is not evil but that Hillary is. Talk about the definition of putting your fingers in your ears. Note that Hillary is Obama term 3 and Obama hasn't exactly blown up the world

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Andrew Sullivan is the Left’s version of Ann Coulter. He considers the candidacy of Donald Trump as a "extinction-level" threat to the USA, and urges support for Hillary Clinton even though he has taken her to task, also. Sullivan and Coulter are both entertaining reads to say the least, but their pontifications should be taken with a grain of salt IMO.

Andrew Sullivan is conservative.

Black Swan

Peist2007 wrote: »

Hillary is an incompetent psycho however with an awful track record. She will bring the US into far more wars than Trump.

I thought that in America "3 strikes and you're out?" Well, Donald Trump is currently a defendant in 3 class actions suits in 2 different states, New York and California, for his defunct Trump University, which has to be a Guinness World Book of Records feat that should be recorded as the 1st Republican nominee for president in US history to be charged and tried for (alleged) "Fraud, racketeering, and corruption" while running for president. Whenever Trump or his devoted followers yell "Corrupt Hillary," I remember that Hillary is not currently charged and being tried for "Corruption" in a US District Court, but Donald Trump is. I am no Hillary fan, but electing Trump president while being tried for corruption is a sad farce indeed, and reflects how dysfunctional the US political system has become.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

From Bloomberg:

Where are these jobs being created in relation to swing states which is where it matters?

Black Swan

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

But at the time he hadnt taken money iirc

Donald Trump superPAC, Rebuilding America Now, is receiving monies just like Hillary Clinton superPACS, so he is no different than Hillary. Donald Trump claimed that a billion dollars will be raised for him accordingly. Corporations do not give money freely to politicians for patriotism sake, although they will proclaim it to the foolish public. Corporate boards of directors are accountable for ensuring ROI for their stockholders, and monies donated to politicians better be associated with future financial returns, or the BOD will be out on the street. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have superPACS receiving corporate "donations," which means they have been bought and paid for. To say otherwise, is nothing but political spin.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Where are these jobs being created in relation to swing states which is where it matters?

Where they're being created is irrelevant as long as they're being created in America as we are talking about the American recovery.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump's nomination acceptance speech got a higher positive rating than Obama's in 2008.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-speech-rnc-2016-poll-us-election-positive-a7150031.html

Interesting that Romney's 2012 nomination speech got a higher rating than Obama's in 2012, and McCain got a higher rating in 2008 than Obama in 2008 also. In fact the only time from 1992 to now that a Democrat's nomination speech has had a higher positive rating than their Republican rivals' was Clinton (vs Gore) in 1996.

Yet despite the Republicans 'winning' 5 of 6 on those, they have only won 2 of 6 of the actual elections.

Peist2007

Black Swan wrote: »

I thought that in America "3 strikes and you're out?" Well, Donald Trump is currently a defendant in 3 class actions suits in 2 different states, New York and California, for his defunct Trump University, which has to be a Guinness World Book of Records feat that should be recorded as the 1st Republican nominee for president in US history to be charged and tried for (alleged) "Fraud, racketeering, and corruption" while running for president. Whenever Trump or his devoted followers yell "Corrupt Hillary," I remember that Hillary is not currently charged and being tried for "Corruption" in a US District Court, but Donald Trump is. I am no Hillary fan, but electing Trump president while being tried for corruption is a sad farce indeed, and reflects how dysfunctional the US political system has become.

No idea what the above is supposed to be saying or why it is directed at me. I'm sure Donald Trump will be disappointed you have applied the three strikes rule to him.

Bill Clinton met the Attorney General on a plane and "spoke about grandkids" 2 days before Hillary was cleared for what was a clear and very serious offence. I would put that issue far beyond anything Trump, or anyone else, could face in a District Court setting. No mention of it by you though, not very impartial are we?!

LostinKildare

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary Clinton who voted for the invasion of Iraq.
The most dangerous person in the election is Hillary Clinton. Her record proves it.

Um, you know Mike Pence voted for the invasion, don't you? When confronted by that fact in last weekend's 60 Minutes interview, Trump said, "I don't care."

Trump has repeatedly castigated Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, for voting in 2002 to authorize military force in Iraq. He has portrayed the then-New York senator's decision as evidence that she has "horribly bad judgment" and isn't fit to be president.
But Trump didn't shy away from the double standard in his response to Clinton's vote versus Pence's.
"He's entitled to make a mistake every once in a while," Trump said of Pence, who was a congressman from Indiana at the time.
"But she's not?" CBS interviewer Lesley Stahl pressed.
"No. She's not," Trump replied.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/17/politics/donald-trump-iraq-war-vote-mike-pence-hillary-clinton/

So is that your thinking too? For Pence it's okay, for Hillary it disqualifies her to hold office?

And did you know that not only did Pence vote for the invasion, he also stood up in the House of Representatives in 2004, after the CIA had admitted there probably were no WMD in Iraq, and proclaimed that they had been found:

On May 20, 2004, Pence once again took to the floor of the House and said “I am here to report… weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.” . . . “‘Where are the WMDs?’ We’ve been asked that again and again,” Pence said. “They are where they’ve always been: hidden in Iraq, within the reach of terrorists, a threat to the Iraqi people, U.S. soldiers and the world.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/21/mike_pences_iraq_lie_the_vp_candidate_wrongly_announced_the_discovery_of_wmds/

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Have to say, consistently stunned at Republican supporters who are starting to defend Trump because partisanship.

+1 Would any of the long-term posters on here who were massive G.W. Bush fans just a few years ago like to comment on how they square the circle? How do you feel about the fact that the Bushes are horrified at Trump's ascendancy?

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Andrew Sullivan is conservative.

Fiscally conservative, yes. He is a person the Left loves to hate, like Coulter is a person the Right loves to hate.

TheDoctor

Pretty sure he describes himself as a conservative.

Yes he's a conservative.
https://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Soul-How-Lost-Back/dp/0060188774

Amerika

LostinKildare wrote: »

+1 Would any of the long-term posters on here who were massive G.W. Bush fans just a few years ago like to comment on how they circle the square? How do you feel about the fact that the Bushes are horrified at Trump's ascendancy?

I liked W, but Bush was no Conservative. I feel he let the Democrats run amok on spending in return for their support, at the time, for the Iraq war. And the Bush’s represent the GOP establishment. No secret that the GOP establishment dislikes Trump. Republican voters are getting fed up with Republican politicians, and in part why Trump won the primary. It seems to many of us that far too many Republicans become Democrat-Like after getting voted into office. And I weight the political compass. Trump or Hillary... who will represent my ideals better? It’s not such a hard to understand concept. Little support for Trump by the GOP establishment is a plus to many in this election.

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

I liked W, but Bush was no Conservative. I feel he let the Democrats run amok on spending in return for their support, at the time, for the Iraq war. And the Bush’s represent the GOP establishment. No secret that the GOP establishment dislikes Trump. Republican voters are getting fed up with Republican politicians, and in part why Trump won the primary. It seems to many of us that far too many Republicans become Democrat-Lite after getting voted into office. And I weight the political compass. Trump or Hillary... who will represent my ideals better? It’s not such a hard to understand concept. Little support for Trump by the GOP establishment is a plus to many in this election.

Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Where they're being created is irrelevant as long as they're being created in America as we are talking about the American recovery.

They need to be in swing states, if most are in states like California and NY it makes little difference to voters in swing states. It be like saying jobs being created in Germany will influence voters in Greece.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Fiscally conservative, yes. He is a person the Left loves to hate, like Coulter is a person the Right loves to hate.

No, as in he is a conservative. I don't know that the left 'loves to hate' him or the right 'loves to hate' Coulter. In fact, many on the right absolutely love Coulter - not love to hate her, just love her. Her main problem is that she got famous for being a shock jock who would say anything for attention, and over times she has just ran out of 'shocking' things to say while also being drowned out due to the growth of social media over the last decade or so.

Sullivan on the other hand is a conservative. I have a lot of respect for him, and I imagine I am far from alone as the guy is actually principled about what he believes in as opposed to those merely towing the party line regardless of what that might be. The Republicans have gone from being conservative to, as he puts it, "the loony right", and he decided not to join them.

That doesn't mean he is not a conservative, he is. Just a reminder that not everyone to the left of Trump or Cruz (both incredibly far right) are 'leftists'. Comparing him to Coulter makes no actual sense.

Here is his stance when asked if he still thinks he is a conservative:

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Absolutely. I wrote a book on my conservatism, 'The Conservative Soul.' But in so far as the word has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and emotionally arrested Randians, I am not one of them. I'd fit easily into a conservative party in any other western democracy. But the GOP is a rogue in the western world - the most extremist right-wing party in any modern democracy by a mile. Banning all abortion and all gay marriages? Denying climate change science?

They're not conservatives, they're the loony right.

xx
a

P.S.: [William F.] Buckley favored legal pot. Where are the celebrations of freedom at [the National Review]?

Amerika

LostinKildare wrote: »

Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

As someone who lived through the Vietnam War and actually protested against it back in my liberal/hippie days, I had my reservations on the invasion of Iraq, fearing a possible quagmire. But after weighing things and hoping for more stability in the Middle East at the time, yes I supported it.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

No, as in he is a conservative. I don't know that the left 'loves to hate' him or the right 'loves to hate' Coulter. In fact, many on the right absolutely love Coulter - not love to hate her, just love her. Her main problem is that she got famous for being a shock jock who would say anything for attention, and over times she has just ran out of 'shocking' things to say while also being drowned out due to the growth of social media over the last decade or so.

Sullivan on the other hand is a conservative. I have a lot of respect for him, and I imagine I am far from alone as the guy is actually principled about what he believes in as opposed to those merely towing the party line regardless of what that might be. The Republicans have gone from being conservative to, as he puts it, "the loony right", and he decided not to join them.

That doesn't mean he is not a conservative, he is. Just a reminder that not everyone to the left of Trump or Cruz (both incredibly far right) are 'leftists'. Comparing him to Coulter makes no actual sense.

Here is his stance when asked if he still thinks he is a conservative:

I dunno, that quote from Sullivan sounds like it came from someone on the Left, regardless of what they "call themselves."

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Oh ffs. Letting Russia invade the Balkans because they are a little behind on their payments (given none of them are exactly well to do states) is destabilising. The answer to your question is both sides(and Russia obviously for invading) but far more of the blame goes on Trump, given the economic situation in the Balkans while all Trump has to do is say a few words and the situation doesn't lead to death for plenty of innocent Balkans.

And for the rant which decided to ignore everything that has been said by either candidate and assumes Trump is not evil but that Hillary is. Talk about the definition of putting your fingers in your ears. Note that Hillary is Obama term 3 and Obama hasn't exactly blown up the world

Well it obviously has been made an issue, if every member had been paying ther share, then Trump's argument would be shot down, instead it is not because not all paying their share is a valid argument.


Under Obama/Clinton - North Africa blew up, ISIS rose up, Ukraine had Crimea annexed, Putin is more powerful than ever, backed opposition in Syria which was riddled with terrorists - just like in Libya. International terrorism has vastly increased over the past 18 months because of poor decisions. Got Egypt wrong. Didn't secure Iraq enough before troop withdrawal. Vastly increased drone strikes immediately after taking office in 2009 - which are accused of creating terrorism, and claims of hundreds of innocent children killed.
If a Republican president had this record, the people who support Obama would be crying about how bad the president was.

Not to mention...Obama's US Treasury secretary Tim Geithner was against Ireland burning bondholders and blocked what the IMF wanted which was to burn some bondholders. But people will see Obama and co as the good guys.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

I dunno, that quote from Sullivan sounds like it came from someone on the Left, regardless of what they "call themselves."

Go into detail and try explaining why.