Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,377 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 36484
I can say the same thing as Donald Trump has said, and probably have in other threads over the years on this forum since 2006, but what comes out of my MOUTH does not qualify me to be president of the United States any more than what comes out of Trump's MOUTH. And I certainly would not foolishly claim "I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." Other than what comes out of Trump's MOUTH, where does Donald Trump have verifiable experiences to lead the most powerful military in the world to challenge global terrorism? Specific experiences that qualify him to be CIC, not something that comes from his MOUTH only? Does his golf courses, or hotels, and bankrupted businesses qualify him to be president? He has a "Yuge" experience ZERO to be US president!KingBrian2 wrote: »Trump has pointed out that America has a sizeable threat posed by terrorists that the current administration is fine dealing with.
This presidential election is not another Donald Trump hosted Celebrity Apprentice (President) show to entertain us, but real, with real consequences for not only Americans, but also for those of us born and raised in Eire who have family and clan that may suffer by someone with entry level (less than mailroom experience) in governance, diplomacy, and CIC. I find it inexplicable that anyone can take Donald Trump seriously as the 2017 president of the US based solely upon what has come out of Trump's MOUTH. What an absolute and total craic Donald Trump is for president!0 -
Black Swan wrote: »Donald Trump is by far more qualified to handle terrorism based upon his zero experience in governance, zero experience in US diplomacy, and zero experience in preparation for Commander-In-Chief. He can draw from his business experiences and judgment, especially those experiences related to him being charged for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as a defendant of Trump University he founded (3 current cases in New York and California), or Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc. which he had filed for bankruptcy 3 different times, or Trump Airlines that went bankrupt, or based upon whatever happened to the monies investors sunk into Trump Tower Tampa or Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale?
Then again someone might suggest that Donald Trump does in fact have diplomatic experience with Miss Columbia, Miss Russia, Miss Turkey, Miss... Miss... Miss..., all of whom he can collaborate with to form an international coalition to confront terrorism, perhaps under the leadership of Miss Universe? Yes, it becomes overwhelming obvious that all Americans should vote for Donald Trump based upon these qualifications to feel safer in a terrorist Brave New World.
Ultimately, all we have to do to insure that Donald Trump is qualified to handle terrorism is to unquestionably listen to Trump's MOUTH which said: "I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." Of course we all believe what comes out of Donald Trump's MOUTH. Why would we not?
Clinton has no good experience either, she in fact made the terrorism situation far worse giving them a haven in Libya and Syria, where she backed groups who she ended up having no control over...
Her diplomacy, remember that reset button she embarrassed herself with by giving a reset button to the Russian foreign minister, not long after she was calling for sanctions against Russia.
The UK and France along with Clinton were for the removal of Gaddafi, Hillary got Obama to agree, but her diplomacy was so crap she didn't get the UK and France to back up what they got her to start, which contributed to Libya becoming an ISIS haven.
She would be a commander in chief whose experience which Obama goes on about is failed wars and she still think Assad being removed would be good for Syria, for the FSA who say they want to kill Christians and Americans.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most incompetent candidates ever for the US presidency given her record of failure and aiding terrorism..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/american-commandos-forced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/Video footage appears to show US commandos fleeing a Syrian town under a barrage of abuse and insults hurled at them by fighters from the American-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebel group. The video appears to be the first evidence of US special forces cooperating with Turkish troops in their battle against Islamic State (Isil).
The incident illustrates the complex web of alliances and enmities in Syria, where many of America’s allies are fighting each other and some rebel groups that receive US support still harbour strong anti-American sentiments.
The fighters scream anti-American chants as a column of pick-up trucks carrying US commandos drives away from them.
“Christians and Americans have no place among us,” shouts one man in the video. “They want to wage a crusader war to occupy Syria.”
Another man calls out: “The collaborators of America are dogs and pigs. They wage a crusader war against Syria and Islam. ”
Hillary's experience has been disastrous, got near everything wrong.0 -
Black Swan wrote: »I can say the same thing as Donald Trump has said, and probably have in other threads over the years on this forum since 2006, but what comes out of my MOUTH does not qualify me to be president of the United States any more than what comes out of Trump's MOUTH. And I certainly would not foolishly claim "I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." Other than what comes out of Trump's MOUTH, where does Donald Trump have verifiable experiences to lead the most powerful military in the world to challenge global terrorism? Specific experiences that qualify him to be CIC, not something that comes from his MOUTH only? Does his golf courses, or hotels, and bankrupted businesses qualify him to be president? He has a "Yuge" experience ZERO to be US president!
This presidential election is not another Donald Trump hosted Celebrity Apprentice (President) show to entertain us, but real, with real consequences for not only Americans, but also for those of us born and raised in Eire who have family and clan that may suffer by someone with entry level (less than mailroom experience) in governance, diplomacy, and CIC. I find it inexplicable that anyone can take Donald Trump seriously as the 2017 president of the US based solely upon what has come out of Trump's MOUTH. What an absolute and total craic Donald Trump is for president!
The problem is we have seen the disasters Clinton created as SoS, imagine how worse the disasters could be with her as President?
If her record was not so bad she would be credible.
This is why a majority think both are awful candidates, but Clinton has proved to be gung ho for war, and a proven record of international disaster in her résumé, a lot of people will not vote for her disastrous decision making.0 -
Black Swan wrote: »Donald Trump is by far more qualified to handle terrorism based upon his zero experience in governance, zero experience in US diplomacy, and zero experience in preparation for Commander-In-Chief. He can draw from his business experiences and judgment, especially those experiences related to him being charged for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as a defendant of Trump University he founded (3 current cases in New York and California), or Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc. which he had filed for bankruptcy 3 different times, or Trump Airlines that went bankrupt, or based upon whatever happened to the monies investors sunk into Trump Tower Tampa or Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale?
Then again someone might suggest that Donald Trump does in fact have diplomatic experience with Miss Columbia, Miss Russia, Miss Turkey, Miss... Miss... Miss..., all of whom he can collaborate with to form an international coalition to confront terrorism, perhaps under the leadership of Miss Universe? Yes, it becomes overwhelming obvious that all Americans should vote for Donald Trump based upon these qualifications to feel safer in a terrorist Brave New World.
Ultimately, all we have to do to insure that Donald Trump is qualified to handle terrorism is to unquestionably listen to Trump's MOUTH which said: "I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." Of course we all believe what comes out of Donald Trump's MOUTH. Why would we not?
Clinton oversaw the desecration of sites and mob riots in Libya & Egypt while the Assad gvt actually saved Shia & Christian lives in Syria. Her record is of untold terror in Islamic lands. She was an untrustworthy secretary as bad as Vice- President Dick Cheney.
Her reconnection with the Kremlin which was a promise of the previous administration namely improve relations with Russia was broken. When we talk about a breakdown in trust of politicians look at the water demos in Ireland angry at all the wrongs of previous bad policies.0 -
Clinton has no good experience either, she in fact made the terrorism situation far worse giving them a haven in Libya and Syria, where she backed groups who she ended up having no control over...
Her diplomacy, remember that reset button she embarrassed herself with by giving a reset button to the Russian foreign minister, not long after she was calling for sanctions against Russia.
The UK and France along with Clinton were for the removal of Gaddafi, Hillary got Obama to agree, but her diplomacy was so crap she didn't get the UK and France to back up what they got her to start, which contributed to Libya becoming an ISIS haven.
She would be a commander in chief whose experience which Obama goes on about is failed wars and she still think Assad being removed would be good for Syria, for the FSA who say they want to kill Christians and Americans.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most incompetent candidates ever for the US presidency given her record of failure and aiding terrorism..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/american-commandos-forced-to-run-away-from-us-backed-syrian-rebe/
Hillary's experience has been disastrous, got near everything wrong.
Is there a double standard applied there when Donald Trump bankruptcy is counted as business experience and Hillary Clinton not defeating terrorism - which is older than anybody here?0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »Killing one terrorist when dozens of terrorist organizations are still very active in the world today all an umbrella group of Al Qaeda.
I forgot terrorism was supposed to take a few years to solve. How silly of me distracted by the fact that terrorism in one form of another has been happening in the Middle East for at least the last 50 years - that's a conservative figure.
You are aware though that the ISIS caliphate is on the decline right?
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/isis-losing-ground-days-numbered-mosul-us-official/0 -
Also: Hillary sends press release on her terror strategy after latest attacks
http://www.mediaite.com/online/clinton-outlines-anti-isis-strategy-in-response-to-apparent-terror-attacks-in-nj-ny-and-minnesota/0 -
Suryavarman wrote: »No, because her actions didn't break the law. Hence the lack of prosecution.
I'll just go ahead and post the laws pertaining to the issue. Given you have finally acknowledged that she did both transmit classified information on a unsecure network and allow individuals lacking clearances to view said classified materials, I am unsure how you can support that assertion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.0 -
Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »The markings are exactly the issue in a criminal case you know that but you lie to promote your own libertarian agenda. You know your candidate can't take votes from Trump so you attack the one they might abandon. Enjoy the racist you are helping to take the USA 50 years into the past hope you can sleep soundly.
Once again, you have failed utterly to grasp the main issue pertaining to her actions. You cannot transmit classified information on an unsecure network. It's a simple point that you and others continuously fail to grasp, baffling so.
As demonstrated so many, many times, you are incorrect on this issue.
You call me a liar, back up your assertion with verifiable fact or withdraw. Your credibility is non-existent at this point. I would expect better conduct from a self declared barrister.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Once again, you have failed utterly to grasp the main issue pertaining to her actions. You cannot transmit classified information on an unsecure network. It's a simple point that you and others continuously fail to grasp, baffling so.
As demonstrated so many, many times, you are incorrect on this issue.
You call me a liar, back up your assertion with verifiable fact or withdraw. Your credibility is non-existent at this point. I would expect better conduct from a self declared barrister.
One simple word "knowingly" a crime to be proven in court requires the proof of the actus rea, and the mens rea. It has been stated by the prosecutors they do not have the proof of all the ingredients required for the crime. If you do not understand the basics of criminal law don't blame me.
We could also have to get into willfully but as the prosecution falls at the issue of knowingly then there is no need to even get into wilfully. But you know all that it just does not help your cause.0 -
Advertisement
-
The polls give Clinton a lower honesty percentage than Trump.
Ah yes. I forgot that we're living in a post-factual world where people support political candidates, not on the basis of anything that's objectively true or false, but on the basis of whatever evidence they can desperately scrape together to reinforce their existing prejudices.
Listen to yourself: you're basically telling us that you don't care about the fact that Donald Trump is, by at least an order of magnitude, a much less honest person than Hillary Clinton. Instead, you're citing other people's opinions of Clinton, because they confirm your dislike of her.
I get disliking Hillary Clinton, I really do. But I think I can say, hand on heart, that I've never disliked anyone enough that I would set aside all semblance of logic or reason in order to clutch at any straw of an excuse to discredit them.
Seriously: just how much do you have to dislike someone in order to convince yourself that Donald Trump - Donald frigging Trump, ffs - would make a better president than her? I can't get my head around it, especially when it requires just as much lying to yourself as it appears to.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Ah yes. I forgot that we're living in a post-factual world where people support political candidates, not on the basis of anything that's objectively true or false, but on the basis of whatever evidence they can desperately scrape together to reinforce their existing prejudices.
Listen to yourself: you're basically telling us that you don't care about the fact that Donald Trump is, by at least an order of magnitude, a much less honest person than Hillary Clinton. Instead, you're citing other people's opinions of Clinton, because they confirm your dislike of her.
I get disliking Hillary Clinton, I really do. But I think I can say, hand on heart, that I've never disliked anyone enough that I would set aside all semblance of logic or reason in order to clutch at any straw of an excuse to discredit them.
Seriously: just how much do you have to dislike someone in order to convince yourself that Donald Trump - Donald frigging Trump, ffs - would make a better president than her? I can't get my head around it, especially when it requires just as much lying to yourself as it appears to.
Trump is full of bravado, ineloquent in many of his comments and sometimes bends the truth and says outrageous things to get his point across. Happy now?
Many of what used to be called Middle Class Americans feel they can’t get ahead or even stay above water, and are victims of a broken governmental system that has ignored them or even harmed them for many years. These are the people who desire to reclaim their country and their own lives.
What is Hillary offering to address those concerns? Nothing that I can see. More taxes and more spending. Woo Hoo! I believe in a few short years servicing the interest on our national debt will become our third largest federal spending program. Madness!
So yes, some will vote for Trump because they had enough over the last 8 years and Hillary appears to offer little more than a continuation of the same old, same old.
Yes, Donald Trump, for many of us, might not have been our first choice for president, but his tax plan, his positions on immigration, law enforcement, terrorism, jobs and foreign policy address our concerns, and are better than what the other candidate is offering.
So save us your righteous indignation. Trump’s agenda offers a better future for the middle class. People want real change in our elected officials. Trump will work to deliver that kind of change. Hillary will work to keep the status quo.0 -
Not really, no. "Sometimes bends the truth" is a very wishy-washy description of a man who is quite probably the most dishonest person ever to run for the presidency.Trump is full of bravado, ineloquent in many of his comments and sometimes bends the truth and says outrageous things to get his point across. Happy now?
Being full of bravado, ineloquent and outrageous are not exactly selling points for a candidate either.
I've used a similar analogy before, but: that's like saying that you're tired of being punched in the stomach, so you'll take a chance on being shot in the head instead.Many of what used to be called Middle Class Americans feel they can’t get ahead or even stay above water, and are victims of a broken governmental system that has ignored them or even harmed them for many years. These are the people who desire to reclaim their country and their own lives.
What is Hillary offering to address those concerns? Nothing that I can see. More taxes and more spending. Woo Hoo! I believe in a few short years servicing the interest on our national debt will become our third largest federal spending program. Madness!
So yes, some will vote for Trump because they had enough over the last 8 years and Hillary appears to offer little more than a continuation of the same old, same old.
They want pathological liars and thin-skinned narcissists? Because that's what you're advancing as an improvement on the status quo.People want real change in our elected officials.0 -
Trump is full of bravado, ineloquent in many of his comments and sometimes bends the truth and says outrageous things to get his point across. Happy now?
Many of what used to be called Middle Class Americans feel they can’t get ahead or even stay above water, and are victims of a broken governmental system that has ignored them or even harmed them for many years. These are the people who desire to reclaim their country and their own lives.
What is Hillary offering to address those concerns? Nothing that I can see. More taxes and more spending. Woo Hoo! I believe in a few short years servicing the interest on our national debt will become our third largest federal spending program. Madness!
So yes, some will vote for Trump because they had enough over the last 8 years and Hillary appears to offer little more than a continuation of the same old, same old.
Yes, Donald Trump, for many of us, might not have been our first choice for president, but his tax plan, his positions on immigration, law enforcement, terrorism, jobs and foreign policy address our concerns, and are better than what the other candidate is offering.
So save us your righteous indignation. Trump’s agenda offers a better future for the middle class. People want real change in our elected officials. Trump will work to deliver that kind of change. Hillary will work to keep the status quo.
I am responding to the bolded part only.
How will Trump’s agenda benefit the middle classes compared to Hillarys agenda? Id like some specifics, not "Make America Great Again". It's odd that Hillary believes America never stopped being great and Trump is seen as the bigger patriot by the right.
People do want a change, a change for the better. How is electing a narcissistic blow hard a change for the better??they/them/theirs
And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek
0 -
Trump has no tax plan, no immigration plan, no plan on terrorism, and in fact, no realistic plans on any area of policy, beyond contradictory soundbites that have about as much consideration and value as a Trump University diploma. That's worth anyone's indignation tbh. I can get behind someone with a different ideology and a plan to support that ideology. Trump is just an empty vessel that has nothing to offer beyond hot air - and anyone conned by his bluster deserves sympathy for their gullibility, but not much more.0
-
oscarBravo wrote: »Ah yes. I forgot that we're living in a post-factual world where people support political candidates, not on the basis of anything that's objectively true or false, but on the basis of whatever evidence they can desperately scrape together to reinforce their existing prejudices.
Listen to yourself: you're basically telling us that you don't care about the fact that Donald Trump is, by at least an order of magnitude, a much less honest person than Hillary Clinton. Instead, you're citing other people's opinions of Clinton, because they confirm your dislike of her.
I get disliking Hillary Clinton, I really do. But I think I can say, hand on heart, that I've never disliked anyone enough that I would set aside all semblance of logic or reason in order to clutch at any straw of an excuse to discredit them.
Seriously: just how much do you have to dislike someone in order to convince yourself that Donald Trump - Donald frigging Trump, ffs - would make a better president than her? I can't get my head around it, especially when it requires just as much lying to yourself as it appears to.
It is not my problem if people want to support a candidate whose greatest achievement is destroying and the support of destroying foreign countries.
Libya - destroyed and the world would be better with Gaddafi given what the country is now.
Syria - destroyed, her and the coalition of idiots supporting the FSA who hate the west, hate Christians, hate minorities. Bad and all that Assad is, he is far better than the alternatives. Yet Clinton still believes he should be removed - to be replaced by people that the Saudis support - the Saudis who are implicated in a congress report for involvement in 9/11.
Egypt - Supported the Muslim Brotherhood because they were democratically elected. Lets ignore they are terrorists, wanted strict Sharia law, and were encouraging attacks on Christians with near a thousand dead, then being so incompetent, Hillary condemned the military coup which brought to an end the madness of the Muslim Brotherhood.
But then some of the people she is close to have MB links.
I can only describe her as a disaster and if people want to support a candidate to be proven for international disaster and who has contributed to untold death and destruction, a migrant crisis, increased terrorism and a far more insecure world, then yes if I wanted all that, and if I had a vote, I would vote for the candidate proven in this area and that is Hillary Clinton.0 -
Dictatorship apologism is very much in vogue I see. If you find yourself in this ideological territory, you should really be asking questions of yourself.
The Morsi government in Egypt was not a terrorist one, and the Muslim Brotherhood are still not considered a terrorist group by the U.S. or the EU. Far more people have been murdered by, or under the watch of, the current military junta than by the Morsi government, and lastly, the Morsi government did not seek Sharia law. The constitution they drafted, and which was voted for by the Egyptian people has about as much reference to Sharia as the current, military drafted, constitution. So yes, it was perfectly reasonable for Clinton to support the notion of a democratically elected parliamentary system over a military junta who lodged themselves into power by means of a coup. Not really a shocker.0 -
No; your problem appears to be that you've allowed yourself to be so blinded by irrational hatred for one of the candidates on the ballot that you haven't bothered to even critically evaluate the other.It is not my problem if people want to support a candidate whose greatest achievement is destroying and the support of destroying foreign countries.
It literally doesn't matter to you how bad a candidate Donald Trump is, or how bad a president he would be. At this stage, I think if Clinton's opponent was Saddam Hussein's reanimated corpse, you'd be rooting for him.
I don't know how it's possible to be so utterly devoted to despising one candidate that you simply can't comprehend the possibility that the other one might actually be worse.
I mean, seriously. You rag on and on about Hillary the warmonger, while blithely ignoring Trump's support for attacking Libya; his stated intention to murder innocent relatives of combatants; his belief that the US should have committed war crimes in Iraq ("to the victor the spoils"). The double standards are, frankly, breathtaking.0 -
Dictatorship apologism is very much in vogue I see. If you find yourself in this ideological territory, you should really be asking questions of yourself.
There is a reason why sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
You think Libya is better without Gaddafi?
It has 6,000+ ISIS members there training and helping people reach Europe.
Assad and his secular dictatorship, maybe you think the FSA would be better with their Sharia law and their calls for Christians to be killed?
The Muslim Brotherhood were another terrorist group who the Egyptian military thankfully removed.
Sometimes the dictators are better than the alternatives, do you think countries are better off with no dictator, but instead have terrorists ruling these countries which is where it ended up, but at least the Egyptians had a strong military to remove the terrorists from power.
I guess you supported the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, given what you posted.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »No; your problem appears to be that you've allowed yourself to be so blinded by irrational hatred for one of the candidates on the ballot that you haven't bothered to even critically evaluate the other.
It literally doesn't matter to you how bad a candidate Donald Trump is, or how bad a president he would be. At this stage, I think if Clinton's opponent was Saddam Hussein's reanimated corpse, you'd be rooting for him.
I don't know how it's possible to be so utterly devoted to despising one candidate that you simply can't comprehend the possibility that the other one might actually be worse.
I mean, seriously. You rag on and on about Hillary the warmonger, while blithely ignoring Trump's support for attacking Libya; his stated intention to murder innocent relatives of combatants; his belief that the US should have committed war crimes in Iraq ("to the victor the spoils"). The double standards are, frankly, breathtaking.
Trump did not have the intelligence that Hillary was given, which Obama had too but he didn't want to attack Libya, but Hillary with Cameron and Sarkozy pushing for it, Obama being such a weak leader he gave in and it has being reported he deeply regrets it, and it is why he didn't go after Assad which Clinton wanted to help her terrorist friends in Syria.
If Trump had been briefed by the military and had been for the attack on Libya it would make the argument more credible.
Obama's policy has been second strike attacks which kills family members and emergency workers, but what we get is Trump...ignorance towards what has being going on under the Obama/Clinton/Kerry regime.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/barack-obama-interview-middle-east-drone-strikes-atlanticBut when Assad crossed Obama’s “red line”, his senior colleagues such as Kerry and then-United Nations ambassador Susan Rice, and Republican leaders assumed he would command missile strikes from US Navy vessels standing by.
So, enthusiastically, did British, French, Saudi and several other allied Middle East leaders, it is reported.
But Obama shocked and enraged them all with a volte-face, explaining in the new interview that the risk of Assad merely being shaken and coming back stronger was a central factor.
The decision represents his landmark break with what he now refers to as “the overwhelming weight of conventional wisdom and the machinery of our national-security apparatus”.
Despite the catastrophe in Syria and the resulting refugee crisis, Obama concluded about his momentous decision: “I’m very proud of this moment.”
But after Obama’s U-turn, Hillary Clinton said privately: “If you say you’re going to strike, you have to strike. There’s no choice.”Barack Obama “has not had a second thought” about the drone strikes that are causing untold numbers of civilian casualties as the US tries to beat back terrorist insurgencies in the Middle East, according to a new interview with the president and top aides.
Where was Hillary Clinton calling for double tap drone strikes to be stopped when Obama decided drones were the way to go?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html"These strikes are becoming much more common," Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who represents victims of drone strikes, told The Independent. "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."
This is what went on with Hillary as Secretary of State, double tap drone strikes that kill many and where only 2% are militants/terrorists.One interviewee, describing a strike on his in-laws' home, said a follow-up missile killed would-be rescuers. "Other people came to check what had happened; they were looking for the children in the beds and then a second drone strike hit those people."
A father of four, who lost one of his legs in a drone strike, admitted: "We and other people are so scared of drone attacks now that when there is a drone strike, for two or three hours nobody goes close to [the location of the strike]. We don't know who [the victims] are, whether they are young or old, because we try to be safe."
Who do you think the 98% of people who died under the Obama/Clinton drone war are?
Most according to reports are just innocent people. But Trump...0 -
Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »One simple word "knowingly" a crime to be proven in court requires the proof of the actus rea, and the mens rea. It has been stated by the prosecutors they do not have the proof of all the ingredients required for the crime. If you do not understand the basics of criminal law don't blame me.
We could also have to get into willfully but as the prosecution falls at the issue of knowingly then there is no need to even get into wilfully. But you know all that it just does not help your cause.
Ah yes, the "Clinton is so incompetent as to not know the contents of her correspondence" defense. Yet, how would that cover her providing said emails to her defense team, who lacked clearances, once the FBI began its investigation? Seems a pretty willful act to me.
Again, you claimed that I lied. Provide proof or withdraw your comment.0 -
It's a sad state of affairs when the two candidates running for the presidency of the US are both unfit, health wise, mental integrity, jaded and bigoted, murky dealings and much more. If I was voting in the election, I would not choose either. Clinton is no better than Trump, the same brand, Republican, though the former pretends to be Democrat. For once I do not care who wins, as its bad either way.0
-
Dictatorship apologism is very much in vogue I see. If you find yourself in this ideological territory, you should really be asking questions of yourself.
The Morsi government in Egypt was not a terrorist one, and the Muslim Brotherhood are still not considered a terrorist group by the U.S. or the EU. Far more people have been murdered by, or under the watch of, the current military junta than by the Morsi government, and lastly, the Morsi government did not seek Sharia law. The constitution they drafted, and which was voted for by the Egyptian people has about as much reference to Sharia as the current, military drafted, constitution. So yes, it was perfectly reasonable for Clinton to support the notion of a democratically elected parliamentary system over a military junta who lodged themselves into power by means of a coup. Not really a shocker.
The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Sadat who signed a peace treaty with Israel and they also provided the bulk of followers for OBL Al Qaeda movement.0 -
There is a reason why sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
Which makes it puzzling why you are supporting Donald Trump.
And again, it's lovely of you to use hindsight to criticize the administration on foreign policy. Were you against the interventions when protestors were being gunned down in the streets?0 -
The RCP polling average today has Clinton at 44.9 and Trump at 44.0.
In 2012, on this date, the RCP polling average had Obama a 48.2 and Romney at 45.3.0 -
Advertisement
-
Which makes it puzzling why you are supporting Donald Trump.
And again, it's lovely of you to use hindsight to criticize the administration on foreign policy. Were you against the interventions when protestors were being gunned down in the streets?
Trump has been described as being isolationist, he said he is against regime change via use of military and prefers sanctions.
Clinton despite all her disasters still supports regime change using the military.
It is not like replacing Obama with ISIS/MB/other terrorist groups which is Clinton's regime change policies even if unintentional. Her projections of where things would go could not be more wrong.
If Trump is as he says he is - against 'stupid wars' and has learned from hindsight then he is infinitely much better than Clinton who wants to continue her failed policies which Obama disavowed with Syria.
It makes Obama sound so silly when he endorses Hillary with the 'most qualified person ever' for the job, when he ignored her over Syria which was one of the best things Obama did in his presidency, while Hillary cries 'we should have attacked Assad'.
If anything it looks like Trump is closer to Obama than Hillary is when it comes to the use of the military.
Hillary has learned zero from her mistakes which is most worrying.0 -
Trump has been described as being isolationist, he said he is against regime change via use of military and prefers sanctions.
Clinton despite all her disasters still supports regime change using the military.
It is not like replacing Obama with ISIS/MB/other terrorist groups which is Clinton's regime change policies even if unintentional. Her projections of where things would go could not be more wrong.
If Trump is as he says he is - against 'stupid wars' and has learned from hindsight then he is infinitely much better than Clinton who wants to continue her failed policies which Obama disavowed with Syria.
It makes Obama sound so silly when he endorses Hillary with the 'most qualified person ever' for the job, when he ignored her over Syria which was one of the best things Obama did in his presidency, while Hillary cries 'we should have attacked Assad'.
If anything it looks like Trump is closer to Obama than Hillary is when it comes to the use of the military.
Hillary has learned zero from her mistakes which is most worrying.
Real isolationist here
Bombing infrastructure and sending US private interests in to rebuild it and then repatriate oil. Oh there is change we can believe in. There is a man - sh!t - THERE is a man who really has a pulse on this anti-war stance of his. Really displays how much more he knows than those generals too. Who knew you could just blow up an oil field and rebuild it with impunity or inside an imaginary Trump-Bubble immune from far reaching complications? Of course, that kind of action would never result in the creation of yet more reactionary terror organizations because they will be too afraid of Trump and his business skills to take him on. CLEARLY the man demonstrates a thorough, almost doctoral understanding through hindsight of the consequences of military action. So he must be better than Clinton.
Please. His supporters need to turn off the blinders and actually think about what they're saying. Everything you and others say about what you like about your candidate keeps being proven to be demonstrably untrue.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Sadat who signed a peace treaty with Israel and they also provided the bulk of followers for OBL Al Qaeda movement.
Nonsense. Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad - an actual proscribed terrorist group - unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, who are not.0 -
The RCP polling average today has Clinton at 44.9 and Trump at 44.0.
In 2012, on this date, the RCP polling average had Obama a 48.2 and Romney at 45.3.
Trouble is that Romney could articulate a consistent policy platform in debates. Trump has nowhere to look forward to but the inevitable plummet as his bluster is punctured.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Nonsense. Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian Islamic Jihad - an actual proscribed terrorist group - unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, who are not.
Incorrect the MB played a pivotal role in and provided the ideological underpinning of not only the Egyptian Islamic Jihad but also Al Qaeda itself. Morsi was part of that movement.0 -
Dictatorship apologism is very much in vogue I see. If you find yourself in this ideological territory, you should really be asking questions of yourself.
The Morsi government in Egypt was not a terrorist one, and the Muslim Brotherhood are still not considered a terrorist group by the U.S. or the EU. Far more people have been murdered by, or under the watch of, the current military junta than by the Morsi government, and lastly, the Morsi government did not seek Sharia law. The constitution they drafted, and which was voted for by the Egyptian people has about as much reference to Sharia as the current, military drafted, constitution. So yes, it was perfectly reasonable for Clinton to support the notion of a democratically elected parliamentary system over a military junta who lodged themselves into power by means of a coup. Not really a shocker.
ok you added in a bit after I had posted earlier.
The lovely Muslim Brotherhood who you defend...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/08/21/egypt-mass-attacks-churches
That was three years ago.immediately following the violent dispersal of the Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in Cairo on August 14, crowds of men attacked at least 42 churches, burning or damaging 37, as well as dozens of other Christian religious institutions in the governorates of Minya, Asyut, Fayum, Giza, Suez, Sohag, Bani Suef, and North Sinai. Human Rights Watch has verified with family members and a lawyer that at least three Coptic Christians and one Muslim were killed as a result of sectarian attacks in Dalga, Minya city, and Cairo. “For weeks, everyone could see these attacks coming, with Muslim Brotherhood members accusing Coptic Christians of a role in Mohammad Morsy’s ouster, but the authorities did little or nothing to prevent them,” said Joe Stork, acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Now dozens of churches are smoldering ruins, and Christians throughout the country are hiding in their homes, afraid for their very lives.”
Last year:The prime minister said the review found the Islamist organisation, of which the ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi is a senior member, had had significant influence in groups claiming to speak for British Muslims.
He added that the Brotherhood, which is opposed by some Gulf states, characterised the UK as fundamentally hostile to Muslim faith and identity and had expressed support for terrorist attacks by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.
“The main findings of the review support the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism,” Cameron said in a written ministerial statement to MPs. “Parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism.”
The prime minister’s statement went far further than expected, and the report ends by claiming that “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ... are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/17/uk-will-not-ban-muslim-brotherhood-david-cameron-says
So that is whom you said Clinton was right to support...0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »Incorrect the MB played a pivotal role in and provided the ideological underpinning of not only the Egyptian Islamic Jihad but also Al Qaeda itself. Morsi was part of that movement.
Rubbish. The Muslim Brotherhood played no role whatsoever in the assassination of Sadat. Nor did it provide any support - ideological, or otherwise to Islamic Jihad. Morsi was indeed part of the Muslim Brotherhood - a fact that the electorate knew very well when they voted him in.0 -
So that is whom you said Clinton was right to support...
Correct - and it may have escaped your notice in the rush to cherrypick, but the recommendation of the inquiry into the Muslim Brotherhood was that they are not a terrorist organisation.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/egypt-year-abuses-under-al-sisi0 -
Real isolationist here
Bombing infrastructure and sending US private interests in to rebuild it and then repatriate oil. Oh there is change we can believe in. There is a man - sh!t - THERE is a man who really has a pulse on this anti-war stance of his. Really displays how much more he knows than those generals too. Who knew you could just blow up an oil field and rebuild it with impunity or inside an imaginary Trump-Bubble immune from far reaching complications? Of course, that kind of action would never result in the creation of yet more reactionary terror organizations because they will be too afraid of Trump and his business skills to take him on. CLEARLY the man demonstrates a thorough, almost doctoral understanding through hindsight of the consequences of military action. So he must be better than Clinton.
Please. His supporters need to turn off the blinders and actually think about what they're saying. Everything you and others say about what you like about your candidate keeps being proven to be demonstrably untrue.
Isn't that what happened anyway?
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney's staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq's postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq's oil ministry and then as "advisers" to the Iraqi government.
Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of Western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation's legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both inside and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq's oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq, which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself.
Ever consider that what Trump simply said in public without knowing the truth, actually happened in real life...0 -
Correct - and it may have escaped your notice in the rush to cherrypick, but the recommendation of the inquiry into the Muslim Brotherhood was that they are not a terrorist organisation.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/08/egypt-year-abuses-under-al-sisi
Extremist elements which are contrary to the UK's national security.0 -
-
Rubbish. The Muslim Brotherhood played no role whatsoever in the assassination of Sadat. Nor did it provide any support - ideological, or otherwise to Islamic Jihad. Morsi was indeed part of the Muslim Brotherhood - a fact that the electorate knew very well when they voted him in.
How can you make that claim when Egyptian Jihad is a breakaway faction of the Muslim Brotherhood. Osama borrowed heavily from this guy and other MB characters. It has been classified as a terrorist organization in Syria and Egypt a long time now for its Islamist ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Banna0 -
-
Isn't that what happened anyway?
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/
Ever consider that what Trump simply said in public without knowing the truth, actually happened in real life...
Doublethinking now?
You claimed Trump was an isolationist, that he didn't want to do [the things he said he wants to do]
Now when presented with [things he said he wants to do] your tune is "sure isn't that happening anyway?"
It appears you've abandoned your whole viewpoint and I'm waiting for you to realize it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Doublethinking now?
You claimed Trump was an isolationist, that he didn't want to do [the things he said he wants to do]
Now when presented with [things he said he wants to do] your tune is "sure isn't that happening anyway?"
It appears you've abandoned your whole viewpoint and I'm waiting for you to realize it.
He was talking about the past, not what he would do in the future. The Iraq war was a disaster and it cost the US around $2 trillion.
Trump has said this is a waste of money and it is money that should have been spent on US infrastructure inside the US, not on 'stupid wars' on countries that don't like the US.
Yes in the past around 2002/2003 he gave a hesitant 'I guess so' when asked if he supported the war.
For me, Trump has learned from the past 13 years in this area, Hillary has not.0 -
He was talking about the past, not what he would do in the future. The Iraq war was a disaster and it cost the US around $2 trillion.
Trump has said this is a waste of money and it is money that should have been spent on US infrastructure inside the US, not on 'stupid wars' on countries that don't like the US.
Yes in the past around 2002/2003 he gave a hesitant 'I guess so' when asked if he supported the war.
For me, Trump has learned from the past 13 years in this area, Hillary has not.
I'm engaging what YOU said, when you suggested he is against "stupid wars" "isolationist" and "against regime change [through intervention]"
You weren't speaking in the past tense. Where is your gymnastics certificate from?
edit: furthermore, what he does in the future is paramount to his campaign. So you admit he's going to be a warmonger if elected.Trump has been described as being isolationist, he said he is against regime change via use of military and prefers sanctions.
Clinton despite all her disasters still supports regime change using the military.
It is not like replacing Obama with ISIS/MB/other terrorist groups which is Clinton's regime change policies even if unintentional. Her projections of where things would go could not be more wrong.
If Trump is as he says he is - against 'stupid wars' and has learned from hindsight then he is infinitely much better than Clinton who wants to continue her failed policies which Obama disavowed with Syria.
It makes Obama sound so silly when he endorses Hillary with the 'most qualified person ever' for the job, when he ignored her over Syria which was one of the best things Obama did in his presidency, while Hillary cries 'we should have attacked Assad'.
If anything it looks like Trump is closer to Obama than Hillary is when it comes to the use of the military.
Hillary has learned zero from her mistakes which is most worrying.0 -
You give yourself too much credit
A number of countries have them as a prescribed terrorist organisation, in time more will follow.
It's proscribed, and no - very few counties have, and in those cases because they're ideologically opposed - as with Saudi Arabia, or because they're afraid of their own Muslim minorities, like Russia. The Muslim Botherhood is not proscribed as a terrorist group by any western nation, and isn't even designated as a terrorist group by the Israelis.0 -
It's proscribed, and no - very few counties have, and in those cases because they're ideologically opposed - as with Saudi Arabia, or because they're afraid of their own Muslim minorities, like Russia. The Muslim Botherhood is not proscribed as a terrorist group by any western nation, and isn't even designated as a terrorist group by the Israelis.
If the West calls Hezbollah and the PKK a terrorist organization they should certainly start calling the MB and Talaban terrorist organizations.0 -
Trump reading from a teleprompter just doesn't sound right at all. Watching him speak at a Florida rally on Sky, it just sounds weird.
Where is all the racism and xenophobia?0 -
Gintonious wrote: »Trump reading from a teleprompter just doesn't sound right at all. Watching him speak at a Florida rally on Sky, it just sounds weird.
Where is all the racism and xenophobia?
The media has a tendency to bring out the worst in people.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »If the West calls Hezbollah and the PKK a terrorist organization they should certainly start calling the MB and Talaban terrorist organizations.
The West denounces Israel
The US defends Israel
Go figure.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »The media has a tendency to bring out the worst in people.
Indeed, they just start saying things that are on their minds.
"I’ve got black accountants at the Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. No one else."
“Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something they can control. … Don’t you agree?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/25/did-donald-trump-really-say-those-things/0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »The media has a tendency to bring out the worst in people.
I don't think they are making him say the racist/xenophobic/sexist comments.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'll never identify with the mind of someone who thinks the media reporting things someone actually says, is 'bias' against them
I know that the media is perfectly capable of distorting what someone says, but direct quotes or simply linking to speeches that someone has made is not a distortion.
When Sanders supporters claimed that the media was biased against him, it was because they gave him little or no air time, they ignored what he said and accused him of being a communist. It's the opposite with Trump. They give him unlimited access to free publicity, ie, enough rope for him to hang himself.
Unfortunately, Trump supporters are suffering from some kind of cognitive dissonance that allows them to replace the things that Trump actually says, with the voices in their own head that are saying what they wish Trump has said.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement