Presidential Debate No.2

Overheal

yubabill1 wrote: »

A bit of an oversimplification IMHO.

Muslims killing Muslims boils down to sectarianism within the religion. Shia, Sunni etc.

Bit like saying Christians were killing Christians in WWI.

Until the ME abandons tribalism and takes its place among the developed world, Islam will continue to appeal to many in that part of the world, as it elevates "believers" above infidels and offers a comfort blanket to impoverished people with a chip on their shoulder about the industrialised West.

Do those who want to call it radical islam make that distinction? Incidents of racism indicate that's a clear No....

yubabill1

Overheal wrote: »

Do those who want to call it radical islam make that distinction? Incidents of racism indicate that's a clear No....

Just giving my 2c on it.

Racism won't solve the problem, but someone has got to tackle the problem and it's important to understand what is causing something that's fast becoming a problem in Europe and that's a bit too close for my liking.

Overheal

Papa Bear has come out swinging at 3 unnamed news outlets claiming that they have been ordered by their owners to bury Trump

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-claims-3-news-orgs-are-instructing-employees-to-destroy-trump/

Funny thing about that, is that he "can't say who they are" because it's more than likely bull**** - but more interestingly it gives one a glimmer into the kind of things that must have happened under Roger Ailes' leadership. After all, if O'Reilly can assume that top-down manipulation happens in other networks, perhaps he is speaking from experience?

oik

Overheal wrote: »

Papa Bear has come out swinging at 3 unnamed news outlets claiming that they have been ordered by their owners to bury Trump

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-claims-3-news-orgs-are-instructing-employees-to-destroy-trump/

Funny thing about that, is that he "can't say who they are" because it's more than likely bull**** - but more interestingly it gives one a glimmer into the kind of things that must have happened under Roger Ailes' leadership. After all, if O'Reilly can assume that top-down manipulation happens in other networks, perhaps he is speaking from experience?

He has the highest rated cable news show in the country. He has a lot to lose. He is bound the have his sources. I wouldn't dismiss him.

Given the fact that Fox was the most consistently biased about 10 years ago when Ailes was at the height of his influence it's probable that top down manipulation occurred.

The tables have turned though, and with the exception of Hannity and maybe some others I've never watcehd Fox is by far the least biased out of it CNN and NBC. I would bet good money that those are 2 out of the 3.

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Carcharodon wrote: »

Pretty sad that media and so called "experts" are debating on who won a debate between a politician in Clinton and a sociopath in Trump

Listening to trump last night actually gave me a headache and I had to pause the debate and take a break. The nonsense and fear he is spreading is criminal, it is a shameful tactic that does nothing good for the country.
This whole email thing is just pathetic and even after the witch hunt went official she was cleared, they still harp on about it like it's the the most important issue, just shows what's lack of direction the Republican Party has that they can't focus on real issues just this nonsense.
Meanwhile their candidate is out there spreading lies, making no sense, saying the most vile and dishonest things. The man is toxic and a fake in every aspect of his life

Right On! We need to focus on the real most important issue at hand... Some locker room potty-mouth comments Trump made decades ago. And forget Rome is burning because it's not important.

While I may agree with some context of your argument in that people should pay less attention to the personal misgivings of someone, their mistresses, affairs etc. I don't really care about that nonsense, I care more about how good a job they can do and if their views are more closely in line with mine. However Trump has consistently provided us with a barrage of disturbing comments and views towards many different types of people and ethnicities. It is fear mongering at its highest level, he and the republicans may want to create their own version of reality but its not the one I live in.
Republicans are pouring all their efforts into this ridiculous email scandal, they have done a great job with this propaganda and wont let it go, its very disturbing as to how it has unfolded. They wasted all of my hard earned tax money trying to blame Benghazzi on her and now they will waste time and money on this crap, what a sad bunch of people. Trump and Republicans are clearly clutching at straws.
I do love the spin of "locker room" not that I care that much, but just lets call it like it is, Trump is a giant ass, his views and opinions are outdated, as he soon will be.
You say "Rome is burning" as your leader would so eloquently say, WRONG!
America is such a diverse evolving country that really does provide great opportunity for people that were both born or moved here.Republicans cannot deal with how this country is evolving, they would rather try and live in the past rather than work on providing a better future. Thankfully it is a losing battle for them, they cannot stop people from integrating and educating themselves, this old ideology will eventually die out. Granted they will create a lot of noise for many more years but it cant last forever. They somehow managed to survive a black president and Iam sure they will survive a women president too.
Iam sure once Hillary wins they will create some more ridiculous road blocks for her, as they did with Obama but hey who knows maybe they might actually do their jobs and work with their leader this time

Overheal

thing is the phrase "email" in this political cycle might as well be "shoe shopping"

There is such a thing as exhausting an issue, and when people have heard nothing but "Benghazi" "Emails" etc. from the conservative narrative for the last however many years that unless you're really sat down and glued to the issue, it just comes off as completely stale. Kinda the same thing happened with Obamacare - yeah, its an issue, but the narrative has been "repeal it and replace it with something else" and the GOP has never been clear or uniform at all in its message of what that "something else" really looks like. It's very "Pelosi" - 'we need to repeal Obamacare so we can decide what replaces it.' Their message has become white noise. Then Trump comes along and gets endorsed for a bunch of 'did he really just say that' and I'm not sure what they were thinking. Were they just intoxicated with the wave of new attention for their washed out platform?

I don't know what else to say to the GOP: they need a whole bunch of turnover, whoever is running that thing has turned it into a tired mess. Ever since they lost in 2008 they've been on a perpetual soul-searching tour having lost any coherent sense of identity they allegedly once had. But they aren't winning the POTUS race and I don't know what their plan is for the down-ballot; a lot of Trump supporters might not vote for 'the establishment' especially now that they're jumping ship, and some are even endorsing Clinton.

Mr.Micro

Trump only cares about himself. His appearance is caricature and behaves like a bumbling Bond villain. Make no mistake, he is a dangerous man. His rhetoric "make America great again" and all that none sense. Who is he kidding? Much of the money it makes goes on war overseas, a war on this that, drugs, terror whatever, instead of investing in its own people. Every empire eventually fades It is now a multicultural society whether Trump wants to believe it or not....it's a fact.

BoatMad

I don't know what else to say to the GOP: they need a whole bunch of turnover, whoever is running that thing has turned it into a tired mess. Ever since they lost in 2008 they've been on a perpetual soul-searching tour having lost any coherent sense of identity they allegedly once had. But they aren't winning the POTUS race and I don't know what their plan is for the down-ballot; a lot of Trump supporters might not vote for 'the establishment' especially now that they're jumping ship, and some are even endorsing Clinton.

Its a truly sad refection on the state of the GOP, that they had many good middle ground politicians, MCCain, Jeb Bush,etc, could not get traction, but the GOP has been hijacked by the whole tea party , Ayan Rand nonsense and has let itself be dragged increasing into the looney right wing of politics, where it has gradually become increasing unelectable . The culmination of this process was the nomination of the Duck, a self serving reality TV wanna-be with an incredibly dubious morality and a mouth to say it with , utterly devoid of an real policies, totally unprepared for politics and getting support of the backs of a disposed people that really want a " saviour" rather then a president and in the Duck , will get neither

Really its very sad to watch the demise of one nation republicanism, Im not sure its recoverable

Zascar

BoatMad wrote: »

Really its very sad to watch the demise of one nation republicanism, Im not sure its recoverable

As much as I wish this was true, the reality is they probably will recover. They've spent so much time building up strong foundations at the state level that they can rebound quickly as long as they get their house somewhat in order. When it comes to things like Democrat vs Republican, people do not change sides easily, especially in America. This is a good article, that explains how even though the presidential race is a dumpster fire, the republicans are still in a strong position and can weather a bad election, and still be in a good position to rebound in 2018 and 2020. If they can distance themselves from Trump after November, they'll be able to use Hillary's general unpopularity to win big in the future.

BoatMad

they'll be able to use Hillary's general unpopularity to win big in the future.

That only assumes that she will not make a great president, I think she sees the lessons of what happened to Obama who over promised and under delivered and she has been very careful not to fall into that trap . With any degree of competence ( and Clinton has loads of competence ) she could make the presidency work , she has a good working relations with republicans, ( in fact in reality she's far closer to mainstream republicans , then the democrat vision of sanders for example ) and she's a very experienced politican.

I suspect she will get two terms , and thats a long time to undo "unpopularity ", sure she's not her husband, but some of it will rub off. IN the meantime republicans will have to sort out their house and remove the looney right, I suspect 2020 will be the earliest point where they might be electable

Zascar

We can only pray that you are right!!

Overheal

Like Obama, conservatives will breathlessly call her the anti christ and the GOP will pander to it

oik

BoatMad wrote: »

That only assumes that she will not make a great president, I think she sees the lessons of what happened to Obama who over promised and under delivered and she has been very careful not to fall into that trap . With any degree of competence ( and Clinton has loads of competence ) she could make the presidency work , she has a good working relations with republicans, ( in fact in reality she's far closer to mainstream republicans , then the democrat vision of sanders for example ) and she's a very experienced politican.

I suspect she will get two terms , and thats a long time to undo "unpopularity ", sure she's not her husband, but some of it will rub off. IN the meantime republicans will have to sort out their house and remove the looney right, I suspect 2020 will be the earliest point where they might be electable

My only hope for a Clinton presidency is that her progressive base gets disillusioned when they find out she's not with them, and she brings some teeth to America's foreign policy.

She would be a far better Commander in Chief than Obama. The only risk is where her loyalties lie.

BoatMad

oik wrote: »

My only hope for a Clinton presidency is that her progressive base gets disillusioned when they find out she's not with them, and she brings some teeth to America's foreign policy.

She would be a far better Commander in Chief than Obama. The only risk is where her loyalties lie.

she is certainly less liberal then she is presented in the media, This is of course the democrats issue, they tend to have policies that are ( in a world context) quite socially progressive, but dont have the support base to actually implement and support them.

But clinton is far more a centralist republican then a democrat in reality, and as C-in-C, I think she will be far more wary of involving the US in further wars that it cannot succeed in and I think she has less time for this Muslim terror fear thing then most

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Religious leaders of Islam would argue differently, and wouldn't it be just like a terrorist organization to claim religious precedent to justify their war? If they invoke Islam in their cause, they can attempt to tap into anyone of fighting strength among 1.6 Billion followers of Islam. If they are seen as an extremist, invalid terror group, that pool of potential recruits severely diminishes. You can't declare war on 1.6 Billion people's ideology and expect to win either the moral high ground, or the war itself. That was the message from the GWB years, The Obama years, and I dare say even the Clinton and GHWB years I would have to reckon.

You want to stop WWIII? Don't declare war on 1.6 Billion people.



Ah sure jayziz isn't that Rosy tinted history there. The Irish came because they were starving, the Jews came because they were being killed, and you don't think there's any comparison between Syrians who are seeing their homes, towns, and livelihoods overrun with not just civil war but from armed intervention from forces like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States? Themselves being killed? Starving?

But sure we have to label them all threats because they aren't going hungry from a lack of potatoes or being taxed by 'the man'.

This goes back to the previous point: once you assume you're at war with an entire world religion, your list of enemies is enormous. Good luck fighting that with what, $20T in debt and an army that is manned by a fraction of 350 million people and funded by a fraction of their collective wealth and economics? I salute you, for the dissonance it takes to view Muslims being killed by 'Muslims', who want to flee from the theater of war, as the extremists they're being killed by... I can see why the smart money is trying to colonize Mars.

The men who attacked America on 9/11 were very much radical Islamists. Their version of Islam is as valid as anyone else even if the majority of the billion do not agree with them. The Quran provides plenty of arguments for Muslims to attack unbelievers and if you look at the mess that region is in no wonder they take up the cause. America backs Israel over the Palestinians. Syria has grievances over the Golan heights. The Kurds don't have a state of their own and Turkey a NATO state is detaining hundreds of people.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The men who attacked America on 9/11 were very much radical Islamists.

Did you interview them?

Their version of Islam is as valid as anyone else even if the majority of the billion do not agree with them.

Ah, the self-contradiction. Why then declare war on Islam and not war on Jihadists, as is already the case.

The Quran provides plenty of arguments for Muslims to attack unbelievers and if you look at the mess that region is in no wonder they take up the cause. America backs Israel over the Palestinians. Syria has grievances over the Golan heights. The Kurds don't have a state of their own and Turkey a NATO state is detaining hundreds of people.

So which is it do we stop backing Israel or fight Islam. Decisions Decisions.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Did you interview them? Ah, the self-contradiction. Why then declare war on Islam and not war on Jihadists, as is already the case.



So which is it do we stop backing Israel or fight Islam. Decisions Decisions.

Most of the men who died on 9/11 the Jihadists that is were Saudi Arabians. Not only that they were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Zero came from the region currently under ISIS control and many of the fighters that presently hate America had any prior mistrust for America. They hated the Godless Russians and the Sexy French.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Did you interview them? Ah, the self-contradiction. Why then declare war on Islam and not war on Jihadists, as is already the case.



So which is it do we stop backing Israel or fight Islam. Decisions Decisions.

So many actions that could be taken but are chosen not to be taken.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

So many actions that could be taken but are chosen not to be taken.

You have proposals?

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

You have proposals?

Don't see why i have to since i'm not the President of a country but since your going there i'd start with recognizing the state of Palestine. Followed by that I would get all the heads of states from the various Islamic countries together. The stupid idea of throwing Syria out of the Arab League was incredible shortsighted. Get the Syrians, Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians & Egyptians all talking to one another. Find common ground among the various factions. America along with Europe and others could facilitate this. Hell of a lot better than bombing these places.

oik

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Don't see why i have to since i'm not the President of a country but since your going there i'd start with recognizing the state of Palestine. Followed by that I would get all the heads of states from the various Islamic countries together. The stupid idea of throwing Syria out of the Arab League was incredible shortsighted. Get the Syrians, Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians & Egyptians all talking to one another. Find common ground among the various factions. America along with Europe and others could facilitate this. Hell of a lot better than bombing these places.

And what if various countries refuse to meet without a list of preconditions?

It's not as simple as getting everyone in a room and hashing it out.

KingBrian2

oik wrote: »

And what if various countries refuse to meet without a list of preconditions?

It's not as simple as getting everyone in a room and hashing it out.

It never is going to be simple. When Israel was talking with Palestine the whole Intifada broke out in between the talks. So much bad blood has emerged in recent years it looks bad however we have violent Jihadi sects that pose a deadly threat to the economies and states of the region. Saudi Arabia is using Iraq as a battleground against Iran. Proxy fighters in Syria, Yemen & Libya for the Iranians are fueling sectarian killings. Muslim leaders have to cooperate or the killings will consume their countries. Not like with Israel the Muslims need each other to defeat the Jihadi terrorists.