2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Surely Joe Biden's gaffes is the typical deflection? At least that's all Amerika seems to go on about anytime a Republican says something silly.

Incorrect. I just point out that the media has a tendency to crucify republicans when they make gaffes, and give democrats a pass (as in ‘that’s just Joe being Joe), or try to explain what the democrat ‘really’ meant.

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The mere mention of Trump as a potential candidate as president of the U.S. reminds me of the film Deadzone, with Christopher Walken and Martin Sheen, the latter being nuke crazy. He is the last thing the US needs, let alone the world.

Long live hyperbole, eh? I think it would be the opposite. I think he would weigh military action based on a cost versus benefit analysis for America. Say Russia completely invaded Ukraine. First off I think he would go off the contention that the Ukraine is not part of NATO and therefore we have no obligations. Then he would look at the options and decide to arm Ukraine rather than start some war as it would weaken our adversary at a minimal cost to us with no American blood spilled. You do remember that he was against the Iraq war?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Also, the teleprompter and prepared speech Obama criticism is no more a cliché then the Sarah Palin ‘heartbeat from the presidency’ shtick that pops up here even more often.

In that case both are dead and gone, they're with O'Leary in the grave.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Incorrect. I just point out that the media has a tendency to crucify republicans when they make gaffes, and give democrats a pass (as in ‘that’s just Joe being Joe), or try to explain what the democrat ‘really’ meant.

You point it out repeatedly and largely incorrectly. The last time it came up was when Trump said McCain wasn't a veteran because he was captured.

Biden makes harmless gaffes, by and large. The media piloriea republicans for statements that bored on hate speech.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You point it out repeatedly and largely incorrectly. The last time it came up was when Trump said McCain wasn't a veteran because he was captured.

What did I say regarding "when Trump said McCain wasn't a veteran because he was captured?"

Biden makes harmless gaffes, by and large. The media piloriea republicans for statements that bored on hate speech.

You mean like calling illegal aliens "illegal aliens," or anchor babies "anchor babies?" Viva la political correctness, eh?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

What did I say regarding "when Trump said McCain wasn't a veteran because he was captured?"

You did some whatabouterry involving Biden.

You mean like calling illegal aliens "illegal aliens," or anchor babies "anchor babies?" Viva la political correctness, eh?

No like calling Mexicans rapists and saying POWs weren't real Veterans because they were captured.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Long live hyperbole, eh? I think it would be the opposite. I think he would weigh military action based on a cost versus benefit analysis for America. Say Russia completely invaded Ukraine. First off I think he would go off the contention that the Ukraine is not part of NATO and therefore we have no obligations. Then he would look at the options and decide to arm Ukraine rather than start some war as it would weaken our adversary at a minimal cost to us with no American blood spilled. You do remember that he was against the Iraq war?

I don't recall a non-politician's 2003 era opinion on the war.

I do recall how well arming other countries has gone for us, historically. That includes the Afghans, to fight against the Russians. Where are they now? And how many American lives did we lose cleaning up that mess? More than none.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I do recall how well arming other countries has gone for us, historically. That includes the Afghans, to fight against the Russians. Where are they now? And how many American lives did we lose cleaning up that mess? More than none.

You mean when it bankrupted and broke up the USSR? Yeah, years later Afghanistan became a problem, but try telling Germany, and Poland, and Hungry, and etc... is wasn’t worth is.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You mean when it bankrupted and broke up the USSR? Yeah, years later Afghanistan became a problem, but try telling Germany, and Poland, and Hungry, and etc... is wasn’t worth is.

As long as you're willing to admit that "no American lives" is a lie, and that its just kicking the can years, perhaps decades down the road.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

As long as you're willing to admit that "no American lives" is a lie, and that its just kicking the can years, perhaps decades down the road.

I'll admit that the only thing that is constant is change.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Was it a prepared stump speech given to a bunch of supporters with pre determined questions?

Any serious speaker would prepare for talking before hundreds of people: that's Speech 101. If they had a political platform they were advancing, there would be a common theme from one political venue to the next for ALL candidates and public office holders, not just Obama, consequently the "stump speech" criticism was meaningless.

The audience was a mix of both Democrats and Republicans in Orange County that typically votes Republican. I was a guest of a lad who worked for a Republican PAC, and one of his Republican PAC associates got in a question on ObamaCare that challenged policy and was certainly not "pre determined" in content or adversarial tone. Although I do not share the lad's Republican party preference being independent myself, I went along for the ride because he got me in the 3rd row.

Methinks that Republicans chronically attack Obama's art of elocution in a desperate attempt to distract from such poor and embarrassing public speakers as former president GW Bush.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I'll admit that the only thing that is constant is change.

Well that prevailing attitude is why we are trillions in debt.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well that prevailing attitude is why we are trillions in debt.

I don't understand your statement.

Black Swan

Both the Democrats and Republicans fight endlessly for one party control. One party control in both the Executive and US Congress, be it Democrat or Republican has not been good for the American system of government. If that control lasts a long time, it can also influence the political persuasion of the US Supreme Court, by court stacking with party favourites when vacancies occur. One party control removes checks-and-balances between the Executive, Congress, and US Supreme Court, and if those checks-and-balances are diminished or removed, then major domestic and international problems occur that may take generations to mitigate. Methinks that the spirit and intent of the warning issued by John Adams suggested this in his condemnation of the 2-party system in America.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I don't understand your statement.

rhetoric rhetoric


our enemies our attacking our not-enemies!


rhetoric rhetoric


arming our non-enemies will save American lives


rhetoric rhetoric spend money arming militants


fast forward


non-enemy militants are now enemy terrorist organization.


We spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan because of failed politics. "No American lives lost" "Greeted as Liberators" "Mission Accomplished" etc.


Did you forget that ISIS is armed in large part by abandoned US military hardware, fighting in territories we have no business fighting in?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/06/04/Fog-War-US-Has-Armed-ISIS

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/09/175685-remember-moderate-rebels-syria-obama-armed-isis-got-weapons/

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND no pun intended

jobbridge4life

Amerika wrote: »

I dunno, the Wharton School of Business at Penn is a pretty prestigious Ivy League school. Plus, he’s made Billions. Pretty remarkable accomplishment for someone not being an intelligent, charismatic speaker like Obama, eh? But have you seen Obama speak without the use of a teleprompter and prepared speech. Donald Trump runs circles around him. Obama is mighty pitiful when having to stand on his own accord. But Obama’s a charismatic actor... and his record, and not merely the polls, reflect it.

Sorry but no. Whatever about the strengths and weaknesses of Obama's oratorical talents no one can possibly consider Trump better or good in a general sense. Trump is only 'good' if one doesn't spend more than a moment thinking about what he actually says outside of the emotions/reactions it produces in the moment and if their standard for political discourse is that of the schoolyard blowhard. It is nonsense rhetoric without even the decency to have any kind of flourish. Crass and brash populist nonsense delivered in a total factvoid.

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

China has been one of the most climate change skeptical countries on the planet until very recently and US manufacturing became non-competitive half a century before the mainstream took climate change seriously.

"On exporting goods to China: "Listen you m

---

f

---

, we're going to tax you 25 percent!"

And China goes... eh how about we call in your debt... and the Americans get castrated in an instant... leaving aside the tone and language.

“When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.”

What does this even mean? Its just simple words that make sense to people who'd rather feel riled up than arm themselves with meaningful information.

"I will build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me —and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

He builds walls? Like for his insanely expensive property developments in Manhattan? Funded by the way by Chinese money. Hez a gonna gettem dem mexicanys. No evidence. No basis. Just feel good nonsense.

“The wall will go up and Mexico will start behaving.”

Patronizing, baseless nonsense and in complete ignorance of the fact that migration to the US from Mexico has already collapsed.

“Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of the United States. There's never been a Secretary of State so bad as Hillary. The world blew up around us. We lost everything, including all relationships. There wasn't one good thing that came out of that administration or her being Secretary of State.”

I mean this is just utter trash. Totally ahistoric nonsense. I guess he expects his buffonary which has already alienated huge swathes of the US population to be more effective. If it wasn't so obscenely dangerous it would be hilarious.

And the list can go on and on and on. Trump is the living example of the dangers of excessive wealth. I only hope that he ends up spending billions in a fruitless attempt to win the presidency. Which he will doubtless present as some genius ploy to achieve something else in the future.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Any serious speaker would prepare for talking before hundreds of people: that's Speech 101. If they had a political platform they were advancing, there would be a common theme from one political venue to the next for ALL candidates and public office holders, not just Obama, consequently the "stump speech" criticism was meaningless.

The audience was a mix of both Democrats and Republicans in Orange County that typically votes Republican. I was a guest of a lad who worked for a Republican PAC, and one of his Republican PAC associates got in a question on ObamaCare that challenged policy and was certainly not "pre determined" in content or adversarial tone. Although I do not share the lad's Republican party preference being independent myself, I went along for the ride because he got me in the 3rd row.

Methinks that Republicans chronically attack Obama's art of elocution in a desperate attempt to distract from such poor and embarrassing public speakers as former president GW Bush.

I have to take your word for it about not using a TelePrompter, but I recall that in 2008 Barack Obama didn't go anywhere without his TelePrompter. And it is important because without it, it showed that his biggest strength... that being his oratorical skills, was a bit of a sham. That's not to say he couldn't give a really good speech from outlined notes, but I suspect then he would be about the same as most other politicians, including George W Bush.

Overheal

Why are you still fixated on teleprompters in 2015?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I have to take your word for it about not using a TelePrompter, but I recall that in 2008 Barack Obama didn't go anywhere without his TelePrompter. And it is important because without it, it showed that his biggest strength... that being his oratorical skills, was a bit of a sham. That's not to say he couldn't give a really good speech from outlined notes, but I suspect then he would be about the same as most other politicians, including George W Bush.

Well, we each have our opinions, so we will have to agree to disagree. Although I do not favour many of the Obama policies, and am very much against ObamaCare (i.e., cloned RomneyCare), I believe Obama to be one of the best presidential public speakers since JFK, and GW Bush to be one of the worst, no matter if they used teleprompters, prepared speeches, index cards, or whatever. I also find that all the Republican and Democrat candidate contenders for the White House poor to average public speakers, no matter if they use speaking aids or not. Furthermore, I will not address public speaking ability further, rather focusing on content from now on.

Amerika

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Sorry but no. Whatever about the strengths and weaknesses of Obama's oratorical talents no one can possibly consider Trump better or good in a general sense. Trump is only 'good' if one doesn't spend more than a moment thinking about what he actually says outside of the emotions/reactions it produces in the moment and if their standard for political discourse is that of the schoolyard blowhard. It is nonsense rhetoric without even the decency to have any kind of flourish. Crass and brash populist nonsense delivered in a total factvoid.

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

China has been one of the most climate change skeptical countries on the planet until very recently and US manufacturing became non-competitive half a century before the mainstream took climate change seriously.

"On exporting goods to China: "Listen you m

---

f

---

, we're going to tax you 25 percent!"

And China goes... eh how about we call in your debt... and the Americans get castrated in an instant... leaving aside the tone and language.

“When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.”

What does this even mean? Its just simple words that make sense to people who'd rather feel riled up than arm themselves with meaningful information.

"I will build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me —and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”

He builds walls? Like for his insanely expensive property developments in Manhattan? Funded by the way by Chinese money. Hez a gonna gettem dem mexicanys. No evidence. No basis. Just feel good nonsense.

“The wall will go up and Mexico will start behaving.”

Patronizing, baseless nonsense and in complete ignorance of the fact that migration to the US from Mexico has already collapsed.

People are starting to believe Trump can do as he claims, regardless of all the naysayers out there. And he appears genuine in a down to earth manner. That makes Trump better IMO.

“Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of the United States. There's never been a Secretary of State so bad as Hillary. The world blew up around us. We lost everything, including all relationships. There wasn't one good thing that came out of that administration or her being Secretary of State.”

I mean this is just utter trash. Totally ahistoric nonsense. I guess he expects his buffonary which has already alienated huge swathes of the US population to be more effective. If it wasn't so obscenely dangerous it would be hilarious.

And the list can go on and on and on. Trump is the living example of the dangers of excessive wealth. I only hope that he ends up spending billions in a fruitless attempt to win the presidency. Which he will doubtless present as some genius ploy to achieve something else in the future.

Nobody has explained why it is "utter trash," even though I have asked over and over again. Perhaps you can take a stab at it.

Amerika

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Amerika what do you propose to do to deal with the enormous damage that removing all illegals from the US would do?

What enormous damage will that be? I agree we would need a methods to make some legal to work in the US and in short order, but 30 million, many of who are leaching off our system... NO!

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Why are you still fixated on teleprompters in 2015?

It grew out of a response to someone else who claimed "Trump is not an intelligent, charismatic speaker like Obama." Trump is a very intelligent and charismatic speaker... and doesn't rely on a TelePrompter to get his points across. I'd hardly call that fixated.

jobbridge4life

Amerika wrote: »

People are starting to believe Trump can do as he claims, regardless of all the naysayers out there. And he appears genuine in a down to earth manner. That makes Trump better IMO.

So in other words a cultist appealing to the brain damaged would be good in your book.

Amerika wrote: »

Nobody has explained why it is "utter trash," even though I have asked over and over again. Perhaps you can take a stab at it.

In the first instance. Trump made a positive assertion regarding Clinton. It falls on him and those who support him and/or that assertion to provide evidence of its veracity. You have failed to do so. Second instance... although I shouldn't have to... Lawrence Eagleburger

jobbridge4life

Amerika wrote: »

What enormous damage will that be? I agree we would need a methods to make some legal to work in the US and in short order, but 30 million, many of who are leaching off our system... NO!

Evidence for the leaching?

Any cursory study of the research indicates that it would be disastrous for the US economy... in particular US ag.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

...but 30 million, many of who are leaching off our system... NO!

This reminds me of statements made about the millions of Irish that immigrated to America generations ago to escape famine and sought increased opportunities. Immigration policies were different then fortunately for our Irish ancestors that crossed the pond, and the inscription on the Statue of Liberty had more meaning back then, whereas today it's most often viewed as the statue of a major for-profit insurance corporation in telly ads.

Amerika

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So in other words a cultist appealing to the brain damaged would be good in your book.

Are you talking about Obama or Trump?

In the first instance. Trump made a positive assertion regarding Clinton. It falls on him and those who support him and/or that assertion to provide evidence of its veracity. You have failed to do so. Second instance... although I shouldn't have to... Lawrence Eagleburger

I take it you've got nothing then?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

This reminds me of statements made about the millions of Irish that immigrated to America generations ago to escape famine and sought increased opportunities. Immigration policies were different then fortunately for our Irish ancestors that crossed the pond, and the inscription on the Statue of Liberty had more meaning back then, whereas today it's most often viewed as the statue of a major for-profit insurance corporation in telly ads.

If those Irish immigrants came here illegally, then we can make a comparison. Otherwise we're talking apples and oranges.

And some poem that somebody submitted to raise money for the pedestal's construction, that wasn't stuck onto the statue until 15 years later, should guide our immigration policy?

jobbridge4life

Amerika wrote: »

Are you talking about Obama or Trump?

OHHH you got me... Anyone with a reasonable mind could not be confused between the President of the USA and the hypocrite, charlatan billionaire dependent on Chinese money masquerading as a man of the people.

Amerika wrote: »

I take it you've got nothing then?

As I said Lawrence Eagleburger. But your commitment to investigating properly the statements of others is confirmed by that response. That explains how you find Trump to be a viable candidate.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I take it you've got nothing then?

You're cherry picking the things you want to respond to; pot-kettle-black imho.

Amerika

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Evidence for the leaching?

I've read that a study back in 2010 showed the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services, while only paying about $10,334 in taxes. That's a deficit of $14,387 per household in my books. Some might call that leaching, others might call it bleeding us dry.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

Any cursory study of the research indicates that it would be disastrous for the US economy... in particular US ag.

Regarding US agriculture... Seems to me that could be handled easily enough with a guest worker program.