2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

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

- A lie is an intentionally false statement.
- Trump saying he never said things he is on record saying, is him being intentionally false.
- Trump saying he plans to do things if he wins the election, by definition, cannot be false as he has not won the election.
- If he does win the election and fails to attempt to follow through on them, then they become false statements.
- If he does win the election and attempts to follow through on them (successfully or not) then they were definitely not false statements or lies.
- Meaning until/unless he wins the election, the things he says he plans to do cannot, by definition, be false statements or lies. And if he loses the election, they can never be called lies as we will never have the opportunity to find out.

I have made this abundantly clear time and again through each of my posts on this matter.

Christy42

Peist2007 wrote: »

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.

I still think he is arrogant enough to start a world war. This is based on his questionable mental state and nothing he has said.

Hillary's hawkish nature has been overblown to the extreme. She represents a continuation of the Obama policies which resulted in no risk of a world war. It will probably result in some wars I am not happy with but some are probably inevitable as well as stopping some other wars. It also means there is 0 risk of a world war.

I like how Trump supporters only have the topic of foreign affairs to argue about. I have no idea how you can argue for a candidate when you have no idea what they will do (since they have never told the truth in their plans apparently ).

KingBrian2

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..

You then Billy86 should recognize the signs when the pro interventionists are gearing up for war, Hear the war talk. Hillary's fan club are on the side of the argument that were pushing for war in Iraq on false pretense. Trump is late to the debate and he is being accused of supporting the war. Hillary agreed with the war so not a sympathizer, she gave her full backing.

Lets focus on the economy under Clinton. Americans would have to pay additional taxes for declining services. Clinton depends on near bankrupt states to pay for a new round of expansion of the Federal Government. America needs what Europe has at the moment, increased competition. That can only happen with better trade deals that priorities growth.

America and Europe are in very similar situations and what we see is high deficits and bad government. This can work only with the consent of the private sector and not driven by growing the size of the gvt bigger and bigger. Congress & Brussels have caused more problems than solutions in recent years.

K-9

Peist2007 wrote: »

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

Don't know what Obama had to do with it. Opponents in election race say hitting things about each other shocker. Trump said stuff about Christie, it's politics and will go on forever.

Russian policy is important to you. You criticised Hillary for being too soft on Russia but you have nothing to rely on Trump being any better. It's just a feeling and a hatred of Clinton from what I gather.

As I said it's the beauty of Trump. He commands a religious devotion so pointing out facts or speeches is irrelevant.

brooke 2

TheDoctor wrote: »

Pretty accurate.

Pence came across much better despite talking nonsense.

The fact that he 'won' the debate illustrates how superficial the majority of the viewers are.

Suryavarman

brooke 2 wrote: »

The fact that he 'won' the debate illustrates how superficial the majority of the viewers are.

It's nothing to do with superficiality. Pence won the debate comfortably.

brooke 2

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's nothing to do with superficiality. Pence won the debate comfortably.

Well, he did look good and he sounded good - almost Reaganesque. But he lied repeatedly. Also threw Trump under the bus with his comments about Putin. What a winner!!

Suryavarman

brooke 2 wrote: »

Well, he did look good and he sounded good - almost Reaganesque. But he lied repeatedly. Also threw Trump under the bus with his comments about Putin. What a winner!!

And Kaine continuously interrupted him but did so without confidence. Whenever it was Kaine's chance to speak he did a poor job calling Pence out on his lies. It was a very weak performance from Kaine.

Brian?

It wouldn't have surprise me if Pence had finished the debate wearing a "Pence 2020" hat.

He didn't sell the Trump platform at all. He sold the traditional conservative GOP.

Akrasia

Brian? wrote: »

It wouldn't have surprise me if Pence had finished the debate wearing a "Pence 2020" hat.

He didn't sell the Trump platform at all. He sold the traditional conservative GOP.

He's probably presumes that Trump will be impeached so he basically is running for President

Billy86

Brian? wrote: »

It wouldn't have surprise me if Pence had finished the debate wearing a "Pence 2020" hat.

He didn't sell the Trump platform at all. He sold the traditional conservative GOP.

I wonder if it was tactical? I mean by the vast majority of accounts he won, just for a different campaign to Trump's.You'd have to wonder if he sees the sinking ship from the developments recently, and possibly the bigger picture too - which is that whoever win in 2016 is almost certain to get trounced in 2020 (in my opinion), be it Trump or Clinton.

Arytonblue

Billy86 wrote: »

and possibly the bigger picture too - which is that whoever win in 2016 is almost certain to get trounced in 2020 (in my opinion), be it Trump or Clinton.

Wouldn't be so sure on that tbh. The way the political divide is in the US today the likelyhood of a trouncing or overwhelming victory is fairly remote. The electoral map really hasn't changed since 2000 (92 and 96 Democrats still held weight in the south with Clinton/Gore.) And for the 5th straight election it's the same battleground states that are seen as crucial, Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Even earlier this campaign when Trump was floundering Clinton was only gaining a handful of states on Romney four years ago, many states in the US are just entrenched in their political allegiance.

And to be honest I think Pence is only coming across 'well' when compared to Trump, if he was at the top of the ticket he would be looking like a better spoken, less vitriolic version of Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann, just last year the man tried(and failed after much outrage) to introduce a bill basically allowing private businesses the right to refuse to do business with a gay or trans person on 'religious grounds', in fact his position on most Social issues are laughable. He's on the very right of the GOP and would be defeated by any credible moderate Democrat IMO. The fact Trump picked him was utterly bizarre to me, they needed to shore up losses in the middle and basically selected the Helen Lovejoy of politics and secured the already safe whopping 11 votes from Indiana.

Having said that the VP debate has about as much impact as the media's non stop outrage over the latest intentionally offensive Trump soundbite.

Black Swan

Billy86 wrote: »

I wonder if it was tactical? I mean by the vast majority of accounts he won, just for a different campaign to Trump's.

A major difference between Pence and Kaine occurred at the end of the debate, where Pence was strongly Pro-Life and Kaine supported Pro-Choice. Whereas Donald Trump flip-flopped awhile back, first advocating the prosecution of women who had abortions, but then quickly reversing his position hours later when impacted by the social outcry on web and media.

Billy86 wrote: »

You'd have to wonder if he sees the sinking ship from the developments recently, and possibly the bigger picture too - which is that whoever win in 2016 is almost certain to get trounced in 2020 (in my opinion), be it Trump or Clinton.

Doubtful that Pence or Kaine would be viable candidates for president 2020. Trump could still win, which if you had asked me about that a year ago, I would have laughed knowing that Trump was completely unqualified for the highest office in America. It's now a sad joke that he is the Republican nominee having ZERO governance experience, ZERO US diplomatic experience, and ZERO preparation to be Commander In Chief. All he has is what comes out of his MOUTH, and it's inexplicable how anyone can take him seriously based upon that.

The GOP has fallen flat on its face with Trump, a populist entertainer and questionable real estate developer, who is afraid of releasing several years of his tax returns because he is obviously hiding something that would not go well with the voters. And all his tax returns are not being audited at this moment, so the IRS audit excuse has no merit for those returns not being audited, and there are years of them which he now hides. If he was as smart as he claims, he would release a doctored version of his 2015 tax return a few days before 8 November 2016, just like Mitt Romney did in 2012. Few voters know that Trump would have a couple years after the election to amend his 2015 return to where he could report all the things he wanted hidden in his 2015 return from voters. If he did release a 2015 doctored return, of course he would not also release several years of returns he could not doctor, just the temporarily doctored one.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

A major difference between Pence and Kaine occurred at the end of the debate, where Pence was strongly Pro-Life and Kaine supported Pro-Choice. Whereas Donald Trump flip-flopped awhile back, first advocating the prosecution of women who had abortions, but then quickly reversing his position hours later when impacted by the social outcry on web and media.

Doubtful that Pence or Kaine would be viable candidates for president 2020. Trump could still win, which if you had asked me about that a year ago, I would have laughed knowing that Trump was completely unqualified for the highest office in America. It's now a sad joke that he is the Republican nominee having ZERO governance experience, ZERO US diplomatic experience, and ZERO preparation to be Commander In Chief. All he has is what comes out of his MOUTH, and it's inexplicable how anyone can take him seriously based upon that.

The GOP has fallen flat on its face with Trump, a populist entertainer and questionable real estate developer, who is afraid of releasing several years of his tax returns because he is obviously hiding something that would not go well with the voters. And all his tax returns are not being audited at this moment, so the IRS audit excuse has no merit for those returns not being audited, and there are years of them which he now hides. If he was as smart as he claims, he would release a doctored version of his 2015 tax return a few days before 8 November 2016, just like Mitt Romney did in 2012. Few voters know that Trump would have a couple years after the election to amend his 2015 return to where he could report all the things he wanted hidden in his 2015 return from voters. If he did release a 2015 doctored return, of course he would not also release several years of returns he could not doctor, just the temporarily doctored one.

Given US diplomacy has been absent for decades now and the current Secretary of State advocates policies that are on a par with Reagan Conservatives when it comes to Iran, Russia, Ukraine, Syria & Libya someone brand new is very much welcome for top office in America.

PopePalpatine

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given US diplomacy has been absent for decades now and the current Secretary of State advocates policies that are on a par with Reagan Conservatives when it comes to Iran, Russia, Ukraine, Syria & Libya someone brand new is very much welcome for top office in America.

Yawn...have you got anything other than regurgitated Trump fluff pieces to post?

BorneTobyWilde

Trump speaking at rally just told the drug cartels that their time is up, that he is coming after them, that they're gone.
This guy could get taking out himself with talk like that. But at least he's not afraid to say it .

PopePalpatine

The Mexican cartels have lasted the guts of 40 years, is he actually proposing some new strategies to take them down or is this just more typical Trump bravado?

20Cent

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump speaking at rally just told the drug cartels that their time is up, that he is coming after them, that they're gone.
This guy could get taking out himself with talk like that. But at least he's not afraid to say it .

Did he say how?

KingBrian2

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yawn...have you got anything other than regurgitated Trump fluff pieces to post?

This constant ridiculing of Trump is tiresome. When Clinton has any alternative policies that embrace a more responsible approach to world affairs then we can end the rhetoric from both sides.

lillycakes2

Trump is obsessed with Mexico and China !!! lol

KingBrian2

lillycakes2 wrote: »

Trump is obsessed with Mexico and China !!! lol

America and Mexico share the same land border so regarding the Mexico issues as huge is about right. Given that the US is to be the policeman of the world and Trump's views on this are.

Black Swan

lillycakes2 wrote: »

Trump is obsessed with Mexico and China !!! lol

Not sure that obsessed is the proper word for Trump's relationship to foreign manufacturers where the Donald J Trump Collection of clothing, shirts, ties, and accessories were produced: Made in Mexico and Made in China. Profits?

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given US diplomacy has been absent for decades now and the current Secretary of State advocates policies that are on a par with Reagan Conservatives when it comes to Iran, Russia, Ukraine, Syria & Libya someone brand new is very much welcome for top office in America.

Would you trust someone without a pilot's license, no years of appropriate flying experience, and no top pilot certifications and ratings to be your chief pilot of a Boeing 777 to fly you around the world? That's an analogy that exemplifies Donald J Trump's preparation for occupying the highest office in the United States with ZERO governance experience, ZERO US diplomatic experience, and ZERO preparation to be the Commander-In-Chief of the most powerful military in the world. Then again, the knowledge, skills, and experiences needed for US president probably far exceeds that needed of a chief pilot for a safe around-the-world flight. You need extraordinarily more than what merely comes out of Trump's MOUTH to govern or fly.

Wanderer78

BorneTobyWilde wrote:

Trump speaking at rally just told the drug cartels that their time is up, that he is coming after them, that they're gone. This guy could get taking out himself with talk like that. But at least he's not afraid to say it .

He must have some new folks lined up for the job. Haha, taking out drug cartels! This campaign is very disturbing to watch. Our only hope is for the next campaign

Igotadose

Wanderer78 wrote: »

He must have some new folks lined up for the job. Haha, taking out drug cartels! This campaign is very disturbing to watch. Our only hope is for the next campaign

It got clicks for Duterte in the Philippines, Trump's never seen a Twitter trend he didn't want to get in on, so of course he says this. The man's gleefully ignorant.

I'm becoming convinced the film "Idiocracy" really is a documentary about the US.

Akrasia

Wanderer78 wrote: »

He must have some new folks lined up for the job. Haha, taking out drug cartels! This campaign is very disturbing to watch. Our only hope is for the next campaign

Yeah. Trump is such a monumental idiot, that he thinks Nancy Reagan's war on drugs is the politically savvy position in 2016 (or at least thats todays position, he previously was in favour of liberalising drugs)

The way to win votes this year, is to promise to liberalise drug laws, legalise, regulate and tax them, and to treat addiction as a medical condition and not a crime.

Declaring an all out war on the S. American drug cartels is going to destroy the very last desperate reason that many people have for choosing him over Clinton.

'At least Trump isn't as Hawkish as Clinton'

Trump is too stupid to know that you can't fight a war on drugs with violence and incarceration. Every time you take out a drugs shipment, the market price goes up, and it becomes even more lucrative to send the next shipment.

Igotadose

The Atlantic just endorsed Clinton, only the 3rd candidate they've ever endorsed since 1860. Lincoln was first, then LBJ. Their reasons for Clinton mirror their reasons for LBJ in 1964 - unfit opponent.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/

Ending statement is spot on: "We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent."

Quin_Dub

Igotadose wrote: »

The Atlantic just endorsed Clinton, only the 3rd candidate they've ever endorsed since 1860. Lincoln was first, then LBJ. Their reasons for Clinton mirror their reasons for LBJ in 1964 - unfit opponent.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/

Ending statement is spot on: "We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent."

This quote is quite damning

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

NUTLEY BOY

What exactly is Clinton's position on capital punishment ?

a) For it ?

b) Against it ?

c) Both ?

Suryavarman

Gary Johnson continues to make a strong case for inclusion in the debates by failing to name the leader of North Korea. A clear indication of media bias asking such a difficult question. Something more suitable might be: "what country borders the USA to the north?".

Pro Hoc Vice

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

What exactly is Clinton's position on capital punishment ?

a) For it ?

b) Against it ?

c) Both ?

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/Clinton/?on=capital-punishment

cowboyBuilder

CNN reporting Obamas approval rating at 55%, if this is true then it should be a landslide victory for Clinton..

Suryavarman

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

CNN reporting Obamas approval rating at 55%, if this is true then it should be a landslide victory for Clinton..

Bill Clinton's approval ratings were above 60% at the time of the 2000 election.

Trent Houseboat

Suryavarman wrote:

Bill Clinton's approval ratings were above 60% at the time of the 2000 election.

Gore actively distanced himself from Bill Clinton. Massive mistake.

marienbad

Igotadose wrote: »

The Atlantic just endorsed Clinton, only the 3rd candidate they've ever endorsed since 1860. Lincoln was first, then LBJ. Their reasons for Clinton mirror their reasons for LBJ in 1964 - unfit opponent.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/

Ending statement is spot on: "We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent."

For such a normally staid publication they really pulled no punches ! Makes it all the more effective .

K-9

Igotadose wrote: »

It got clicks for Duterte in the Philippines, Trump's never seen a Twitter trend he didn't want to get in on, so of course he says this. The man's gleefully ignorant.

I'm becoming convinced the film "Idiocracy" really is a documentary about the US.

Yep, that's who I thought of as well. He's a wannabee Duterte or Putin.

K-9

marienbad wrote: »

For such a normally staid publication they really pulled no punches ! Makes it all the more effective .

Wasn't the Atlantic involved in a CIA funding scandal years ago?

Expect that to be brought up and nothing in the article to be addressed.

USA Today also declared against Trump. First time ever it has favoured a candidate

Quin_Dub

Hard to know what to say about...

DONALD TRUMP URGES TERMINALLY ILL TO HANG ON SO THEY CAN VOTE FOR HIM

“I don’t care how sick you are,” the Republican nominee said. “I don’t care if you just came back from the doctor and he gave you the worst possible prognosis, meaning it’s over. Doesn’t matter. Hang out till November 8. Get out and vote.”

Is there nothing the man won't say??

Billy86

Latest set of polls at RCP look particularly bad for Trump - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

With the antics just getting worse and worse, it will take the most unexpected miracle over the next two debates for Trump to have a chance - the free fall appears to really be setting in.

Billy86

Taking a look at the state polls on RCP, Clinton has a 225 - 165 lead on those likely decided. It is worth noting that neither Pennsylvania nor Virginia are considered 'toss ups' anymore, with both in favour of Clinton: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Toss up, Trump leads:
Iowa (6 seats) - 5.0 lead.
Georgia (16 seats) - 4.8 lead.
Ohio (18 seats) - 2.4 lead.
Arizona (11 seats) - 1.3 lead
Total = 38 seats... 213 total.
**This still puts Trump a dozen votes behind Clinton, even without counting her 'toss up' states at present.

Toss up, Clinton leads:
Michigan (16 seats) - 5.0 lead.
Wisconsin (10 seats) - 5.0 lead.
Minnesota (10 seats) - 4.3 lead.
Maine (2 seats) - 3.8 lead.
Colorado (9 seats) - 3.3 lead.
Florida (29 seats) - 2.2 lead.
Nevada (6 seats) - 1.4 lead.
N. Carolina (15 seats) - 1.3 lead.
Total = 97 seats... 323 total.

There is still a month to go and polls will never be 100% accurate of course*, but based on them if the election happened today the result would be** Clinton 323 votes vs. Trump 213



*Before anyone says it, the Brexit polls showed 'leave' for several weeks, right up until Tommy Mair murdered Jo Cox 10 or so days before the referendum.
**Yes I know, I am missing 2 votes in there somewhere (it's 538 total!)

Amerika

Just in time with the election right around the corner… Our lovely Justice Department has dropped charges in case that could have exposed Hillary’s Benghazi/gun running connections. Man, do we have the most corrupt administration or what?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/06/justice-department-drops-charges-case-exposed-hillarys-benghazigun-running-connections/

Empress Hillary for President!

Billy86

Posted in the After Hours thread, but since we want to bring up corrupt and dodgy politicians; a perfect example of how broken the US political system is...

- Republicans pushed for a bill allowing 9/11 victims' families to sue Saudi Arabia. Not sure what world this is realistic in.
- Obama vetoed it.
- The Republicans were able to override the veto and still push it through.
- As soon as it was put through, Republican speaker of the House Mitch McConnell came out saying how terrible a bill it was, and how Obama was to blame for not stopping it from happening.

Yes, you did just read that correctly... I sh*t you not - https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/30/the-unbearable-idiocy-of-congress/?utm_term=.b48f92a48d92
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill?utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-business

Both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the measure could have unintended consequences — including the fact that it could leave U.S. soldiers open to retaliation by foreign governments. Before the vote, senior administration officials warned lawmakers of this exact problem — that weakening the concept of sovereign immunity could backfire if foreign countries tried to do the same for the U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter sent House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry of Texas a letter saying that could potentially expose Americans to lawsuits and “an intrusive discovery process” even if the U.S. is ultimately found not to be responsible for a particular event.

But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.

RobertKK

For international relations, the election is about who does one believe will kill the least amount of people.

For example Obama started off his presidency by banning the use of torture on day 2 of his presidency and the following day he gave the go-ahead for a drone strike that killed four to five child, up to civilians and 1 terrorist.

Two days after taking the oath of office, Obama signed an Executive Order, which revoked the Bush-era directives authorizing torture, and reemphasized international conventions and federal laws prohibiting torture. The following day, Obama authorized two Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, which, combined, killed an estimated one militant and 10 civilians, including between four and five children.

Obama has used drone strikes 10 times more than Bush did.

Whereas President George W. Bush authorized approximately 50 drone strikes that killed 296 terrorists and 195 civilians in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, Obama has authorized 506 strikes that have killed 3,040 terrorists and 391 civilians

Americans will never know much more about these operations than what the Obama administration has selectively revealed, because, unlike the C.I.A. rendition program (which involved 136 victims), drone strikes (which have killed 3,922 people) occurred under both Republican and Democratic presidents. And there is no interest in Washington to fully investigate government programs that both political parties are directly responsible for.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-on-obamas-presidency/obamas-embrace-of-drone-strikes-will-be-a-lasting-legacy

There are claims the term terrorist is used loosely, simply by association even if not a terrorist.

Both the candidates should have been dealing with these issues rather than a Miss Universe being the topic of conversation after the first debate.
Obama made it clear in 2008 that he would use drones more and he kept his word.
We can assume both Clinton and Trump would do similar, but we have no idea to what extent, will it be like under Obama where emergency workers and families of the first strike are then fired on by a drone to take them out?
Trump was criticised for what he said about taking out families, but this has been policy, as reports from the drone strike regions, is families are afraid to go to a loved one if hit on in a drone strike due to that leading to another strike, so they leave their loved one maybe dead, maybe alive for 24 hours or so, to avoid getting hit themselves.
Things is whoever one votes for in the election, they are voting for people who will give the go ahead to fire drones at people, and 90%+ of the people killed - the men, women and children will be innocent civilians.
It makes me laugh at how stupid people are towards Obama.
Only three days into his presidency he was killing children in drone strikes.
Whether it is Hillary or Trump, the same unanswered crimes will be committed, that leads to more terrorism, against the state terrorism of drone strikes.

That is why I think if anyone thinks their preferred candidate is worth getting worked up about then they are just being naive.
Though Clinton's record for supporting war and regime change when she had less power is very troubling, and the fact she has not learned from the failures is even more so.
I don't think any of the candidates are fit for the presidency.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given US diplomacy has been absent for decades now

You sure do love your platitudes I tell ya what.

briany

That Mike Pence seems like the most presidential and 'leaderly' out of the lot of them. I was impressed by his performance in that VP debate, particularly as he was having to promote, defend and deflect on Donald Trump crazy platforms. If Trump gets elected, he'll have to give this man huge thanks.

B0jangles

Delving into the data about the popularity/unpopularity of the two candidates has yielded some very interesting results:

https://twitter.com/PaulHRosenberg/status/784037259972444160/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Also about Mike Pence, his latest interview makes it sound like he's basically encouraging Trump to crash and burn as badly as he did in the first debate:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/mike-pence-debate-advice-to-trump-229227

Pence 2020?

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Obama has used drone strikes 10 times more than Bush did.

And he used a much higher percentage of 5th generation fighters too. And so many fewer CRT computer monitors.

You're making a hollow point about the state of technology. Drone technology was developed but on infancy during the Bush presidency. And long before either got into office, the Military Industrial Complex entangled its roots into the whole thing.

Do not mistakingly think a future sitting president will turn the trend backward

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given US diplomacy has been absent for decades now and the current Secretary of State advocates policies that are on a par with Reagan Conservatives when it comes to Iran, Russia, Ukraine, Syria & Libya someone brand new is very much welcome for top office in America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/thomas-friedman-obama-makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

You need to read more .

Overheal

marienbad wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/opinion/thomas-friedman-obama-makes-his-case-on-iran-nuclear-deal.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

You need to read more .

Those sources will be dismissed as partisan rags..

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

Obama has used drone strikes 10 times more than Bush did.

What happens when you add in conventional airstrikes, cruise missiles and good ol' guns? I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make here.