2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK

Bill Clinton calls Obamacare 'crazy'.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/783414727187849216

Billy86

So it appears pence disagrees with Trump on a whole lot of things, and seems to be in massive denial about Trumps love of Putin.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Pence CLEARLY won the VP debate.

That is all.

No doubt with constant interruption, lies, and failures to answer direct questions.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

No doubt with constant interruption, lies, and failures to answer direct questions.

Actually, apparently kaine was more guilty of interrupting. Pence on the other hand seemed to be running as VP to a different campaign than Trumps, entirely inconsistent with a lot of what he has said.

Most seem to have pence winning, but basically nobody has said it will have any impact on their vote. I didn't se it myself though.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Bill Clinton calls Obamacare 'crazy'.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/783414727187849216

No, he didn't.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, he didn't.

Yet when Hillary was running against Sanders and at a town hall event she was questioned by a woman who said her health insurance had increased so much under Obamacare that it was not unaffordable and what would she (Hillary) do.
Well Hillary said this was terrible and that changes needed to be made to Obamacare.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Yet when Hillary was running against Sanders and at a town hall event she was questioned by a woman who said her health insurance had increased so much under Obamacare that it was not unaffordable and what would she (Hillary) do.
Well Hillary said this was terrible and that changes needed to be made to Obamacare.

...none of which has anything to do with the claim that Bill called Obamacare "crazy", which he didn't.

The ACA is far from perfect. The Republicans' answer? Scrap it! The Democrats' answer? Fix it!

One of those answers makes sense.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, he didn't.

Yes, yes he did!

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

...none of which has anything to do with the claim that Bill called Obamacare "crazy", which he didn't.

The ACA is far from perfect. The Republicans' answer? Scrap it! The Democrats' answer? Fix it!

One of those answers makes sense.

They've had seven years to 'fix' the monstrosity that is ObamaCare. It has only gotten worse in almost every way possible. It will collapse under its own weight. Insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges left and right.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, yes he did!

I'm not interested in getting into a pantomime. If it suits you to believe a GOP talking point caricature rather than what the man actually said, go for it.

Amerika wrote: »

They've had seven years to 'fix' the monstrosity that is ObamaCare.

They've had seven years of the GOP doing everything they possibly can to sabotage it. It's a bit like you getting a new car, me laying into it with a baseball bat for a few hours, and then scoffing at you for what a crap car you've got.

It's beyond pathetic how the GOP have made thwarting the president their sole and only mission in life since he was elected. It was particularly obvious when they overrode his veto on the "let's unilaterally get rid of sovereign immunity" bill, only to complain that the president should have tried harder to stop them from doing something so stupid.

Yes, I know that Democrats voted for that one too. Stupidity is not in short supply in Congress.

brooke 2

Overheal wrote: »

No doubt with constant interruption, lies, and failures to answer direct questions.

What are the criteria for 'winning' a debate? Looking and sounding good?
Pence presented himself very well but he lied throughout the debate. Yet he is being called as the 'winner'. He pivoted so many times that his head must still be spinning. And he threw Trump under the bus. It will be interesting to see Trump try to answer questions on Putin, seeing that he and Pence are worlds apart in their opinion of him. Will Trump agree with Pence's description of Putin as a small bully? It will be fun to see him wriggle out of that one!!

brooke 2

Billy86 wrote: »

Actually, apparently kaine was more guilty of interrupting. Pence on the other hand seemed to be running as VP to a different campaign than Trumps, entirely inconsistent with a lot of what he has said.

Most seem to have pence winning, but basically nobody has said it will have any impact on their vote. I didn't se it myself though.

Pence looked very dignified but lied through his teeth!

Kaine looked like a bad tempered Rottweiler but made very good points.

The better looking and sounding guy has been declared the 'winner'!!

TheDoctor

brooke 2 wrote: »

Pence looked very dignified but lied through his teeth!

Kaine looked like a bad tempered Rottweiler but made very good points.

The better looking and sounding guy has been declared the 'winner'!!

Pretty accurate.

Pence came across much better despite talking nonsense.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

...none of which has anything to do with the claim that Bill called Obamacare "crazy", which he didn't.

The ACA is far from perfect. The Republicans' answer? Scrap it! The Democrats' answer? Fix it!

One of those answers makes sense.

Indeed, many people are extremely glad that there was something like the ACA in the sense that they are alive or in good health!

It isn't perfect but some of the premiums private insurers are charging are crazy, people paying 20k a year and premiums like that.

Rjd2

TheDoctor wrote: »

Pretty accurate.

Pence came across much better despite talking nonsense.

Kaine was there to attack Trump more than Pence and he got a few decent lines in, Pence to be fair has a good reputation for this sort of thing and cleverly swerved a lot of the Trump attacks, so its its fair to say Pence had a better evening.

The VP debates don't matter much, and when you have such a walking disaster as Trump any goodwill gained will be squandered pretty quickly.

KerranJast

I watched it all god help me and if you didn't know better you'd swear Pence was running for POTUS.

He was excellent in doing a half decent Reagan impersonation but repeatedly lied or dodged questions.

Kaine did his job well which wasn't beat Mike Pence in a debate but instead highlight repeatedly Trumps issues and force Pence to defend them.

Which he didn't.

Summary: win for Pence and boosts his future prospects. Loss for overall campaign (and the viewers )

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not interested in getting into a pantomime. If it suits you to believe a GOP talking point caricature rather than what the man actually said, go for it.

And if you can't trust your own eyes and ears to what he said, and have to rely on political surrogates who have never spoken to the man to tell us mere humans 'what he meant, rather than what he said,' so be it.

They've had seven years of the GOP doing everything they possibly can to sabotage it. It's a bit like you getting a new car, me laying into it with a baseball bat for a few hours, and then scoffing at you for what a crap car you've got.

It's beyond pathetic how the GOP have made thwarting the president their sole and only mission in life since he was elected. It was particularly obvious when they overrode his veto on the "let's unilaterally get rid of sovereign immunity" bill, only to complain that the president should have tried harder to stop them from doing something so stupid.

Yes, I know that Democrats voted for that one too. Stupidity is not in short supply in Congress.

Spare me. When ObamaCare was passed the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. They didn’t need any votes from Republicans to pass the legislation. What they gave us was terrible, not because of Republicans, but because they were unable to get a consensus from their fellow Democrats. It’s absurd to now blame Republicans for horrible health care boondoggle we have. Other than a few tweaks and throwing massive amounts of taxpayer dollars at it what have the Democrats proposed to 'fix' ObamaCare? Insurers are pulling out of the government system left and right, and leaving millions of people with little to no options and skyrocketing premiums... some over 30% for 2017. Let’s face it, the only fix Democrats really want to make to ObamaCare is to replace it with a costly and inefficient public option government-run health care system. That is not ObamaCare. A single-payer healthcare will fail in the US just as badly as ObamaCare has because government officials catering to special interest groups would refuse to do what is necessary to keep healthcare spending from spiraling out of control.

RobertKK

The New York Times say the premium rises next year for health insurance will make it less affordable than before and over half will have to change policy to afford health insurance.
Obama promised people could keep their current policies, but failed to take into account Obamacare has driven up insurance costs.

Then it seems the largest rises are in Democrat voting states.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/upshot/obamacare-premiums-set-to-rise-even-for-savvy-shoppers.html?0p19G=c

Amerika

Did anyone hear Kaine say what Hillary will do as POTUS? I did need to use the bathroom twice (damn cancer) and blinked my eyes a few times so may have missed it, but all I heard Kaine talk about what how horrid Trump was. God help us if Hillary wins because she won’t have Trump anymore to blame for all her failures.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Did anyone hear Kaine say what Hillary will do as POTUS? I did need to use the bathroom twice (damn cancer) and blinked my eyes a few times so may have missed it, but all I heard Kaine talk about what how horrid Trump was. God help us if Hillary wins because she won’t have Trump anymore to blame for all her failures.

Sorry to hear about that, hope everything works out for you.

Tbh that strategy seemed to work for Hillary in the first debate so they probably just agreed to keep at it.

Peist2007

Christy42 wrote: »

So legitimately anyone who hasn't held office ni matter what they said or what they promised would be better than Hillary.

By your logic someone campaigning on starting ww3 would even be better (it is just rhetoric after all....).
It is only rhetoric until the crazy person gets elected.

The person you think is crazy versus the relatively sane candidate who has supported the deaths of innocent civilians in illegal wars. Hope you can live with your choice because Hillary will try to take on Russia - it is apparent in the current stoking of tensions by Washington which have definitely gone up a notch since the Americans broke the Syrian ceasefire - and then we are all in trouble. You prefer that over someone who you think might be dangerous? Ok, then.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

The person you think is crazy versus the relatively sane candidate who has supported the deaths of innocent civilians in illegal wars.

That would be both candidates.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry to hear about that, hope everything works out for you.

Tbh that strategy seemed to work for Hillary in the first debate so they probably just agreed to keep at it.

Thanks, but look at the bright side... nature will do what ya’ll haven’t been able to do... get rid of me once and for all. :)

So that’s Hillary number one policy... Hate Trump?

To be fair, it probably worked for what Kaine tried to accomplish. I think mostly the party faithful watched the VP debate, and liked the constant attacks on Trump. But it was disingenuous to those who were looking to see the quality of the people that could step into the top spot if something happened to Clinton or Trump. Pence did come off as extremely presidential. Kaine came off as simply petty.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

No, given Trump has zero experience in government all we have to go by is what he says he will do, his past, and his general nature. All of which are very, very volatile - with explicit claims he will create more veterans to boot.

You don't seem to understand what cognitive dissonance means, by the way.

Cognitive dissonance is, by definition, the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. Which is exactly what you are exhibiting.

You are all worried about what Trump might do based on his ramblings yet completely ignoring Hillary's long and storied history as an actual hawk - Hillary has walked the walk yet you ignore this. Cognitive dissonance amigo. I dont expect you to recognise it in yourself dont worry.


all we have to go by is what he says he will do

Really? Thought Trump is not credible? Do you only believe Trump when it suits you? An internal echo chamber, kudos!

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

That would be both candidates.

Really? Didnt know that. Can you show me where Trump was involved in taking out Gaddafi? Or in the decision to invade Iraq? Thanking you in advance.

K-9

Trump went after Hillary, Hillary was just better at pointing his flaws. Then again questioning Trump's tax records isn't a personal attack either, it's legitimately wondering why he will not do what every candidate has done for 40 years.

He often points to his business record as a qualification for being President so fair game.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

Cognitive dissonance is, by definition, the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. Which is exactly what you are exhibiting.

You are all worried about what Trump might do based on his ramblings yet completely ignoring Hillary's long and storied history as an actual hawk - Hillary has walked the walk yet you ignore this. Cognitive dissonance amigo. I dont expect you to recognise it in yourself dont worry.

all we have to go by is what he says he will do

Really? Thought Trump is not credible? Do you only believe Trump when it suits you? An internal echo chamber, kudos!

Nowhere am I ignoring that, I am simply pointing out that Trump is saying he will cause more wars by 'bombing the sh*t out of' the middle east. See how that works?

What somebody says they will do, vs what somebody says they have or have not done (like claiming they never said paying no federal taxes) are very different things. And I think you're aware of that. Just like he says he will ban all Muslims. And just like he says he will build a stupidly wall on the Mexican border. These are things we assume he will attempt to do, because he says they are things he will attempt to do. This is how we judge politicians This is all very, very simple if you stop jumping through mental loopholes.

And just like Trump did support the Iraq war and Libya. Where I don't believe him on that, is when he says he did not support either of those actions. Because he did support them, and is on record supporting them.

So just to be extra clear because you really do appear to be struggling on this:
- When he says he will do something if elected president, it is only fair to assume he will attempt to do those things.
- When he says he never did/said something he is on record saying or doing, there is no need to assume he is telling the truth because the facts show it is not the case.

Easy enough for you?

Trent Houseboat

Peist2007 wrote:

The person you think is crazy versus the relatively sane candidate who has supported the deaths of innocent civilians in illegal wars.

Peist2007 wrote:

Really? Didnt know that. Can you show me where Trump was involved in taking out Gaddafi? Or in the decision to invade Iraq? Thanking you in advance.

You say "involved" now, but it was "supported" in your previous post. Is that because you know he supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Gadaffi?

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

Really? Didnt know that. Can you show me where Trump was involved in taking out Gaddafi? Or in the decision to invade Iraq? Thanking you in advance.

What was that about cognitive dissonance? These have been mentioned non stop through the entire campaign! :pac:

Are you really going to try and claim you haven't seen Trump saying he supported them, at the times they happened? I mean I know that's a common tactic among those eager to see Trump elected, but are you really going to claim it on this? Really?

Christy42

Peist2007 wrote: »

The person you think is crazy versus the relatively sane candidate who has supported the deaths of innocent civilians in illegal wars. Hope you can live with your choice because Hillary will try to take on Russia - it is apparent in the current stoking of tensions by Washington which have definitely gone up a notch since the Americans broke the Syrian ceasefire - and then we are all in trouble. You prefer that over someone who you think might be dangerous? Ok, then.

You think Hillary will take on Russia. Since I only think Trump is dangerous. He has been gearing up for going against China. I am really not sure how that is better. Hillary and Putin are smart enough to know that proxy wars are all they can have (and Russia tend to be the more aggressive in this case and Pence seems to agree with me). I don't trust Trump to stick to proxy wars and as much as I hate them an actual war with a world power would be far worse. Anyway Russia are going to start some either way and neither Trump nor Hillary can stop that without simply rolling over for Putin.

Trump also supported those wars (though his opinion at the time was irrelevant).

But hey you want to support the racist, misogynist who has been arguing for more wars during the full campaign. Arguing that Trump's lack of experience is a good thing is non sensical and that is all Trump supporters seem to have left.

Amerika

In regard to Trump not paying taxes in that bad year and in subsequent years, I don’t know why nobody points out that when a business has large losses (which happens at times), they are able to carry the losses over several tax years to help in the recovery. If they weren’t allowed to, businesses would be closing down every time they have a bad year, and millions of people would be out of work.

Black Swan

Rjd2 wrote: »

...when you have such a walking disaster as Trump any goodwill gained will be squandered pretty quickly.

The Trump campaign has been just another so-called "reality show" hosted by the media and played by Trump to entertain the American public. Americans love their "reality shows" on the telly. Trump was a Celebrity Apprentice host entertainer for several seasons. He often would pick celebrities for his show that didn't like each other, then put them on opposing teams. All too often there would be friction and squabbles between these people, and his telly viewers apparently liked it, and his show's ratings and advertisers would benefit.

Trump has been entertaining his viewers (i.e., voters) since summer 2015 playing a Celebrity Apprentice President contestant himself, first during the Republican primaries, and now against Clinton. He has ZERO governance experience, ZERO US diplomacy experience, and ZERO preparation to be Commander In Chief of the world's most powerful military, but he does have successful entertainer experience, and he has been very successful entertaining his audience (i.e., voters) during this presidential campaign with all the "outrageous" and "sensationalist" statements he has made as scripted in his 1987 Deals playbook. Love Trump, or hate Trump, he has provided entertainment, everyone is talking about this entertainer, and the media gets high ratings and happy advertisers when it reports his latest "outrageous" statements. Trump consequently gets lots of viewership and readership as the entertaining monster or savior, and that's why he is today's Republican nominee for president, the highest position in government service that he is obviously not qualified to hold.

Politics, votes, making "outrageous" and "sensationalist" statements, so-called "reality show," entertainer viewership, readership, media ratings and advertisers are related? Just remember what was said about "Kingfish" Huey Long, former governor and US senator of Louisiana. To paraphrase: Good news is the best news, the second best news is bad news, and no news is bad news for a politician. Populist entertainer Monster or Savior Trump has gotten some good news, and lots of "sensationalist" bad news, all of which has been good news for entertainer turned politician Trump.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

In regard to Trump not paying taxes in that bad year and in subsequent years, I don’t know why nobody points out that when a business has large losses (which happens at times), they are able to carry the losses over several tax years to help in the recovery. If they weren’t allowed to, businesses would be closing down every time they have a bad year, and millions of people would be out of work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NYT article refers to these as personal taxes and not corporate taxes.

johnnyskeleton

Peist2007 wrote: »

Cognitive dissonance amigo. I dont expect you to recognise it in yourself dont worry.
...
An internal echo chamber, kudos!

Billy86 wrote: »

This is all very, very simple if you stop jumping through mental loopholes...
So just to be extra clear because you really do appear to be struggling on this:
...Easy enough for you?

Mod note:

Stop derailing the thread with these uncivil jibes. That goes for both of you.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NYT article refers to these as personal taxes and not corporate taxes.

Trump's many limited liability companies and partnerships often are treated like businesses in regards to taxes, and filed on his personal tax forms.

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

The person you think is crazy versus the relatively sane candidate who has supported the deaths of innocent civilians in illegal wars. Hope you can live with your choice because Hillary will try to take on Russia - it is apparent in the current stoking of tensions by Washington which have definitely gone up a notch since the Americans broke the Syrian ceasefire - and then we are all in trouble. You prefer that over someone who you think might be dangerous? Ok, then.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/democrat-kaine-goes-on-attack-in-us-vice-presidential-debate-757819.html

Quote from Pence last night:

"The weak and feckless foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has awaked an aggression in Russia that first appeared in Russia a few years ago," Mr Pence said.

Errr, Pence thinks Hillary was too soft on Russia so if Russian relations are important to you, Clinton is the best option.

But no doubt you'll be able to point to Trump saying the opposite somewhere else. That is the beauty of Donald.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

In regard to Trump not paying taxes in that bad year and in subsequent years, I don’t know why nobody points out that when a business has large losses (which happens at times), they are able to carry the losses over several tax years to help in the recovery. If they weren’t allowed to, businesses would be closing down every time they have a bad year, and millions of people would be out of work.

Well yes, it's absolutely normal to carry losses forward and offset against future profits.

It comes back to Hillary's point though, if he's paying little or no tax but going on about increasing spending on veterans, the military, law and order etc. well it looks bad.

It's a bit different to Romney, he minimised it as much as possible but still paid hefty amounts due to his large wealth.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

Nowhere am I ignoring that, I am simply pointing out that Trump is saying he will cause more wars by 'bombing the sh*t out of' the middle east. See how that works?

What somebody says they will do, vs what somebody says they have or have not done (like claiming they never said paying no federal taxes) are very different things. And I think you're aware of that. Just like he says he will ban all Muslims. And just like he says he will build a stupidly wall on the Mexican border. These are things we assume he will attempt to do, because he says they are things he will attempt to do. This is how we judge politicians This is all very, very simple if you stop jumping through mental loopholes.

And just like Trump did support the Iraq war and Libya. Where I don't believe him on that, is when he says he did not support either of those actions. Because he did support them, and is on record supporting them.

So just to be extra clear because you really do appear to be struggling on this:
- When he says he will do something if elected president, it is only fair to assume he will attempt to do those things.
- When he says he never did/said something he is on record saying or doing, there is no need to assume he is telling the truth because the facts show it is not the case.

Easy enough for you?

Is this your first US election? EVERY Republican candidate talks about foreign interventions to protect American interests. Every single one. It appeals to the Republican base. Saying stupid crap to republicans to get their vote is as common a theme as kissing babies. Trump is simply doing that. And done it quite well by all accounts.

You seem to pick and choose which Trump statements to believe to suit your own argument. This shows the lack of perspective you have. Trump is only a liar until he says something that you think you can use to bolster the argument for Hillary. Hence your comment all we have to go by is what he says he will do. Sorry boss, but you base projections on the future in any model by looking at what has happened beforehand. The past informs the future. And that does not reflect well on Hillary.

You say Trump has zero political experience yet you are assigning responsibility to him for foreign policy decisions made in the aftermath of 9/11! I have friends who supported the Iraq invasion because they believed the lies being told to them by our mainstream media. They weren't sitting in on US intelligence briefings. Neither was Trump. Trump believed the sexed up intelligence as did a lot of people. To think that you could argue that Trump and Hillary are in any way comparable on these massive geopolitical mistakes shows how disingenuous your argument is.

The paying of taxes is such a non-issue given the above it is unreal. Whether someone pays their taxes or not will not result in mushroom clouds 4,000 miles away. It shows dishonesty but neither of these two people are honest. The goal for the likes of us in Ireland is that the candidate less likely to end up at war with Russia wins this election. That, for me, is clearly Trump.

Just hope you are here to back up your position when Hillary decides to do something stupid with Russia. I foresee Trump opening a dialogue with Russia, which is a far better proposition.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

What was that about cognitive dissonance? These have been mentioned non stop through the entire campaign! :pac:

Are you really going to try and claim you haven't seen Trump saying he supported them, at the times they happened? I mean I know that's a common tactic among those eager to see Trump elected, but are you really going to claim it on this? Really?

No i am saying Trump wasnt in the room. Had zero say in the decision. That the case with Hillary?

Peist2007

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

You say "involved" now, but it was "supported" in your previous post. Is that because you know he supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Gadaffi?

Wouldnt read to much into that, i wasnt choosing words to paint a particular slant. Trump had nothing to do with the removal of Gaddafi and the subsequent clusterfk in Libya. Hillary had. You denying that?

Christy42

Peist2007 wrote: »

Is this your first US election? EVERY Republican candidate talks about foreign interventions to protect American interests. Every single one. It appeals to the Republican base. Saying stupid crap to republicans to get their vote is as common a theme as kissing babies. Trump is simply doing that. And done it quite well by all accounts.

You seem to pick and choose which Trump statements to believe to suit your own argument. This shows the lack of perspective you have. Trump is only a liar until he says something that you think you can use to bolster the argument for Hillary. Hence your comment all we have to go by is what he says he will do. Sorry boss, but you base projections on the future in any model by looking at what has happened beforehand. The past informs the future. And that does not reflect well on Hillary.

You say Trump has zero political experience yet you are assigning responsibility to him for foreign policy decisions made in the aftermath of 9/11! I have friends who supported the Iraq invasion because they believed the lies being told to them by our mainstream media. They weren't sitting in on US intelligence briefings. Neither was Trump. Trump believed the sexed up intelligence as did a lot of people. To think that you could argue that Trump and Hillary are in any way comparable on these massive geopolitical mistakes shows how disingenuous your argument is.

The paying of taxes is such a non-issue given the above it is unreal. Whether someone pays their taxes or not will not result in mushroom clouds 4,000 miles away. It shows dishonesty but neither of these two people are honest. The goal for the likes of us in Ireland is that the candidate less likely to end up at war with Russia wins this election. That, for me, is clearly Trump.

Just hope you are here to back up your position when Hillary decides to do something stupid with Russia. I foresee Trump opening a dialogue with Russia, which is a far better proposition.

You are now complaining about Trump's opponents picking and choosing statements... We are through the looking glass here people. Any evidence that those aren't showing the real Trump?

Peist2007

Christy42 wrote: »

You think Hillary will take on Russia. Since I only think Trump is dangerous. He has been gearing up for going against China. I am really not sure how that is better. Hillary and Putin are smart enough to know that proxy wars are all they can have (and Russia tend to be the more aggressive in this case and Pence seems to agree with me). I don't trust Trump to stick to proxy wars and as much as I hate them an actual war with a world power would be far worse. Anyway Russia are going to start some either way and neither Trump nor Hillary can stop that without simply rolling over for Putin.

Trump also supported those wars (though his opinion at the time was irrelevant).

But hey you want to support the racist, misogynist who has been arguing for more wars during the full campaign. Arguing that Trump's lack of experience is a good thing is non sensical and that is all Trump supporters seem to have left.

I just dont want world war. If that means having an eejit in the White House, so be it. The other option will lead to war.

Peist2007

K-9 wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/democrat-kaine-goes-on-attack-in-us-vice-presidential-debate-757819.html

Quote from Pence last night:



Errr, Pence thinks Hillary was too soft on Russia so if Russian relations are important to you, Clinton is the best option.

But no doubt you'll be able to point to Trump saying the opposite somewhere else. That is the beauty of Donald.

Talking to a republican redneck base pre-election means little. I prefer to focus on actual deeds when in power. Hillary has plenty of form on that score.

By your logic the following must be devastating ie Barack Obama discussing Hillary's track record on the election trail in 2008. That doesnt count though right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6f4tZFZ_-g

Peist2007

Christy42 wrote: »

You are now complaining about Trump's opponents picking and choosing statements... We are through the looking glass here people. Any evidence that those aren't showing the real Trump?

Why are you purposefully misconstruing a simple point? You cant call Trump the biggest liar in the world and then choose to believe him when what he says supports your position. That aint how proper arguments work.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

Is this your first US election? EVERY Republican candidate talks about foreign interventions to protect American interests. Every single one. It appeals to the Republican base. Saying stupid crap to republicans to get their vote is as common a theme as kissing babies. Trump is simply doing that. And done it quite well by all accounts.

You seem to pick and choose which Trump statements to believe to suit your own argument. This shows the lack of perspective you have. Trump is only a liar until he says something that you think you can use to bolster the argument for Hillary. Hence your comment all we have to go by is what he says he will do. Sorry boss, but you based projections on the future in any model by looking at what happened beforehand. And that does not reflect well on Hillary.

You say Trump has zero political experience yet you are assigning responsibility to him for foreign policy decisions made in the aftermath of 9/11! I have friends who supported the Iraq invasion because they believed the lies being told to them by our mainstream media. They weren't sitting in on US intelligence briefings. Neither was Trump. Trump believed the sexed up intelligence as did a lot of people. To think that you could argue that Trump and Hillary are in any way comparable on these massive geopolitical mistakes shows how disingenuous your argument is.

The paying of taxes is such a non-issue given the above it is unreal. Whether someone pays their taxes or not will not result in mushroom clouds 4,000 miles away. It shows dishonesty but neither of these two people are honest. The goal for the likes of us in Ireland is that the candidate less likely to end up at war with Russia wins this election. That, for me, is clearly Trump.

Just hope you are here to back up your position when Hillary decides to do something stupid with Russia. I foresee Trump opening a dialogue with Russia, which is a far better proposition.

Trump is a liar when he says something that is already proven to be false. For example, when he says he is 'smart' for not paying any federal taxes, and then claiming he 'never said that'. Or when he claims he never supported the Iraq Wars of Libyan intervention, when he is on record for having done so.

Trump is not a liar when he says what he plans to do. He is not a liar when he says he plans to 'bomb the sh*t' out of the middle east. He is not a liar when he says he plans to build an expensive wall on the Mexican border. He is not a liar when he says he plans to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

This has already been explained.

And of course it makes perfect sense to think he will attempt to follow through on his plans to 'bomb the sh*t' out of the middle east, given he has supported wars there previously. No different to if Hillary were saying she wanted to go to war with countries in that area, it would stand to reason that she plans to do as much based on her past of supporting wars in that region.

I happened to be a teenager when the Iraq War began, and did not buy into the WMD stuff for one minute, and as a matter of fact remember that one single person in my entire year did. It was not seen as credible evidence at the time, hence the UN and Hans Blix saying as much. It was very clear that there were nefarious reasons for going to war with Iraq, and if Trump was unable to see what teenage school kids in Ireland could, that is pretty damning upon him. Then again, his comments like "we should have kept the oil" certainly raise question marks about just how believing that the Iraq War was a noble cause he truly was..

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

No i am saying Trump wasnt in the room. Had zero say in the decision. That the case with Hillary?

That is not what you said at all, it is merely an attempt to shift the goalposts. Here is what you said:

Peist2007 wrote: »

The person you think is crazy versus the relatively sane candidate who has supported the deaths of innocent civilians in illegal wars.

The fact is, as I said initially, both candidates supported the Iraq War. This is an indisputable fact.

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

In regard to Trump not paying taxes in that bad year and in subsequent years, I don’t know why nobody points out that when a business has large losses (which happens at times), they are able to carry the losses over several tax years to help in the recovery. If they weren’t allowed to, businesses would be closing down every time they have a bad year, and millions of people would be out of work.

This Article would seem to suggest that there may be other issues with Trumps taxes

They go into a bit of detail , but one example of potential serious anomalies is this item

Just one example of where Trump’s tax returns seem to conflict with reality: the Republican presidential candidate told the IRS and New York state tax officials that he collected a mere $6,108 in “wages, salaries, tips, etc.” in 1995. Yet, according to financial reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that same year Trump received $583,333 in compensation from the then-named Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, the company Trump had taken public in the middle of that year. The figure comes from a proxy statement that the company filed in early 1996. The payment is clearly listed as salary for 1995, and it appears to have been paid directly from the company to Trump, and not through one of the corporate entities he controls.

Tax return says he only got ~$6k in Salary , SEC return says he got ~$580k in Salary for just one of his companies!!

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

Trump is a liar when he says something that is already proven to be false. For example, when he says he is 'smart' for not paying any federal taxes, and then claiming he 'never said that'. Or when he claims he never supported the Iraq Wars of Libyan intervention, when he is on record for having done so.

Trump is not a liar when he says what he plans to do. He is not a liar when he says he plans to 'bomb the sh*t' out of the middle east. He is not a liar when he says he plans to build an expensive wall on the Mexican border. He is not a liar when he says he plans to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

This has already been explained.

And of course it makes perfect sense to think he will attempt to follow through on his plans to 'bomb the sh*t' out of the middle east, given he has supported wars there previously. No different to if Hillary were saying she wanted to go to war with countries in that area, it would stand to reason that she plans to do as much based on her past of supporting wars in that region.

I happened to be a teenager when the Iraq War began, and did not buy into the WMD stuff for one minute, and as a matter of fact remember that one single person in my entire year did. It was not seen as credible evidence at the time, hence the UN and Hans Blix saying as much. It was very clear that there were nefarious reasons for going to war with Iraq, and if Trump was unable to see what teenage school kids in Ireland could, that is pretty damning upon him. Then again, his comments like "we should have kept the oil" certainly raise question marks about just how believing that the Iraq War was a noble cause he truly was..

So Trump is a liar but is not one when what he spouts suits your own agenda, i get it. Why do we both have to continuously agree on this? A completely disingenuous position to take on your part and easily torn apart.

I was in my early 20s when Iraq happened and didnt believe the WMD tale either. I find never believing America in relation to foreign policy leads to a 100% success rate

Trent Houseboat

Peist2007 wrote:

Hillary had. You denying that?

Not for a second, I don't think I said anything about CLinton.

You referred to a candidate who supported illegal wars.
Billy said the both did.
You feigned surprise at the fact that Trump supported the these wars.
Then you asked for proof that he was involved.

Those are two different things, so it looked to me as though you were moving the goalposts.
But as long as you're willing to admit that Trump supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Gaddafi I'm happy to move on and be friends.

Peist2007

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Not for a second, I don't think I said anything about CLinton.

You referred to a candidate who supported illegal wars.
Billy said the both did.
You feigned surprise at the fact that Trump supported the these wars.
Then you asked for proof that he was involved.

Those are two different things, so it looked to me as though you were moving the goalposts.
But as long as you're willing to admit that Trump supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Gaddafi I'm happy to move on and be friends.

Genuinely am not moving gioalposts. I dont really need to.

Hillary was in the room when Gaddafi was taken out. The wrong decision on a catastrophic scale. " We came, we saw, he died". Trump had no part of that and hanging your hat on him supporting it, when he was being given the same media propaganda as the rest of us, is a weak argument. However, it is fair that you raised it, given how i put it.