2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Overheal

What candidate do you trust with transparency, national security, communication, etc?

Zascar

Bernie Sanders. Only bernie Sanders.

eire4

Zascar wrote: »

Bernie Sanders. Only bernie Sanders.

Given the corrupt 2 party cartel that is US politics I would agree with Bernie Sanders. Sadly a party like the Green Party will never be given a level playing field in which to compete politically so the US do not get the oppotunity to have other alternatives given to them nationally.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

What candidate do you trust with transparency, national security, communication, etc?

From what I know of the candidates as of now, and if it's ONLY transparency, national security and communication that I base "trust" on, it would be Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and Donald Trump. And that's not saying I would vote for them as POTUS. Curz is too divisive, Trump doesn't seem to have actual working plans for his positions, and Fiorina, although I feel would make a good VP, isn't ready. But I would trust them most in regards to transparency, national security and communication.

Amerika

Zascar wrote: »

Bernie Sanders. Only bernie Sanders.

I might agree with the choice of Sanders regarding Communication and Transparency, but not on National Security.

Overheal

Could you elaborate on the National Security issue with Bernie? Genuinely curious, he has a lot of attention.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Could you elaborate on the National Security issue with Bernie? Genuinely curious, he has a lot of attention.

The main reason is, as far back as I can recall, he’s voted against every defense budget.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

The main reason is, as far back as I can recall, he’s voted against every defense budget.

Good to say the US defense budget is bloated would be an understatement and when you add in all the spying budgets it is even worse.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Good to say the US defense budget is bloated would be an understatement and when you add in all the spying budgets it is even worse.

Sanders is on the Senate Budget Committee, yet the only spending cut he seems to have ever embraced is in defense.

Overheal

Because Defense includes the biggest pieces of waste in the budget.

Amerika wrote: »

The main reason is, as far back as I can recall, he’s voted against every defense budget.

Not without reason:

And given his reasoning, I can't say I disagree. His argument was sharply prophetic.

I just don't understand the Military Industrial Complex: before Pearl Harbor, our military was doing alright yes? Then PH happened, and we ramped up. We ramped up military spending and production in huge ways, in a short frame of time, and helped defeat the Axis. And we did it without an MIC. Private sector manufacturing stepped in and worked with the military and rolled up its sleeves and got the **** done, boys and girls saved their scrap iron, etc.

So why, without any clear evidence of a legitimate threat, do we justify 60 years of huge military investments? Why isn't most of our industry in economic sectors in ways that can be militarized if needed the same way we rolled up our sleeves for WWII? Stockpiled jets and tanks and bombers don't produce any utility unless they are used in combat - so we seek out combat. It's the only way to justify the cost. Even then, most military hardware never sees combat.

We were told it was all to prevent another WWII, to save American lives by extension, but now we've killed so many people fighting bogus skirmishes and 'not-wars' to justify defense spending that we are the world's monster now, making kids in foreign countries terrified of the clear blue sky and killing people with a point and click.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Because Defense includes the biggest pieces of waste in the budget.

Not without reason:

And given his reasoning, I can't say I disagree. His argument was sharply prophetic.

I can't watch the video right now. There is plenty of government waste in areas other than defense. Yet Sanders ignores those other areas and instead wants more spending. National security is about the only thing laid out in our Constitution that the Federal Government is actually responsible for. And the only place he wants to decimate. You asked why I don't think I can trust him on National Security, and I believe I made a good case for it.

I just don't understand the Military Industrial Complex: before Pearl Harbor, our military was doing alright yes? Then PH happened, and we ramped up. We ramped up military spending and production in huge ways, in a short frame of time, and helped defeat the Axis.

So why, without any clear evidence of a legitimate threat, do we justify 60 years of huge military investments? Why isn't most of our industry in economic sectors in ways that can be militarized if needed the same way we rolled up our sleeves for WWII? Stockpiled jets and tanks and bombers don't produce any utility unless they are used in combat - so we seek out combat. It's the only way to justify the cost.

Have you looked at what is happening in the world? The Ukraine and other former USSR countries, the Middle East with Iran in particular, North Korea, some parts of South America, Africa, etc. Who do you think the rest of the world is going to call when all hell breaks out... Ghostbusters? We're already on a course to have the smallest army since 1940 and the smallest Navy since 1915. And Sanders wants to cut even more? I think his campaign slogan should be National Security - MEH!

KingBrian2

Amerika wrote: »

I'm not defending him, but rather making the point that if you can defend Hillary Clinton in this matter, how can you not defend Nixon.


Sorry, but this is not a big nothingburger. She has lied over and over again in this email scandal matter. And each time her lies are uncovered she changes the story. This is a big deal, and the American people are taking notice. They are asking… What is she hiding? Do we want a person in the White House who operates by serial deception? Do we want a person who, out of paranoia and who believes she's above the law, established an email system that violated federal policy, that thwarted congressional oversight, that skirted the Freedom of Information Act, and quite possibly damaged national security? Her falling numbers indicate that this all is causing voters to wonder if we really want another four years of a government we can't trust.

There is now news that a backup of her server might exist. Is there any doubt more classified and Top Secret information will be found, which she has claimed doesn’t exist? And what if it is discovered to house details about other topics such as Benghazi – against requests of Congressional investigations, or a integration of Clinton Foundation donors and State Department business. Yes, these are speculation at this point, and she has enough problems as it is with the troubling matters already proven to be true. But if there is a chance they find more incriminating evidence into nefarious matters of hers, the Democrats should already be worrying they have no one left to rescue them from a disaster of Hillary’s own making.

You can bury your head in the sand regarding who Hillary Clinton really is, but all of this should give everyone pause and question her judgment, and wonder what else is she hiding... And if we should give the keys to the country to someone nobody can trust.

The biggest mistake Clinton made was voting for the Iraq war. She won't get out of that one. Whatever dirt is dug up about her in relation to her emails it is her public record that sticks. The email scandal is being used by Republicans to discredit her but she is well liked and trusted by the American voter. A seasoned politician got roped into George Bush's disastrous war presidency that will cost her big.

Amerika

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The biggest mistake Clinton made was voting for the Iraq war. She won't get out of that one. Whatever dirt is dug up about her in relation to her emails it is her public record that sticks. The email scandal is being used by Republicans to discredit her but she is well liked and trusted by the American voter. A seasoned politician got roped into George Bush's disastrous war presidency that will cost her big.

No she isn't. According to a July 30th Quinnipiac University poll 57% of voters do not view Clinton as "honest and trustworthy" and those numbers are rising. In my book that would constitute the majority of American voters.

And you consider Hillary Clinton being a "season politician" at the the time of the Iraq vote?????? You're kidding me, right?

Amerika

wefixtexas wrote: »

Since retiring as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton has been an active speaker around the country. On July 4, 2014, Clinton said her speaking fees "have been donated to the Clinton Foundation for it to continue its life-changing and life-saving work. So it goes from a foundation at a university to another foundation.

Only 10% of what the Clinton Foundation takes in is actually spent on charitable work. The rest goes to what I call the Hillary for President Slush Fund. "Life-changing and Life-saving work"???? For Hillary, Bill and Chelesa's lifestyle perhaps. You do remember they were "dead broke" just a little while ago, right?

Overheal

I can't watch the video right now.

Me either I'm under a work firewall, I watched it earlier; it's worth a look later, only 2 mins.

There is plenty of government waste in areas other than defense. Yet Sanders ignores those other areas and instead wants more spending. National security is about the only thing laid out in our Constitution that the Federal Government is actually responsible for. And the only place he wants to decimate. You asked why I don't think I can trust him on National Security, and I believe I made a good case for it.

I haven't gotten to the point where I've sat down and scrutinized his voting/senate record yet, I'm sure he's hellbent on the defense spending either way.

Have you looked at what is happening in the world? The Ukraine and other former USSR countries, the Middle East with Iran in particular, North Korea, some parts of South America, Africa, etc. Who do you think the rest of the world is going to call when all hell breaks out... Ghostbusters? We're already on a course to have the smallest army since 1940 and the smallest Navy since 1915. And Sanders wants to cut even more?

We've specifically engineered our military to do more with less (The integrated battlefield, network-centric warfare, etc), and size would I wager depend on how you frame the statement: size in gross tonnage, personnel, munitions quantity, spending? As for who the world is going to call: The UN, or NATO, or a group of Countries that decide "yeah, I'll jump in on that fight" the same way we did when actual wars broke out. America doesn't need to be the world's police. Why put ourselves in that position, especially when most of our current enemies have been made as a result of our interventionism?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

We've specifically engineered our military to do more with less (The integrated battlefield, network-centric warfare, etc), and size would I wager depend on how you frame the statement: size in gross tonnage, personnel, munitions quantity, spending? As for who the world is going to call: The UN, or NATO, or a group of Countries that decide "yeah, I'll jump in on that fight" the same way we did when actual wars broke out. America doesn't need to be the world's police. Why put ourselves in that position, especially when most of our current enemies have been made as a result of our interventionism?

I believe we had similar ideas of our military in the 1930's, including many republicans. It wasn't until FDR saw the writing on the wall of what was happening in the world, and covertly built up the military and US production that saved Europe and the Far East. And we were involved and participating in WWII long before December 7, 1941. I wasn't a fan of his domestic social policies, but when it came to National Security, I give him kudos.

The UN or NATO or a "group of countries" leading the charge without the majority commitment from the US... Dream On!

Overheal

Right but that was a thing in the 30s: Germany was building the Autobahn and we hadn't even started talking about it. I'm not suggesting we shut off the defense budget and let other countries innovate past us, I'm just suggesting that we don't need to be so dramatically far ahead: we're the kid who wants to buy the ultimate gaming rig for $20,000 when no game exists that won't run on a $1000 PC. There's an economy to the bleeding edge and in the case of the military we're pushing so far beyond everything that its costing us an exponentially higher amount of money. Meanwhile, Russia and China will just rip off our designs anyway.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Right but that was a thing in the 30s: Germany was building the Autobahn and we hadn't even started talking about it. I'm not suggesting we shut off the defense budget and let other countries innovate past us, I'm just suggesting that we don't need to be so dramatically far ahead: we're the kid who wants to buy the ultimate gaming rig for $20,000 when no game exists that won't run on a $1000 PC. There's an economy to the bleeding edge and in the case of the military we're pushing so far beyond everything that its costing us an exponentially higher amount of money. Meanwhile, Russia and China will just rip off our designs anyway.

Oh I agree there could be cuts made to military spending, and just about every other area of the budget. But as far as I know Sanders only votes against the defense budget. Why not all the others and for the same reason? I am pretty sure most of us can figure that out. In his campaign he is proposing big spending plans would radically change the US... but not in defense spending. I would trust Hillary Clinton much more in regards to National Security than I would Bernie Sanders.

KingBrian2

Amerika wrote: »

I believe we had similar ideas of our military in the 1930's, including many republicans. It wasn't until FDR saw the writing on the wall of what was happening in the world, and covertly built up the military and US production that saved Europe and the Far East. And we were involved and participating in WWII long before December 7, 1941. I wasn't a fan of his domestic social policies, but when it came to National Security, I give him kudos.

The UN or NATO or a "group of countries" leading the charge without the majority commitment from the US... Dream On!

America's strength comes from its nuclear arsenal not its military prowess. The Russians exorcised considerable control over Eastern Europe. India during the cold war was a formidable force beating Pakistan numerous times and Israel is taken seriously along with North Korea because they flout international law on non-proliferation.

The US will only regain the world's trust when it learns to listen to its allies and partners around the world and not preserving National Security at all costs. Hillary is on top of her game when it comes to interacting to foreign heads of state as well as considerable political clout in Congress. It is yet to be seen whether she can turn that into electoral support.

Amerika

KingBrian2 wrote: »

America's strength comes from its nuclear arsenal not its military prowess. The Russians exorcised considerable control over Eastern Europe. India during the cold war was a formidable force beating Pakistan numerous times and Israel is taken seriously along with North Korea because they flout international law on non-proliferation.

No, America’s strength comes from our military prowess, our military arsenal, our capabilities, and our willingness to be the savior for our allies.

The US will only regain the world's trust when it learns to listen to its allies and partners around the world and not preserving National Security at all costs. Hillary is on top of her game when it comes to interacting to foreign heads of state as well as considerable political clout in Congress. It is yet to be seen whether she can turn that into electoral support.

Huh? We are talking about the same Hillary Clinton, right? The record as Secretary of State for the Hillary Clinton I’m speaking of was abysmal.

While she was Secretary of State the U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt led to Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt and led to terrorist chaos in Libya. (Remember the US ambassador and three others who were killed?). She undermined our friends in Europe and the Middle East and catered to our enemies. After Russia invaded Ukraine we refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons to defend themselves. Her extended negotiations with Iran allowed them to multiply, hide and reinforce their nuclear facilities to the point where it is uncertain whether Israel can even stop them at this point. And while on her watch our enemies around the world armed while we disarmed.

But I’m confident you will also come back with a litany of Hillary’s success stories as Secretary of State.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Oh I agree there could be cuts made to military spending, and just about every other area of the budget. But as far as I know Sanders only votes against the defense budget. Why not all the others and for the same reason? I am pretty sure most of us can figure that out. In his campaign he is proposing big spending plans would radically change the US... but not in defense spending. I would trust Hillary Clinton much more in regards to National Security than I would Bernie Sanders.

I'll have to get around to looking at his record soon. ontheissues.org or something I think is what I used last cycle and before.

KingBrian2

Amerika wrote: »

No, America’s strength comes from our military prowess, our military arsenal, our capabilities, and our willingness to be the savior for our allies.



Huh? We are talking about the same Hillary Clinton, right? The record as Secretary of State for the Hillary Clinton I’m speaking of was abysmal.

While she was Secretary of State the U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt led to Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt and led to terrorist chaos in Libya. (Remember the US ambassador and three others who were killed?). She undermined our friends in Europe and the Middle East and catered to our enemies. After Russia invaded Ukraine we refused to let the Ukrainians have weapons to defend themselves. Her extended negotiations with Iran allowed them to multiply, hide and reinforce their nuclear facilities to the point where it is uncertain whether Israel can even stop them at this point. And while on her watch our enemies around the world armed while we disarmed.

But I’m confident you will also come back with a litany of Hillary’s success stories as Secretary of State.

The same military prowess that turned Iraq into a smouldering mess. What you call for is US hard power in the form of US marines being sent into conflict zones as a sort of International army. Which president advocated these positions, yes the Reagan administration and the same people that worked under him are supporting the GOP encouraging them to take yet more hard power against America's enemies and threats to your allies.

What fears me more is not violence in the Arab world but the threat of a ego driven US president starting another war. You focus on Libya or Egypt how about Venezuela or Cuba, Columbia and Mexico will US troops be sent into those countries and if not how would you feel if the UN security council supported sending peacekeepers or the OECD into your neighbouring countries.

Face it Hillary of all the candidates is better placed to work with foreign leaders. Does that mean she is totally unblemished, not at all but of all the candidates she is the most qualified and experienced. Nobody else has stood up and supported the wide range of both social and political issues that are controversial all across the USA.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry, but this is not a big nothingburger. She has lied over and over again in this email scandal matter. And each time her lies are uncovered she changes the story. This is a big deal, and the American people are taking notice.

Methinks that during the next session of the US House and US Senate all congresspersons should be sworn-in to tell the truth on the Book, or whatever they believe in, and asked to state (without omission or spin) that they have never used private emails to discuss government business, and if discovered later that they did, be dismissed from their seat in Congress. Of course they would never agree to such an oath, because more than likely ALL of them have done it, and in many cases discussed state secrets, especially since 911.

In other words, this Hilliary scandal is nothing more than media sensationalism to promote ratings and draw advertisers, and the GOP crusade to burn Hilliary at the stake nothing more than political mud slinging about an issue they have ALL been guilty of, but are now exploiting, while pretending to be PURE and without guilt. Once again, read John Adams and the cautions he made about the "evils" of the 2-party system in the US.

Amerika

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The same military prowess that turned Iraq into a smouldering mess. What you call for is US hard power in the form of US marines being sent into conflict zones as a sort of International army. Which president advocated these positions, yes the Reagan administration and the same people that worked under him are supporting the GOP encouraging them to take yet more hard power against America's enemies and threats to your allies.

What fears me more is not violence in the Arab world but the threat of a ego driven US president starting another war. You focus on Libya or Egypt how about Venezuela or Cuba, Columbia and Mexico will US troops be sent into those countries and if not how would you feel if the UN security council supported sending peacekeepers or the OECD into your neighbouring countries.

Face it Hillary of all the candidates is better placed to work with foreign leaders. Does that mean she is totally unblemished, not at all but of all the candidates she is the most qualified and experienced. Nobody else has stood up and supported the wide range of both social and political issues that are controversial all across the USA.

You've got nothing then regarding Hillary's accomplishments as Secretary if State, then? Except for maybe she traveled a lot procuring money for her "foundation?"

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Methinks that during the next session of the US House and US Senate all congresspersons should be sworn-in to tell the truth on the Book, or whatever they believe in, and asked to state (without omission or spin) that they have never used private emails to discuss government business, and if discovered later that they did, be dismissed from their seat in Congress. Of course they would never agree to such an oath, because more than likely ALL of them have done it, and in many cases discussed state secrets, especially since 911.

In other words, this Hilliary scandal is nothing more than media sensationalism to promote ratings and draw advertisers, and the GOP crusade to burn Hilliary at the stake nothing more than political mud slinging about an issue they have ALL been guilty of, but are now exploiting, while pretending to be PURE and without guilt. Once again, read John Adams and the cautions he made about the "evils" of the 2-party system in the US.

Does that mean we should just pass around classified and top secret imformation meant for a top official as the Secretary of State through Hotmail and leave messages on home voicemail machines because "everyone" in government has loose lips with national security? Personally if there is one government official who should be beyond approach in order to provide information dealing with national security, it's the Secretary of State.

MightyMandarin

I'm watching Trump's speech live on CNN at the moment and I can't help but realising that my eyes are glued to the screen when he talks because he's actually quite entertaining.

He's talking nonsense of course (using the Great Wall of China as evidence to prove that his wall is possible) but his style is eye catching and *gulps* almost Obama-esque.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Does that mean we should just pass around classified and top secret imformation meant for a top official as the Secretary of State through Hotmail and leave messages on home voicemail machines because "everyone" in government has loose lips with national security? Personally if there is one government official who should be beyond approach in order to provide information dealing with national security, it's the Secretary of State.

No, I think ALL should be prosecuted NOW, not just Hillary. If national security is a vital issue as you say, and persons with access have been abusing it, should they investigate ALL those that had access, not just single out Hillary? Of course they will not investigate ALL, because odds are it would be revealed that far too many were also guilty in BOTH parties.

Jeb Bush is running for president. It's been established that he exercised poor judgment by using private emails in the conduct of Florida government business. Jeb is using his experience as governor to justify his qualifications for president, which includes the same poor judgment that Hillary used with private emails. If Hillary is to be condemned for poor email judgment, then Jeb should also be condemned in like manner.

InTheTrees

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm watching Trump's speech live on CNN at the moment and I can't help but realising that my eyes are glued to the screen when he talks because he's actually quite entertaining.

He's talking nonsense of course (using the Great Wall of China as evidence to prove that his wall is possible) but his style is eye catching and *gulps* almost Obama-esque.

We had it on too.

Remarkable isnt it?

Its like listening to a 3am Drunk.

Its just rambling, barely coherent nonsense.

And they're lapping it up. Finally Sarah Palin supporters have a new champion.

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its like listening to a 3am Drunk.

In 2008 Hillary wasn't presidential enough to answer the phonecall of 3am drunks..

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm watching Trump's speech live on CNN at the moment and I can't help but realising that my eyes are glued to the screen when he talks because he's actually quite entertaining.

He's talking nonsense of course (using the Great Wall of China as evidence to prove that his wall is possible) but his style is eye catching and *gulps* almost Obama-esque.

Trump is not an intelligent, charismatic speaker like Obama. Whether you hate or love Obama, his public speaking and articulation skills have been vastly superior to that of Trump. Trump makes brash poorly informed statements for the sole purpose of entertaining his audience, and entertains he does, and the polls reflect this entertainment aspect.