FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center 2016 (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center 2016
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We don't have one of these yet. Is that a good thing? I don't know.

I hope Trump loses. Don't vote for Trump.

Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
but trump talks tough and says his mind and hates minorities and has lots of great ideas and is an excellent businessman and picks the right people and really hates minorities. he will make america great again and build a ten billion dollar wall and make mexico pay for it and deport muslims and show the crooked media who's boss. trump 2016: i'm white
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is wrong with the country that these two are our options?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zlogdanbr
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, you know my opinion about liberals and democrats and the left, but I would rather have evil Hillary as queen of the the world than Trump, demagogue and crazy of stone.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I think he'll make a much better President than either Clinton or Trump.
Posts: 2923 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
What is wrong with the country that these two are our options?

First of all, you might try not buying into the decades of GOP smear.

But to your larger point, in order to be a successful politician in a democracy, one has to make a lot of compromises. People are often too lazy/busy/un-informed to understand the nuances and context. The press which is supposed to educate us makes more money by ginning up exciting headlines, fear, and controversy than it does by educating. People with money control too much of what the public hears.

That is a start.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My mistake for asking
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why was that a mistake? I gave you an honest answer albeit an incomplete one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I buy zero GOP smear...I should just pick a different spot to talk politics.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So tell me what you think is so very wrong with Sec. Clinton. You may make valid points.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, she has pneumonia, for one.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Dont Know] A lot of people I trust say she lied about important stuff...


Please read the following and take it under consideration when replying:

I don't kno anything about the 2016 elections or the candidates, beyond who I voted for who did not get the nomination.

I can see how my comment seems like an inherent criticism...mostly I think Clinton will make an ok president...I just hope she wins, as Trump is not to be trusted with the U.S. military.

But I would have preferred someone more middle of the road

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am a Clinton supporter, fear the idea of what a President Trump would do. He's proven to be vindictive, petty, and enjoys the use and abuse of power.

But I can make a valid point about the problem with Secretary Clinton, and it does involve her health.

She has a trust issue, and I am beginning to fear, its that she doesn't trust us. Its hard to trust someone who doesn't trust you.

When she became unable to continue her campaign because of the pneumonia, she didn't trust the people enough to tell them. She made excuses, and told lies, about not feeling bad, being dehydrated, being OK. She was afraid that any admitting of illness on her part would be used against her, so she didn't trust the people with the truth.

This was what she did wrong with the email server. This is what she did wrong with Benghazi. Her first impulse, her first statement, is to cover up any mistakes.

I don't blame her. The right has a way of manufacturing scary conspiracies out of minor mistakes. From Death Panels to She was Asleep During Benghazi, to Whitewater, any slight misstep is blown out of proportion. Her reaction to these mistakes, missteps, and bad luck is to deny, get angry, build walls, and by trying to spin them away, build distrust.

Still, her mistakes seem...common. Her brilliance with policy is undeniable. You may not like her politics, but she has not gone out of her way to hurt people.

Mr. Trump, who takes glee in using his catch phrase, "Your Fired!", who lied to students of Trump University, who demonstrated his pettiness with "I'm not ready to support Paul Ryan", and who has a way to close and supportive appreciation with Czar Vladimir Putin has gone out of his way to hurt people.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She's also a lot more hawkish than she's given credit for.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just mind the attacks against her body...if one has a problem with her policy or her ideology or her character or track record...but the size of her breasts and thighs? Not cool.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where exactly are you having your political discussions?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott, yes she is more hawkish than she lets on, but over the weekend Donald Trump said he'd attack Iranian ships in international waters because the crew made rude gestures to our navy ships and thier crew. That's not Hawkish, that's psycho. I don't want my relatives in the military dieing in a war because some punk Iranian flew the bird.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trump is attacked often for the way he looks.

They're both pretty hideous.

Actually, as a species, humans are kind of hideous. Big head, spindly limbs, squinty eyeballs...it's a wonder any of us find mates.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't want my relatives in the military dieing in a war because some punk Iranian flew the bird.
An Iranian punk band is EXACTLY what the Middle East needs, actually.

**

I agree with you about Trump, by the way.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Where exactly are you having your political discussions?

There is meme about KFC is having a Hilary special...one left wing, two small breasts and two fat thighs...it's a meme, her body isn't a point of discussion
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Points against Clinton.

1) She's an establishment politician. The mess we're in, she's been in the halls of power while that was happening.

2) Related to 1), she's very cozy with Wall Street. She takes their money both for speeches and in campaign contributions. I don't foresee her doing anything to fight those leeches.

3) As noted, she's a warhawk. Iraq, Syria, Libya. All disasters, and all supported by her. What was the last military action that she actually opposed? Vietnam? And I'm just guessing on that due to her age at the time.

4) She has become extremely skittish of the press, the media, and publicity in general. The attacks on her, both deserved and undeserved, have caused this, and I have absolutely no faith in her willingness to be transparent and open about things.

5) Like her husband, her policy positions seem to be wedded to the polls. Iraq, gay marriage, etc. I much prefer my politicians to do what they feel is right regardless of how it impacts their reelection chances. Which neatly explains my love affair with Sanders. We don't elect politicians to do what we say and act on the whim of the electorate; we elect them because we believe that they have the wisdom to make good decisions in difficult situations where the future can't be seen.

-----

As for body shaming, one stupid joke passed around Facebook hardly equals the naked statues of Trump put up in five major cities. If that were done to Clinton the same liberals snickering behind their hands about the statues would be screaming bloody murder.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While that's certainly true, I think Trump is still far ahead in terms of body attacks over his public career.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well of course he is, but he's a vile person. I like to think that my side is better, and am all too often diappointed when they don't act that way.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I looked up the nude statues (he has been castrated btw, or as Ginger, the artist behind the statues says, "The emperor has no balls") ...

The part I don't get is...
quote:
They were placed there by the anarchist collective Indecline, which among other projects has also glued the names of black men killed by police officers onto blank stars in the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
...how this group represents "your side"...Are you an anarchist?

http://time.com/4458022/donald-trump-nude-statues/

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tried really hard to not snicker gleefully at the statues.

I failed.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, Stone Wolf. I'm a liberal. I'm against the crooked paid for government that is represented by both sides at the moment. What I meant, and what I thought was pretty obvious, was that I was of the belief that my side (Liberal/Democrat) was not representative of the things that I dislike, and when they prove that they actually are, that I find it especially disapointing as time goes by that the two sides aren't all that different.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I tried really hard to not snicker gleefully at the statues.

I failed.

Fair enough.

How would you react to naked statues of HRC?

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
No, Stone Wolf. I'm a liberal. I'm against the crooked paid for government that is represented by both sides at the moment. What I meant, and what I thought was pretty obvious, was that I was of the belief that my side (Liberal/Democrat) was not representative of the things that I dislike, and when they prove that they actually are, that I find it especially disapointing as time goes by that the two sides aren't all that different.

Hmmmm...I'm a middle of the road extremist...so I kinda expext both outliers to be out of focus. [Dont Know]
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
We don't have one of these yet. Is that a good thing? I don't know.

I hope Trump loses. Don't vote for Trump.

I've thought about making one of these every week for the last few months.

Couldn't bring myself to do it this year.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I tried really hard to not snicker gleefully at the statues.

I failed.

Fair enough.

How would you react to naked statues of HRC?

With disgust for the creator.

As Rakeesh pointed out, Trump has spent a good chunk of his public life mocking physical features of women and his opponents. HRC has not. To put it another way, how do you feel about locking up a criminal behind bars for X amount of years? How do you feel about locking up an innocent person for the same amount of years?

I generally don't support bullying a bully, which is what the statues represented. It doesn't do anything productive. But he can go suck on it.

Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't blame you.

It's a truly sad state when we're stuck with Clinton versus Trump. We're either going to get punched in the face or get a bullet in the face.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Points against Clinton.

3) As noted, she's a warhawk. Iraq, Syria, Libya. All disasters, and all supported by her. What was the last military action that she actually opposed? Vietnam? And I'm just guessing on that due to her age at the time.


I don't dispute the basic narrative of her as a warhark. But I do perhaps dispute this version of history.

She did not, to my recollection, support the Iraq War. She did vote for the resolution that ended up being the authorizing document for Bush to take us to war, but she was very much against the war at the time and was a critic throughout its execution. She voted for the Senate resolution because she thought it made the American hand stronger at the negotiating table for a diplomatic solution. And that's not a cop out, that's how negotiating works. Carrots and sticks work a lot better if your stick is actually a stick. The UN needed a push to press for inspections with the threat of war looming. What she didn't know, and what most people didn't know AT THE TIME, was that Bush literally lied to Congress about the situation in Iraq, and never intended to use the resolution for the diplomatic route. Trusting her president was, as it turns out, pretty naive, but it wasn't a vote in support of war.

And thus far we really haven't done much of anything in Syria that's made it at all worse than it would have been if we'd done zero. In fact, you could argue (and many have) that Syria came about because of our INACTION, not because of anything Hillary supported. In fact, she was pushing for Obama to do something earlier in the conflict when it might have made a difference. I don't know if it actually would have or not, but the current American policy towards Syria is not one of her making or really one of her choosing or support. Syria is a mess for a lot of reasons, but none of them are a result of something Hillary supported.

Libya, I'll grant you, was terribly handled. But I'm not sure we can lay that at her feet. She supported an intervention to stop what at the time looked like a genocide in the making. She isn't in charge of the armed forces or the executive branch, and would not have been responsible for planning or executing for the aftermath of the initial action. Clearly a LOT of people messed up on that one pretty badly. She's not blameless in that one, but I also think it's hard to hold people accountable for things they don't have enough direct control over.

Hillary is a warhawk, at least it's a persona she's built up over time whether she wanted to or not. But at least her foreign policy seems to operate within some sort of doctrine. These days, that's apparently a pretty huge pro.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
I don't blame you.

It's a truly sad state when we're stuck with Clinton versus Trump. We're either going to get punched in the face or get a bullet in the face.

Aaaand I will take the face punch for 500, Alex.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will take the bullet.

Sho'nuff

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I understand Heisenberg's points against Ms. Clinton, but lets compare them to Mr. Trump.

Points against Clinton vs Trump on those same points.

1) She's an establishment politician. The mess we're in, she's been in the halls of power while that was happening. Trump has been the wealthy briber of politicians who brags how he knows how to manipulate that system. He is not an establishment politician, he is an establishment civilian who created his fortune by abusing that system and the politicians its corrupted.

The establishment politicians may be the ho's, but Trump has been the pimp, and you can't fight sex trafficking by putting the pimps in charge.

2) Related to 1), she's very cozy with Wall Street. She takes their money both for speeches and in campaign contributions. I don't foresee her doing anything to fight those leeches. Trump is one of the leeches. He owes or does/has done business with most of those on Wall Street. Their kids grew up with his kids. How outside Wall Street is he?

3) As noted, she's a warhawk. Iraq, Syria, Libya. All disasters, and all supported by her. What was the last military action that she actually opposed? Vietnam? And I'm just guessing on that due to her age at the time--As Darth noted earlier, Trump has been even more of a warhawk. Just this week he threatened to attack the Iranian navy in international waters because they were disrespectful of our troops. He has threatened to carpet bomb parts of Syria where ISIS has a presence, without care of the vast majority of innocent civilians living there. He wants all our friends and allies to nuke-up. He has gone after every threat to the US from China to Palestine--except for the recently aggressive Russia. Putin, a true Warhawk, Trump admires and wants to back down too.

4) She has become extremely skittish of the press, the media, and publicity in general. The attacks on her, both deserved and undeserved, have caused this, and I have absolutely no faith in her willingness to be transparent and open about things. Trump is likewise skittish of any press where they ask him questions of import. He has bunker-ed down in Fox News for the past two months, and personally attacked reporters who give him hard questions. I have NO faith in his transparency either.

5) Like her husband, her policy positions seem to be wedded to the polls. Iraq, gay marriage, etc. I much prefer my politicians to do what they feel is right regardless of how it impacts their reelection chances. Which neatly explains my love affair with Sanders. We don't elect politicians to do what we say and act on the whim of the electorate; we elect them because we believe that they have the wisdom to make good decisions in difficult situations where the future can't be seen. Meanwhile Mr. Trump's position changes on an hourly basis. He tells people exactly what they want to hear, and tells the next group exactly what they want to hear even if they are opposite. He has proclaimed that he will get rid of the deficit within a year of taking office. He has also proclaimed he will spend more on the VA, and greatly increase spending on the military, and cut taxes--especially those corporate taxes he faces. How can he do all of this? He spoke to a group of business owners in February and said that international competition is good for the country, "When the American worker realizes that you can move your business overseas, they will realize they need to work for less." Two days later he denied he ever suggested that American workers should make less money.

Yes, there are questions about how great Ms. Clinton will be. Yet it seems that Mr. Trump fails those same questions by a much larger margin.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
What she didn't know, and what most people didn't know AT THE TIME, was that Bush literally lied to Congress about the situation in Iraq, and never intended to use the resolution for the diplomatic route. Trusting her president was, as it turns out, pretty naive, but it wasn't a vote in support of war.

I'd like to add something here, *most* people at the time knew Bush was a liar. Let's not forget how amazingly unpopular he was at the time with most people. They probably didn't know precisely what he was lying about, but they definitely didn't believe the guy. This Pew poll is the closest poll in time that I could find and it shows that majorities rejected that "The US believes the Saddam is a threat" in the UK, France, Germany, and Russia. It was this way in Canada if I recall correctly as well. Keep in mind that four of these countries are NATO allies of the US and they still didn't really believe the US, we're not even including the huge numbers of people skeptical of Bush outside of NATO.

I mention this not just for the historical record, but it does go to how we should see Clinton. For her to believe someone that was so transparently wrong, that so many people in the world managed to see through, it does go to Clinton's judgement and gullibility.

Also someone would like to add more context on that Iraq War vote (my emphasis)
quote:
I do just have to say this -- the legislation, the authorization had the title, an authorization to use U.S. military force, U.S. military force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/dem.debate.transcript/

This does feed nicely into Libya.

quote:
In one pointed conversation, the officials suggested Mrs. Clinton was engaging in the same misleading tactics as the George W. Bush administration when it went to war with Iraq in 2003 claiming the country had large stocks weapons of mass destruction, a claim that proved to be inaccurate.
...
Mrs. Clinton ultimately became the most powerful advocate for using U.S. military force to dethrone Gadhafi, both in her closed-door meetings with Mr. Obama, who ultimately made the decision, and in public with allies and the news media.
...
The intelligence community had few facts to back up Mrs. Clintonís audacious predictions, officials told The Times.
In fact, the Pentagonís judgment was that Gadhafi was unlikely to risk world outrage by inflicting large civilian casualties as he cracked down on the rebels based in Benghazi, the officials said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/29/hillary-clinton-libya-war-genocide-narrative-rejec/


Ominous for the future, I'd say. It's one thing to make a mistake in judgement, even if its a really obvious one. To not learn from it, that's another thing altogether.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Trump has been even more of a warhawk.

On this point I'd have to disagree. The guy has a big mouth, but keep in mind he's also said a whole lot of isolationist rhetoric, saying he would only defend countries that would pay for it, becoming more conciliatory with Russia, etc.

In fact, the Clinton campaign has cashed in on this themselves
quote:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trumpís know-nothing isolationism has led many neocons to flee the Republican ticket. And some, like Kagan, are actively helping Clinton, whose hawkishness in many ways resembles their own.

The event raised $25,000 for Clinton. Two rising stars in the Democratic foreign policy establishment, Amanda Sloat and Julianne Smith, also spoke.

The way they described Clintonís foreign policy vision suggested that if elected president in November, she will escalate tensions with Russia, double down on military belligerence in the Middle East, and generally ignore the American publicís growing hostility to intervention.

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sho'nuff
Member
Member # 3214

 - posted      Profile for Sho'nuff   Email Sho'nuff         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I will take the bullet.

Sho'nuff

I am sick of hearing these BS superman stories about the WASSSAAA legendary Bruce Leroy catching bullets with his teeth. CATCHES BULLETS WITH HIS TEETH? Please.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sho'nuff's Posse
Member
Member # 3649

 - posted      Profile for Sho'nuff's Posse           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You tell him Sho! You tell him!
Posts: 25 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
I understand Heisenberg's points against Ms. Clinton, but lets compare them to Mr. Trump.

Points against Clinton vs Trump on those same points.

1) She's an establishment politician. The mess we're in, she's been in the halls of power while that was happening. Trump has been the wealthy briber of politicians who brags how he knows how to manipulate that system. He is not an establishment politician, he is an establishment civilian who created his fortune by abusing that system and the politicians its corrupted.

The establishment politicians may be the ho's, but Trump has been the pimp, and you can't fight sex trafficking by putting the pimps in charge.

2) Related to 1), she's very cozy with Wall Street. She takes their money both for speeches and in campaign contributions. I don't foresee her doing anything to fight those leeches. Trump is one of the leeches. He owes or does/has done business with most of those on Wall Street. Their kids grew up with his kids. How outside Wall Street is he?

3) As noted, she's a warhawk. Iraq, Syria, Libya. All disasters, and all supported by her. What was the last military action that she actually opposed? Vietnam? And I'm just guessing on that due to her age at the time--As Darth noted earlier, Trump has been even more of a warhawk. Just this week he threatened to attack the Iranian navy in international waters because they were disrespectful of our troops. He has threatened to carpet bomb parts of Syria where ISIS has a presence, without care of the vast majority of innocent civilians living there. He wants all our friends and allies to nuke-up. He has gone after every threat to the US from China to Palestine--except for the recently aggressive Russia. Putin, a true Warhawk, Trump admires and wants to back down too.

4) She has become extremely skittish of the press, the media, and publicity in general. The attacks on her, both deserved and undeserved, have caused this, and I have absolutely no faith in her willingness to be transparent and open about things. Trump is likewise skittish of any press where they ask him questions of import. He has bunker-ed down in Fox News for the past two months, and personally attacked reporters who give him hard questions. I have NO faith in his transparency either.

5) Like her husband, her policy positions seem to be wedded to the polls. Iraq, gay marriage, etc. I much prefer my politicians to do what they feel is right regardless of how it impacts their reelection chances. Which neatly explains my love affair with Sanders. We don't elect politicians to do what we say and act on the whim of the electorate; we elect them because we believe that they have the wisdom to make good decisions in difficult situations where the future can't be seen. Meanwhile Mr. Trump's position changes on an hourly basis. He tells people exactly what they want to hear, and tells the next group exactly what they want to hear even if they are opposite. He has proclaimed that he will get rid of the deficit within a year of taking office. He has also proclaimed he will spend more on the VA, and greatly increase spending on the military, and cut taxes--especially those corporate taxes he faces. How can he do all of this? He spoke to a group of business owners in February and said that international competition is good for the country, "When the American worker realizes that you can move your business overseas, they will realize they need to work for less." Two days later he denied he ever suggested that American workers should make less money.

Yes, there are questions about how great Ms. Clinton will be. Yet it seems that Mr. Trump fails those same questions by a much larger margin.

I find myself having to repeat this seemingly everywhere, but my pointing out Clinton's faults is not the same as me endorsing Trump or even defending him. Trump is worse in seemingly every way then Clinton. She is by far the better choice. That does not make her a good choice.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll put it this way: the race is uncomfortably close. If what you're saying has a substantial chance of reducing anti-Trump turnout, shut the hell up.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No?

People deserve to know what they're electing. So why don't you shut the hell up about me shutting the hell up?

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You said you want Clinton to be elected over Trump, yet you are continuously "pointing out Clinton's faults". If this discourages some people from voting for her, what realistic purpose does it serve to continue to do so?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
No?

People deserve to know what they're electing. So why don't you shut the hell up about me shutting the hell up?

I never thought this would happen...but I agree w/ Heisenberg
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am completely unsurprised by that. While you two hold different positions on a number of topics, you're very closely aligned on the Dunning-Kruger scale.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GaalDornick:
You said you want Clinton to be elected over Trump, yet you are continuously "pointing out Clinton's faults". If this discourages some people from voting for her, what realistic purpose does it serve to continue to do so?

Because part of the issue here is that there is no good choice. There is only a less bad one. And if people want to act like Clinton is puppies and rainbows then it rubs me the wrong way. There are numerous serious issues with her. Let me put it like this; I'm of the opinion that anyone turned off enough by this to not want to vote Clinton will be inspired to still vote because of how much worse Trump is.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The DunningĖKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is.
Nice Tom, super nice.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A vote for Hilary is a vote against Trump.

I'm not pro Clinton, in fact I'm against her, but I'm a straight up Trump hater...if he gets his hands on our military, mark my words, something BAD will happen.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Let me put it like this; I'm of the opinion that anyone turned off enough by this to not want to vote Clinton will be inspired to still vote because of how much worse Trump is.

Anyone? Do you have any evidence of this?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sho'nuff:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
I will take the bullet.

Sho'nuff

I am sick of hearing these BS superman stories about the WASSSAAA legendary Bruce Leroy catching bullets with his teeth. CATCHES BULLETS WITH HIS TEETH? Please.
Who's the master?

I am.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  12  13  14   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Codeô is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2