2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

How so?



Because they don't support ridiculous policies like building a wall along the southern border?



How so? Because they have the audacity to think that America's poverty rate is too high? Because they don't support the elimination of the safety net?



Because the Republicans have been such staunch defenders of the 4th, 6th and 8th amendment.



Let me guess, environmental regulation? Does that mean Republicans oppose planet saving regulations?



And Republicans favour massive tax cuts without any spending cuts. Donald Trump hasn't proposed any spending cuts but has proposed almost $10tn in tax cuts whereas Clinton proposes a modest $1tn tax increase. Republicans are the party of uncontrolled deficits and fiscal irresponsibility.



It's called decency not political correctness.



A pre-viable foetus isn't a baby, it's just a foetus.

Pretty good questions. Thank you for challenging me on my statement rather than just resorting to personal attacks like others here.

How so?

Lawlessness
There have been many reports recently that Democrats ignore Federal Law when it suits their purposes. President Obama feels he has the authority to change existing laws that Congress has passed and carry out entirely new laws that Congress never passed. These actions are lawless and violations of the Constitution. Most recently Obama’s executive order to shield as many as five million illegal aliens from deportation and allow them to legally work in the US was shot down in the appellate court. To top it off his administration ignored the judges ruling regarding the president’s lawless amnesty, and brought more than 100,000 illegal aliens anyway.

Corruption.
Well, looking at just New York over the past decade, there have been more than 30 current or former state officeholders convicted of crimes, sanctioned or otherwise accused of wrongdoing.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/23/nyregion/23moreland-commission-and-new-york-political-scandals.html?_r=0

There have been numerous reports of pay-to-play schemes regarding Clinton's time as SoS and the Clinton Foundation. The FBI refuses to comment on whether an investigation into it is ongoing. Perhaps we have to wait until later in the weeks when Wikileaks makes another email dump. Regardless, the details of the donations and payments is highly suspect at the very least.

Because they don't support ridiculous policies like building a wall along the southern border?

Not just that, but did you know there is already a law on our books requiring the building of a wall on our southern border? The Secure Fence Act of 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

And lets look at something that just happened at the DNC convention last night which actually covers a whole bunch of the list I accused the Democrats of. Francisca Ortiz and her daughter Karla were guest speakers. She was addressing the subject of immigration, but Francisca was chosen to speak on the subject because she currently in the country illegally and is ignoring a standing deportation order. Her presence there is still against the law. But Democrats don’t care and the DNC clearly is encouraging her remain and reside in the US. That’s still against federal law!

Because the Republicans have been such staunch defenders of the 4th, 6th and 8th amendment.

Actually I was thinking the 1st, 2nd and 10th Amendments.

And Republicans favour massive tax cuts without any spending cuts. Donald Trump hasn't proposed any spending cuts but has proposed almost $10tn in tax cuts whereas Clinton proposes a modest $1tn tax increase. Republicans are the party of uncontrolled deficits and fiscal irresponsibility.

Regarding my comment.. Look at what the Democrats are promising… higher taxes. They always propose higher taxes. And Obama will have added about 10 Trillion to our deficit before he leaves. Yet our roads, bridges and infrastructure remain in a shambles. Tell me... Were did the money go?

It's called decency not political correctness.

Ouch, I need to retreat to my Democratic sanctioned Safe Zone where you aren't allowed to offend me the way you did. Do you think it might be safe from Radical Islamic Terrorism?

A pre-viable foetus isn't a baby, it's just a foetus.

Why are we afraid to call it what it really is… government sanctioned murder of the unborn child? It is law and I accept it is legal, but I’ll continue to call it what it really is. And what if science finds a way to make the baby viable from day one? Will you argue against abortion, or just move the goalposts?

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Pretty good questions. Thank you for challenging me on my statement rather than just resorting to personal attacks like others here.



Lawlessness
There have been many reports recently that Democrats ignore Federal Law when it suits their purposes. President Obama feels he has the authority to change existing laws that Congress has passed, carry out entirely new laws that Congress never passed. These actions are lawless and violations of the Constitution. Most recently Obama’s executive order to shield as many as five million illegal aliens from deportation and allow them to legally work in the US was shot down in the appellate court. To top it off his administration ignored the judges ruling regarding the president’s lawless amnesty, and brought more than 100,000 illegal aliens anyway.

Corruption.
Well, looking at just New York over the past decade, there have been more than 30 current or former state officeholders convicted of crimes, sanctioned or otherwise accused of wrongdoing.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/23/nyregion/23moreland-commission-and-new-york-political-scandals.html?_r=0


Not just that, but did you know there is already a law on our books requiring the building of a wall on our southern border? The Secure Fence Act of 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

And lets look at something that just happened at the DNC convention last night which actually covers a whole bunch of the list I accused the Democrats of. Francisca Ortiz and her daughter Karla were guest speakers. She was addressing the subject of immigration, but Francisca was chosen to speak on the subject because she currently in the country illegally and is ignoring a standing deportation order. Here presence there is still against the law. But Democrats don’t care and the DNC clearly is encouraging her remain and reside in the United States. That’s still against federal law!


Actually I was thinking the 1st, 2nd and 10th Amendments.


Regarding my comment.. Look at what the Democrats are promising… higher taxes. They always propose higher taxes. And Obama will have added about 10 Trillion to our deficit before he leaves. Yet our roads, bridges and infrastructure remain in a shambles. Tell me... Were did the money go?


Ouch, I need to retreat to my Democratic sanctioned Safe Zone. Do you think it might be safe from Radical Islamic Terrorism?


Why are we afraid to call it what it really is… government sanctioned murder of the unborn child? It is law and I accept it is legal, but I’ll continue to call it what it really is. And what if science finds a way to make the baby viable from day one? Will you argue against abortion, or just move the goalposts?

So you only care about certain parts of the constitution when it comes to defending it (though why it shouldn't be a living document is beyond me given times change but it seems to be important for Americans).

Democrats don't have a monopoly on corruption, even in the article you posted.

There is a difference between a safe zone and not insulting minority groups for the sake of a sound bite.

There is no state mandated murdering of babies. A foetus is not a baby. It may turn into one but it is not a baby.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

So you only care about certain parts of the constitution when it comes to defending it (though why it shouldn't be a living document is beyond me given times change but it seems to be important for Americans).

Democrats don't have a monopoly on corruption, even in the article you posted.

There is a difference between a safe zone and not insulting minority groups for the sake of a sound bite.

There is no state mandated murdering of babies. A foetus is not a baby. It may turn into one but it is not a baby.

Which parts of the Constitution don't I care about?

And I agree some Republicans are corrupt but the Democrats take corruption to a whole new level.

You don't live here, do you? And if you do, do you live on either of the two liberal coasts? Safe Zones have become bastions of political correctness gone mad. Try and tell my college daughter that Safe Zones are just about insulting minority groups. A fellow student reported her to the college (a Safe Zone) for talking about her "Grandmother." The term "Grandmother" offended the other student, but my daughter still had to deal with the nonsense before a college board because she felt she should be allowed to talk about her grandmother and the other student was being unreasonable. She won, but why did she have to go through it in the first place? The complaint should have been thrown out the minute it was made... But NO! Madness! And colleges are Democratic Liberal breeding grounds. My daughter was REQUIRED to read a book about transgender last summer and this summer has to read a Hillary Clinton authored book.

We will just have to agree to disagree about abortion.

Lirange

Interesting article from the Times.

I never realised that Obama did as well, relatively speaking, with white working class voters as he did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/upshot/the-one-demographic-that-is-hurting-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Which parts of the Constitution don't I care about?

And I agree some Republicans are corrupt but the Democrats take corruption to a whole new level.

You don't live here, do you? And if you do, do you live on either of the two liberal coasts? Safe Zones have become bastions of political correctness gone mad. Try and tell my college daughter that Safe Zones are just about insulting minority groups. A fellow student reported her to the college (a Safe Zone) for talking about her "Grandmother." The term "Grandmother" offended the other student, but my daughter still had to deal with the nonsense before a college board because she felt she should be allowed to talk about her grandmother and the other student was being unreasonable. She won, but why did she have to go through it in the first place? The complaint should have been thrown out the minute it was made... But NO! Madness! And colleges are Democratic Liberal breeding grounds. My daughter was REQUIRED to read a book about transgender last summer and this summer has to read a Hillary Clinton authored book.

We will just have to agree to disagree about abortion.

You seemed to dismiss the point that the Republicans don't exactly fight for every last word on the constitution either (I believe the 4th, 6th and 8th amendments were mentioned). Granted I think that either way the argument is silly. The US constitution can be just as wrong or out of place for its time as any other bunch of rules. Arguing that either side is trying to change the constitution is pointless without showing those parts of the constitution are good.

I am Irish and live in Ireland. However what I meant is that there exists an in between, I am aware that many people take it to extremes such as the person who lodged the complaint against your daughter. I also don't see much point in safe spaces but I see that side of things to be much less harmful than insulting minorities for the sake of a soundbite. However I sit in the middle but I see one side has the potential to cause a lot more harm. Words can encourage actions-especially from those in a position of power and so you have to be careful not to indirectly encourage violence. Trust me they are not the majority-they are merely the loudest. While annoying your daughter did win the case.

I have had to read many books in my time in education, I fail to see the issue. Granted college seems a little late for forcing people to do stuff and it is a little late at that point anyway.

Yeah I should have left the abortion topic-this is not the place for that discussion.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Which parts of the Constitution don't I care about?

And I agree some Republicans are corrupt but the Democrats take corruption to a whole new level.

You don't live here, do you? And if you do, do you live on either of the two liberal coasts? Safe Zones have become bastions of political correctness gone mad. Try and tell my college daughter that Safe Zones are just about insulting minority groups. A fellow student reported her to the college (a Safe Zone) for talking about her "Grandmother." The term "Grandmother" offended the other student, but my daughter still had to deal with the nonsense before a college board because she felt she should be allowed to talk about her grandmother and the other student was being unreasonable. She won, but why did she have to go through it in the first place? The complaint should have been thrown out the minute it was made... But NO! Madness! And colleges are Democratic Liberal breeding grounds. My daughter was REQUIRED to read a book about transgender last summer and this summer has to read a Hillary Clinton authored book.

We will just have to agree to disagree about abortion.

What's wrong with reading a book about Teansgender?

I refuse to believe someone was insulted by the term grandmother, without the context of why it was found insulting.

Political correctness has not gone mad. It's a tired cliché thats wheeled about by people who enjoying using bigoted insults.

BoatMad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He did say he would declare war on ISIS and all that is involved in that. Declaration of war frees up resources required to eliminate these organization's. Essentially doing what Bush & Obama did against Al Qaeda post 9/11.

To this date terrorists have been allowed to regroup recruit and pounce on Nations across the world. A fatwa was issued by Osama Bin Laden in 1998 that fatwa is still relevant in this day and age and the world has sadly been naïve in dealing with these Jihadists.

At least since the US actions directly led to the rise of IS , it should bear the responsibility of neutralising them.

Of course history will show that the US is typically unable to complete such undertakings.

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

At least since the US actions directly led to the rise of IS , it should bear the responsibility of neutralising them.

Of course history will show that the US is typically unable to complete such undertakings.

Of course it's the US's fault. Nothing to do with the religion or the various states in the ME that tacitly support extremist groups.

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Of course it's the US's fault. Nothing to do with the religion or the various states in the ME that tacitly support extremist groups.

Any reasonable read of the recent history of conflict in the MA and the central role the US played in destabilising the old soviet influences, will show you that the US created or stimulated the rise of militant Sunni extremists.

despite Trunp sound bites, thevUS lacks the ability of will to prosecute any final solution for IS. Anyway such groups merely morph into other forms and re- emerge. Did the US " war on terror " achieve anything ? , yes it led to widespread fundamentalist jihadi organisations being created.

Ultimately random Islamic terrorism was the price the US felt was acceptable to pay to destabilise the old soviet influences in the ME. Unfortunately a lot of the western world is paying dearly alongside the US.

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

Any reasonable read of the recent history of conflict in the MA and the central role the US played in destabilising the old soviet influences, will show you that the US created or stimulated the rise of militant Sunni extremists.

despite Trunp sound bites, thevUS lacks the ability of will to prosecute any final solution for IS. Anyway such groups merely morph into other forms and re- emerge. Did the US " war on terror " achieve anything ? , yes it led to widespread fundamentalist jihadi organisations being created.

You might want to read up on the history of the House of Saud, and there utilisation of the wahhabists to gain and hold power. The collapse of the Ottoman empire and the actions taken by the British in region have significantly shaped the fortunes of the various ethnic groups. Is the US to blame for Iran's sponsorship of terrorist groups since their revolution?

BoatMad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You might want to read up on the history of the House of Saud, and there utilisation of the wahhabists to gain and hold power. The collapse of the Ottoman empire and the actions taken by the British in region have significantly shaped the fortunes of the various ethnic groups. Is the US to blame for Iran's sponsorship of terrorist groups since their revolution?

I'm well aware of the competing forces of extremism.

The US, capitalising on the fall of the Soviet Union set out to destabilise the old soviet influenced countries of the ME. These included Iraq , Libiya , Egypt , Syria ( though that has backfired with the US now supporting Assad against the very people the us armed to topple him)

As for Iran , yes it has used the chaos in Iraq to further its intentions, the US aided and abetted this by allowing Shias like Nouri al-Maliki to persecute former Sunni bathist members and the general Sunni population driving them into the waiting arms of IS.

Trump will of course continue US involvement in the ME and will no doubt create even more conflict

Rjd2

Lirange wrote: »

Interesting article from the Times.

I never realised that Obama did as well, relatively speaking, with white working class voters as he did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/upshot/the-one-demographic-that-is-hurting-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Jon Harris who along with Martina Hyde is probably one of the most interesting people working for the Guardian explored the support that Trump gets from the working class and nope they are not all closet racists as some would say:P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRW6rhmFAXc

RobertKK

At the DNC convention there is someone walking around the floor holding up two signs:
'Hillary for fear;
'Love trumps (hate Xed out) Hill'.

The protests against Hillary continue.

RobertKK

Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood Action Fund gave her speech.

Followed by Lena Dunham who was also promoting abortions.

Realt Dearg Sec

RobertKK wrote: »

Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood Action Fund gave her speech.

Followed by Lena Dunham who was also promoting abortions.

It's a pro choice party, what were you expecting them to be doing?

AbusesToilets

BoatMad wrote: »

I'm well aware of the competing forces of extremism.

The US, capitalising on the fall of the Soviet Union set out to destabilise the old soviet influenced countries of the ME. These included Iraq , Libiya , Egypt , Syria ( though that has backfired with the US now supporting Assad against the very people the us armed to topple him)

As for Iran , yes it has used the chaos in Iraq to further its intentions, the US aided and abetted this by allowing Shias like Nouri al-Maliki to persecute former Sunni bathist members and the general Sunni population driving them into the waiting arms of IS.

Trump will of course continue US involvement in the ME and will no doubt create even more conflict

Of course the various groups in the region have no agency or agendas of their own, and are entirely the creation of US :rolleyes:

RobertKK

Really liked the speakers on human trafficking and exploitation.

RobertKK

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

It's a pro choice party, what were you expecting them to be doing?

Trying to expand their voter base, not turn people off by going on and on about it.

Realt Dearg Sec

RobertKK wrote: »

Trying to expand their voter base, not turn people off by going on and on about it.

Couldn't that apply to virtually any policy, advocated by virtually any party? What's the point in having policies if you're not going to actually mention them?

TheDoctor

Couldn't that apply to virtually any policy, advocated by virtually any party? What's the point in having policies if you're not going to actually mention them?[/quote]

A question for the RNC last week

RobertKK

Julian Assange says he wants to destroy Hillary Clinton's Presidential bid.
He says he has emails to release and they will be released at the right time, I suppose like how Wikileaks destroyed Debbie Wasserman Schultz and caused uproar among Bernie supporters.
He said Hillary was strongly in favour of having him charged over the leak of diplomatic cables, just like she was of Bradley Manning who was sentenced to 35 years in jail.
He also says she is a hawk and will have the US involved in wars just like she did with Libya where she helped terrorism.

http://nyti.ms/2a8baha

So I expect more dirt maybe after Obama speaks at the convention, or whatever will give the biggest impact. It sounds like he has a lot of dirt to reveal.

derm0j073

RobertKK wrote: »

Trying to expand their voter base, not turn people off by going on and on about it.

Some people like to hear policy discussed with some detail . It's a little disappointing if all you want is talking heads mouthing off sound bites .

RobertKK

Bill Clinton and his friend Denis O'Brien.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/757342039134568448

Don't they look close...

RobertKK

derm0j073 wrote: »

Some people like to hear policy discussed with some detail . It's a little disappointing if all you want is talking heads mouthing off sound bites .

That is what most conventions are designed for - sound bites.

Billy86

If bill Clinton being seen with Denis O'brien is bad, shouldn't Trump being Trump automatically be bad... or am I missing something here?

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Bill Clinton and his friend Denis O'Brien.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/757342039134568448

Don't they look close...

And your point is?

Are you, as a vociferous Trump supporter, going to have the neck to criticise Denis O'Brien? O'Brien IMO is a horrible man, but he's a saint compared to Trump.

ancapailldorcha

This appeared on my newsfeed this morning:



Looks like it's untrue (Source).

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Lawlessness
There have been many reports recently that Democrats ignore Federal Law when it suits their purposes. President Obama feels he has the authority to change existing laws that Congress has passed and carry out entirely new laws that Congress never passed. These actions are lawless and violations of the Constitution. Most recently Obama’s executive order to shield as many as five million illegal aliens from deportation and allow them to legally work in the US was shot down in the appellate court. To top it off his administration ignored the judges ruling regarding the president’s lawless amnesty, and brought more than 100,000 illegal aliens anyway.

The vast expansion of executive power was started by GWB. Obama couldn't have done those things without a Republican president setting precedent.

Corruption.
Well, looking at just New York over the past decade, there have been more than 30 current or former state officeholders convicted of crimes, sanctioned or otherwise accused of wrongdoing.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/23/nyregion/23moreland-commission-and-new-york-political-scandals.html?_r=0

Fair enough but Republicans are so synonymous with corruption that pretty every scandal around the globe is named after a Republican political scandal. That scandal led to the resignation of a Republican president. More recently we have the 2006 Republican party scandals.

Not just that, but did you know there is already a law on our books requiring the building of a wall on our southern border? The Secure Fence Act of 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

And lets look at something that just happened at the DNC convention last night which actually covers a whole bunch of the list I accused the Democrats of. Francisca Ortiz and her daughter Karla were guest speakers. She was addressing the subject of immigration, but Francisca was chosen to speak on the subject because she currently in the country illegally and is ignoring a standing deportation order. Her presence there is still against the law. But Democrats don’t care and the DNC clearly is encouraging her remain and reside in the US. That’s still against federal law!

As it is now a fence on the southern border only serves to keep immigrants in as there are more immigrants moving back to Mexico than moving to America. Not that a wall can be built if the money isn't there to pay for it, especially since Republicans are so against uncontrolled spending.

So you want to basically make an orphan of a little girl. Or are you in favour of deporting American citizens now?

Actually I was thinking the 1st, 2nd and 10th Amendments.

And the amendments I listed are ones that Republicans are more than happy to ignore. It sounds like both parties are pretty even.

Regarding my comment.. Look at what the Democrats are promising… higher taxes. They always propose higher taxes. And Obama will have added about 10 Trillion to our deficit before he leaves. Yet our roads, bridges and infrastructure remain in a shambles. Tell me... Were did the money go?

And all the Republicans ever propose is lower taxes. At least the Democrats' higher taxes would actually close the deficit and slow the growth of debt unlike the Republicans that want to ignore the deficit and bankrupt America.

The money went on avoiding a second Great Depression. The money went on funding wars that were started by Republicans. The money went on halving the number of people without health insurance. Obama has spent three-quarters of his presidency dealing with a congress that have no interest in investing in infrastructure.

Ouch, I need to retreat to my Democratic sanctioned Safe Zone where you aren't allowed to offend me the way you did. Do you think it might be safe from Radical Islamic Terrorism?

Obama doesn't use the term radical Islamic terrorism because he doesn't want to lend religious legitimacy to ISIS and he doesn't want to stir up Islamophobia. If the Republicans had the same kind of tact they might have managed to get a nominee that wasn't a racist.

Why are we afraid to call it what it really is… government sanctioned murder of the unborn child? It is law and I accept it is legal, but I’ll continue to call it what it really is. And what if science finds a way to make the baby viable from day one? Will you argue against abortion, or just move the goalposts?

Because I believe it is completely ridiculous to compare something that is completely incapable of life outside the womb to a child. A pre-viable foetus is merely a parasite and shouldn't be considered to be on the same level as a living, breathing, independent human or even the animals at the zoo.

If a foetus was viable from day one then I would be against abortion. When the facts change I change my opinion. I'm not a Republican after all

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

Bill Clinton and his friend Denis O'Brien.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/757342039134568448

Don't they look close...

"When is America going to have a conversation about this?"

Almost certainly never, considering that none of them know who Denis O'Brien is, and that there's thousands of Denis O'Briens (and worse, much worse) in America to have a problem with.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

And your point is?

Are you, as a vociferous Trump supporter, going to have the neck to criticise Denis O'Brien? O'Brien IMO is a horrible man, but he's a saint compared to Trump.

I am not a vociferous Trump supporter.

I just agree with Julian Assange who I see today and which I posted a link to earlier also agrees that Hillary Clinton is liberal war hawk and will be causing more death and destruction like she did when Secretary of State.
By all accounts it was Her who convinced Obama it was the right thing to do, he eventually accepted her judgement and it was an absolute disaster.
Hillary also tried to push that it was a good idea to bomb Assad, Obama has said he did the right thing by not bombing Assad, as he knows it would have helped ISIS take over all the country.
I don't agree with some of the stuff Trump comes out with, but for me it is a case of Hillary with her proven incompetence which cost a lot of lives and turned a nation over to terrorists and she seems to have a blood thirst compared to Trump who is unproven competence and has learned from recent history it seems who has said the US have wasted trillions on stupid wars.
I think most people would agree with Trump that most of the wars the US have been involved in since 9/11 have been stupid wars, the two most stupid wars have been Iraq and Libya.
I will not support Clinton who like previous people in power like Bush and his administration, Blair, Cameron and Sarkozy and the Obama administration who have destroyed countries and who remain unaccountable for all the lives they destroyed and the terrorism they aided with their destructive foreign policies.

Johnson and Stein haven't a hope in the election.
Hell will freeze over before I support that warmonger Hillary Clinton.