2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

LostinKildare wrote: »

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."


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:



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



+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?

Pence was picked for party unity and to get conservatives onside, and is a governor close to the swing states in the noth east/midwest.

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

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.

Right so. How do you feel about Trump's attacks on her for her vote? Do you agree that it disqualifies her from the presidency?

How about you, RobertKK, since you explicitly said that her vote makes her dangerous? Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

LostinKildare

RobertKK wrote: »

Pence was picked for party unity and to get conservatives onside, and is a governor close to the swing states in the noth east/midwest.

Uh huh. Would you address the point? You said,

RobertKK wrote: »

Anymore dangerous than Hillary Clinton who pushed for the removal of Gaddafi and no workable plan for what came next, the void filled by ISIS.
Or Hillary Clinton who pushed for the removal of Assad which would have given the entire country to ISIS.
Or Hillary Clinton who supported the Muslim Brotherhood and who the Egyptian army had to remove because they were starting a civil war against Christians and other minorities.
Or Hillary Clinton who voted for the invasion of Iraq.

The most dangerous person in the election is Hillary Clinton. Her record proves it.

If Clinton's vote for the invasion of Iraq makes her dangerous, does it make Pence (who was certainly more full-throated in his support for the war!) dangerous, too?

And did you support the invasion? Are you dangerous too?

RobertKK

LostinKildare wrote: »

Right so. How do you feel about Trump's attacks on her for her vote? Do you agree that it disqualifies her from the presidency?

How about you, RobertKK, since you explicitly said that her vote makes her dangerous? Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

I never supported the invasion of Iraq, and disliked Hillary Clinton ever since that Sunday where I bought the Mail on Sunday, which had Hillary Clinton on the front page saying the Irish people should support the invasion of Iraq and that it was the right thing. I felt, 'How dare she tell us what to support'.
I had internet arguments with Americans who had relations fighting in Iraq, they wanted to believe their family member was in harms way for a noble cause. I would tell them that Al Qaeda are not a problem in Iraq and they were not responsible for 9/11 that it was the Saudi nationals.

I was in the past a brainwashed Clinton supporter, mainly due to the peace process. However the more I learned about the Clinton's, the more I disliked them.
Hillary Clinton didn't help that perception with her ineptness.

I am a pacifist by nature and Hillary Clinton is a proven warmonger.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Go into detail and try explaining why.

Over the course of years Sullivan has vacillated between being Left and Right, and now more Left than Right. He’s been a staunch supporter of Barack Obama, a Sarah Palin basher, and has contempt for Israel and its American supporters. The Left sometimes loves him and sometimes hates him, the same as the Right regarding Coulter.

RobertKK

LostinKildare wrote: »

Uh huh. Would you address the point? You said,



If Clinton's vote for the invasion of Iraq makes her dangerous, does it make Pence (who was certainly more full-throated in his support for the war!) dangerous, too?

And did you support the invasion? Are you dangerous too?

Pence followed his party, probably a malleable politician which allowed him to become the VP nominee.

No I never supported the invasion, I was very anti the invasion and was firmly on the French fries side and not the freedom fries side.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Taking actions which will in all likelihood result in the deaths of many people in the Balkans (indirectly) and increase international tensions because governments in a few small countries can't or won't pay enough into NATO is not a valid argument. Morality isn't based around money. I can't believe you are willing to let wars happen because a not a well to do nation isn't paying enough money!

International terrorism has been on the increase for some time. Is the world or the Obama administration perfect. Most certainly not - generally too right wing for my liking. However you can't blame everything that happens in the world on Obama-that is just a meme. I don't think US troops would have helped the situation in Iraq though, they would act as a red flag to a bull.


The thought that a Republican or a Trump (since they seem to be different) would have burned the bondholders beggars belief. There are many cries as to the number of drone strikes the US carries out, I fail to see how this is an argument for a candidate promising more. Even worse you are attempting to use drone strikes by Obama to justify a candidate who has stated that strikes targeting potentially innocent civilians is a good idea (in that relations of a terrorist may or may not be terrorists themselves).


Anyway back to the Pence supporting the Iraq war that you have decided is irrelevant on the basis of him being a Republican.

LostinKildare

RobertKK wrote: »

I never supported the invasion of Iraq, and disliked Hillary Clinton ever since that Sunday where I bought the Mail on Sunday, which had Hillary Clinton on the front page saying the Irish people should support the invasion of Iraq and that it was the right thing. I felt, 'How dare she tell us what to support'.
I had internet arguments with Americans who had relations fighting in Iraq, they wanted to believe their family member was in harms way for a noble cause. I would tell them that Al Qaeda are not a problem in Iraq and they were not responsible for 9/11 that it was the Saudi nationals.

I was in the past a brainwashed Clinton supporter, mainly due to the peace process. However the more I learned about the Clinton's, the more I disliked them.
Hillary Clinton didn't help that perception with her ineptness.

I am a pacifist by nature and Hillary Clinton is a proven warmonger.

So you must be really disappointed then that Trump abandoned his stance on this issue and chose Pence --- a person who not only voted for the invasion, but years later was still hawking the WMD lie, even when the CIA and Bush officials had abandoned it.

What do you think of Trump's cavalier "I don't care"?

Amerika

LostinKildare wrote: »

Right so. How do you feel about Trump's attacks on her for her vote? Do you agree that it disqualifies her from the presidency?

Seems in retrospect Trump might have gotten it right. So why not use it to his political advantage? Hillary Clinton claims that she didn't vote for the war in Iraq and now states she voted to put pressure on the Iraqi government. Believe that and I've got a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan to sell you. Same old, same old... More lies from Clinton.

And no, it doesn’t disqualify her from becoming president, but her actions, sometimes criminal, over the course of her years since leaving the White House regarding her poor judgement abilities should prove to people why she shouldn't be president. Just ask that primary Bernie Sanders.

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

So why not use it to his political advantage?

So principle doesn't come into it? It's okay to mercilessly attack your opponent for voting for the invasion, then choose as your running mate a much greater cheerleader for the war, and say, "I don't care"?

Is there any stunningly blatant hypocrisy that would be a bridge too far for you -- that is, that would make you rethink your support for Trump?

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

And no, it doesn’t disqualify her from becoming president, but her actions, sometimes criminal, over the course of her years since leaving the White House regarding her poor judgement abilities should prove to people why she shouldn't be president. Just ask that primary Bernie Sanders.

Such as?

You do realise your consistent (and by consistent I do mean nearly every single post of yours in this thread) refusal to talk in any depth beyond talking points with no detail or articulation added, is as transparent as can possibly be?

Amerika

LostinKildare wrote: »

Is there any stunningly blatant hypocrisy that would be a bridge too far for you -- that is, that would make you rethink your support for Trump?

Regarding this... No, I don't care. Nobody will perfectly match another's ideals. You measure the good against the bad, calculate the totals and decide which comes out ahead.

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A bit like most of the posters here.

I expect glowing praise for every speaker at the DNC from here, whereas we have seen nothing but negativity and sneering at the RNC.

Its entertaining to read to be honest.

The beautiful irony of sneering at people sneering!

I doubt there'll be a single speech worth noting at the DNC. Hilary is a particular poor speaker.

That doesn't make the speeches at the ROC any less terrible. Full of empty rhetoric and scare mongering.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Such as?

You do realise your consistent (and by consistent I do mean nearly every single post of yours in this thread) refusal to talk in any depth beyond talking points with no detail or articulation added, is as transparent as can possibly be?

I have listed them over and over again in this thread, almost to the point of ad nauseum. I will not rehash them in each and every one of my posts. If that fact bothers anyone, then I suggest they go back and see what I’ve already said, or just ignore what I’m saying and keep the blood pressure level down.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

I have listed them over and over again in this thread, almost to the point of ad nauseum. I will not rehash them in each and every one of my posts. If that fact bothers anyone, then I suggest they go back and see what I’ve already said, or just ignore what I’m saying and keep the blood pressure level down.

Nope. Repeatedly I have asked you to go into depth on his politics and policies, and have got almost nothing of merit back in response.

You also still have not got back to your link dump attempt regarding the EPA where you couldn't actually defend anything I mentioned from the article, which to be fair, is standard at this point.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Taking actions which will in all likelihood result in the deaths of many people in the Balkans (indirectly) and increase international tensions because governments in a few small countries can't or won't pay enough into NATO is not a valid argument. Morality isn't based around money. I can't believe you are willing to let wars happen because a not a well to do nation isn't paying enough money!

International terrorism has been on the increase for some time. Is the world or the Obama administration perfect. Most certainly not - generally too right wing for my liking. However you can't blame everything that happens in the world on Obama-that is just a meme. I don't think US troops would have helped the situation in Iraq though, they would act as a red flag to a bull.


The thought that a Republican or a Trump (since they seem to be different) would have burned the bondholders beggars belief. There are many cries as to the number of drone strikes the US carries out, I fail to see how this is an argument for a candidate promising more. Even worse you are attempting to use drone strikes by Obama to justify a candidate who has stated that strikes targeting potentially innocent civilians is a good idea (in that relations of a terrorist may or may not be terrorists themselves).


Anyway back to the Pence supporting the Iraq war that you have decided is irrelevant on the basis of him being a Republican.

Can the US afford to keep increasing their debt at the rate it is to keep spending more money on a defense alliance than some other members.
Trump said he is against stupid wars and whether prople like it not, we were in a better position when some of these counties had dictators ruling them, one can hold their nose and say Libya was better with Gaddafi than what the country is now. The countries who armed the rebels in Syria helped create the rise of ISIS.

Well isn't it hypocrisy for people to criticise Trump when under Obama they do 2nd tap strikes on targets.
Under Obama and piece is from 2012
"In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it."The expansive use of "double-tap" drone strikes is just one of a number of more recent phenomena in the covert war run by the US against violent Islamists that has been documented in a new report by legal experts at Stanford and New York University.
The product of nine months' research and more than 130 interviews, it is one of the most exhaustive attempts by academics to understand – and evaluate – Washington's drone wars. And their verdict is damning.
Throughout the 146-page report, which is released today, the authors condemn drone strikes for their ineffectiveness.
Despite assurances the attacks are "surgical", researchers found barely 2 per cent of their victims are known militants and that the idea that the strikes make the world a safer place for the US is "ambiguous at best."
Researchers added that traumatic effects of the strikes go far beyond fatalities, psychologically battering a population which lives under the daily threat of annihilation from the air, and ruining the local economy.
The Obama administration is unlikely to heed their demands given the zeal with which America has expanded its drone programme over the past two years. Reapers and Predators are now active over the skies of Somalia and Yemen as well as Pakistan and – less covertly – Afghanistan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

The beautiful irony of sneering at people sneering!

I doubt there'll be a single speech worth noting at the DNC. Hilary is a particular poor speaker.

That doesn't make the speeches at the ROC any less terrible. Full of empty rhetoric and scare mongering.

Talking of scare mongering, another terrorist attack in Europe this evening.

There is a reason for fear. Trump is not creating the fear, he is giving it a voice whether one likes it or not.

RobertKK

LostinKildare wrote: »

So you must be really disappointed then that Trump abandoned his stance on this issue and chose Pence --- a person who not only voted for the invasion, but years later was still hawking the WMD lie, even when the CIA and Bush officials had abandoned it.

What do you think of Trump's cavalier "I don't care"?

I am not a fan of Pence and like Pence said 'most people probably never ever heard of him'.
Pence was chosen to get elected. Why would Trump care when he was chosen to follow Trump, it is not Trump following Pence.

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

Regarding this... No, I don't care. Nobody will perfectly match another's ideals. You measure the good against the bad, calculate the totals and decide which comes out ahead.

But how is it possible to consider his ideals and measure them against yours when his are a moving target?

If you don't care that he has no principles or integrity -- yes, ferociously attacking one person and then, when it suits you, arrogantly and glibly excusing another for the same thing, demonstrates a stunning dishonesty -- then how can you gauge whether he is sincere about any of the positions you have carefully measured and calculated? Is there any ideal you hold dear? If his stated view on that aligns with yours, how can you trust that he won't casually discard it?

Or is it the case that you just don't care if he cannot be trusted, that it doesn't matter whether he ditches his positions on a selfish whim, or even what those positions are when they come to rest, because it's good enough that he is NOT HILLARY?

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not a fan of Pence and like Pence said 'most people probably never ever heard of him'.
Pence was chosen to get elected. Why would Trump care when he was chosen to follow Trump, it is not Trump following Pence.

Well, it's very clear that Trump doesn't care -- he is a person with no honour. I'm asking you --- since, as a pacifist, presumably you do care about the Iraq war --- does Trump's lack of integrity on this issue bother you?

And I wouldn't rest easy with the Pence-following-Trump thing. Trump plans to delegate the actual job of the presidency to his VP (and I can't believe this isn't being discussed more widely!):

One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html?_r=2

The vice presidential pick will also be part of the process of proving he’s ready for the White House, Manafort said.

“He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn’t want to do. He seems himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-paul-manafort-general-election_us_574619eee4b0dacf7ad3e201?vqp8pvi=

Actually, would we really be surprised if he quit the presidency, much like Sarah Palin quit the governorship of Alaska? He's already hinted as much to the NYT. Sure, he wants to WIN -- he's a classic narcissist -- but actually do the job? Not so much.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Can the US afford to keep increasing their debt at the rate it is to keep spending more money on a defense alliance than some other members.
Trump said he is against stupid wars and whether prople like it not, we were in a better position when some of these counties had dictators ruling them, one can hold their nose and say Libya was better with Gaddafi than what the country is now. The countries who armed the rebels in Syria helped create the rise of ISIS.

Well isn't it hypocrisy for people to criticise Trump when under Obama they do 2nd tap strikes on targets.
Under Obama and piece is from 2012
"In the past it used to be a one-off, every now and then. Now almost every other attack is a double tap. There is no justification for it."The expansive use of "double-tap" drone strikes is just one of a number of more recent phenomena in the covert war run by the US against violent Islamists that has been documented in a new report by legal experts at Stanford and New York University.
The product of nine months' research and more than 130 interviews, it is one of the most exhaustive attempts by academics to understand – and evaluate – Washington's drone wars. And their verdict is damning.
Throughout the 146-page report, which is released today, the authors condemn drone strikes for their ineffectiveness.
Despite assurances the attacks are "surgical", researchers found barely 2 per cent of their victims are known militants and that the idea that the strikes make the world a safer place for the US is "ambiguous at best."
Researchers added that traumatic effects of the strikes go far beyond fatalities, psychologically battering a population which lives under the daily threat of annihilation from the air, and ruining the local economy.
The Obama administration is unlikely to heed their demands given the zeal with which America has expanded its drone programme over the past two years. Reapers and Predators are now active over the skies of Somalia and Yemen as well as Pakistan and – less covertly – Afghanistan.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html

The US can't afford to increase spending on its military. I am curious as to why Trump wants to increase it. You don't need to increase spending on the military for Nato. In fact you can decrease it (which is something Obama also didn't do and Hillary won't). Really. We aren't going to war with Russia. The main issue is to stop countries from invading NATO countries via the threat of retribution. You just need to ensure the combined military of NATO is large enough and affirm that you will stand by your part of the deal. If countries aren't paying their way that should be deat with at a NATO level. Not by undermining the entire thing.

I will happily complain about Obama not cutting on down on drone usage. Also gitmo for that matter. Hillary will undoubtedly continue the same stupid policy. I don't get supporting a president who is promising to go further with targeting non civilians. He wants to increase the military and I highly doubt he wants all these people just sitting around either or else it is an obvious waste of money.

Billy86

LostinKildare wrote: »

But how is it possible to consider his ideals and measure them against yours when his are a moving target?

If you don't care that he has no principles or integrity -- yes, ferociously attacking one person and then, when it suits you, arrogantly and glibly excusing another for the same thing, demonstrates a stunning dishonesty -- then how can you gauge whether he is sincere about any of the positions you have carefully measured and calculated? Is there any ideal you hold dear? If his stated view on that aligns with yours, how can you trust that he won't casually discard it?

Or is it the case that you just don't care if he cannot be trusted, that it doesn't matter whether he ditches his positions on a selfish whim, or even what those positions are when they come to rest, because it's good enough that he is NOT HILLARY?

It's a matter of the letter beside his name. Were it Cruz, Kasich or Trump the result general message would be the exact same.

Amerika

“DARK SPEECH”

I can’t count the times I read this phrase today and heard it on TV regarding Trumps speech. Here’s what I think happened. Immediately after his speech the Clinton people sent out their talking points to their cronies in the media. And like good little soldiers, they took their marching orders and complied.

FYI... Trumps speech was compelling, uplifting, and poignant. But “Dark,” no freakin' way!

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

“DARK SPEECH”

I can’t count the times I read this phrase today and heard it on TV regarding Trumps speech. Here’s what I think happened. Immediately after his speech the Clinton people sent out their talking points to their cronies in the media. And like good little soldiers, they took their marching orders and complied.

FYI... Trumps speech was compelling, uplifting, and poignant. But “Dark,” no freakin' way!

Omg...if you think that the whole conference not too mention that trumps speech was uplifting compelling and poignant, you must watch the Texas chainsaw Massacre for laughs!

The whole first day was "make America safe. Again" where they had a string of people on telling their stories about how their loved ones were murdered by immigrants'. I mean there are tens of THOUSANDS of people in the states killed by guns alone every year and Trump cherry picks a few heart breakers?????

He then has a real cheery sob story himself about some top of the class beautiful girl that was murdered by some immigrant.... Real uplifting stuff there! And he is the man to sort all this out???? Why? Because he built a few apartment blocks and a multistory carparks. I'm civil engineer and built a few bridges (for real) so am I'm just as qualified to be CIC???? Because I will be SO GOOD at it and it will be BEAUTIFUL I promise.

Fr Tod Umptious

Amerika wrote: »

“DARK SPEECH”

I can’t count the times I read this phrase today and heard it on TV regarding Trumps speech. Here’s what I think happened. Immediately after his speech the Clinton people sent out their talking points to their cronies in the media. And like good little soldiers, they took their marching orders and complied.

FYI... Trumps speech was compelling, uplifting, and poignant. But “Dark,” no freakin' way!

Well the Dems cannot afford the electorate to think that all is not good.

Hillary is running on the back of 8 years of Obama and the notion that radical Islam is a real threat or that race relations are a real issue must be suppressed.

Remember the old overused cliché , "its the economy stupid" ?

Well how many times have you heard that used on this campaign ?

Rarely, cos the reality is its more than the economy stupid.

PopePalpatine

LostinKildare wrote: »

Actually, would we really be surprised if he quit the presidency, much like Sarah Palin quit the governorship of Alaska? He's already hinted as much to the NYT. Sure, he wants to WIN -- he's a classic narcissist -- but actually do the job? Not so much.

You're reminding me of his ghostwriter recalling Trump as someone who can't sit still for long without fidgeting. :pac:

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Omg...if you think that the whole conference not too mention that trumps speech was uplifting compelling and poignant, you must watch the Texas chainsaw Massacre for laughs!

The whole first day was "make America safe. Again" where they had a string of people on telling their stories about how their loved ones were murdered by immigrants'. I mean there are tens of THOUSANDS of people in the states killed by guns alone every year and Trump cherry picks a few heart breakers?????

He then has a real cheery sob story himself about some top of the class beautiful girl that was murdered by some immigrant.... Real uplifting stuff there! And he is the man to sort all this out???? Why? Because he built a few apartment blocks and a multistory carparks. I'm civil engineer and built a few bridges (for real) so am I'm just as qualified to be CIC???? Because I will be SO GOOD at it and it will be BEAUTIFUL I promise.

I did say "Trump's speech," didn't I? I thought that was pretty clear.

And if I was in the mood to watch horror, I'd tune into the DNC convention next week.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not a fan of Pence and like Pence said 'most people probably never ever heard of him'.
Pence was chosen to get elected. Why would Trump care when he was chosen to follow Trump, it is not Trump following Pence.

Voter's care about the VP pick because that person might have to take over the presidency one day.

Pence doesnt believe in evolution. Or climate change. He's against healthcare for the poor. And gun control.

And he thinks tobacco isnt bad for you.

He's not just against abortion, he's against women's access to birth control.

InTheTrees

It sounds like Clinton is about to announce her VP pick tonight in Florida.

It looks like its certainly Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia.

VG31

Tim Kaine is Clinton's VP pick.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36870441

Christy42

VG31 wrote: »

Tim Kaine is Clinton's VP pick.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36870441

Guess it is a tactical choice. His anti abortion stance opposes Hillary's and my own. Definitely a few I would have preferred ahead of him.