2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Domestic policy is less likely to kill hundreds of thousands of people as foreign policy is.

US Foreign policy is affecting Europe directly due to a war that people like Clinton voted for and a war she convinced Obama to start. It all has led to a migrant crisis, terrorism in Europe, turning Europe more right wing which affect our domestic policy on this continent, could be argued it contributed to Brexit.

What about the Democrat's president's Treasury secretary who went against what the IMF argued for which was some of the bondholders would be burned, but US domestic policy has all us Irish paying off all the bondholders.

Thing is a Democrat president has not made things better, it has made things worse in Europe.

So are you interested in comparing her to other secretaries of state or not? Right now you're just going on more meandering tangents which at this point really do seem to be showing a seriously lack of any understanding of any of the situations in your end, and more just parroting of talking points you read somewhere. Please do prove me wrong.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She is miles ahead:

Few states there look a bit off tbh.

Amerika

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She is miles ahead:

There’s almost 100 days to go in this election. That’s an eternity in politics here. Plenty of time for more who-knows-what to come out which could change things in a heartbeat Such as the Clinton pay-to-play schemes with the Clinton Foundation while she served as SOS, more WikiLeaks releases, new Trump scandals, Trump possibly dropping out of the race and the GOP voting on a replacement, and the effects of the media going “Full Palin” on Trump on a daily basis, and even more. Anything can happen that could swing the election in this crazy race on a dime which seems to be coming down to us having to choose between the third and fifth levels of hell from Dante's Inferno.

Billy86

Latest polls show Clinton pulling away at the moment; even Rasmussen has her in the lead.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

There’s almost 100 days to go in this election.

Yes indeed, I expect Trump to lose by a lot more than that.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

At least Hillary is honest...

Wow. If that weak rubbish is the best you can do then my support for Hillary just got a lot stronger.

Don't forget Gary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrY3uEElh08

Is that Permabear on stage at the end? :pac:

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't forget Gary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrY3uEElh08

Is that Permabear on stage at the end? :pac:

Believe it, or not... but the Libertarian Party isn’t just a bunch of Republicans who want to smoke pot. Polls are indicating Gary Johnson might be taking more support away from Clinton than Trump.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

So are you interested in comparing her to other secretaries of state or not? Right now you're just going on more meandering tangents which at this point really do seem to be showing a seriously lack of any understanding of any of the situations in your end, and more just parroting of talking points you read somewhere. Please do prove me wrong.

I am not parroting what I read elsewhere, I have my own opinions. Hillary has excessive baggage.

John Kerry has been so much better than Hillary, but Hillary is using a low standard.

Condoleezza Rice, the best Secretary of State the US had in a good while.

Colin Powell was like Hillary, lied to the world and helped destroy a nation.

Madeleine Albright, weak against terrorism and ineffective as she is in this interview where she calls Serbs disgusting:

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Wow. If that weak rubbish is the best you can do then my support for Hillary just got a lot stronger.

But if that was Trump video instead of a Hillary one, it would be getting thanked all around.

Was Hillary under gunfire in the Balkans as she claimed?
You must have loved the bit where Iraq was a great opportunity for US corporations to make big money.
Or where she as a Senator is against same sex marriage.
Maybe abortion being legal up to birth, how dare Republicans wanting to put limits on it.
Hiding her Goldman Sachs speeches.
Maybe you support her for being a Goldwater girl and against civil rights for black people.
Is this why you say "my support for Hillary just got a lot stronger"?

Hande hoche!

See that the Republicans are improving in their cash raising for the campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/trump-fundraising.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not parroting what I read elsewhere, I have my own opinions. Hillary has excessive baggage.
Condoleezza Rice, the best Secretary of State the US had in a good while.

Hold on hold on hold on, so you saying because things have not been good in the middle east the last few years, Clinton was a failure as SOS. But Rice on the other hand, an absolutely key and central part of the Bush administration who caused the whole mess, as well as part of the White House Iraq Group who's purpose was to 'sell' the lies that led to the illegal war was 'one of the best in a good while'.

The same Condoleeza Rice who was talking about war with Iran?
The same Condoleeza Rice who in a meeting fobbed off CIA director George Tenet's warnings about an impending terror attack?
The same Condoleeza Rice who then lied about what took place during this meeting?
The same Condoleeza Rice who was the only member of his war cabinet that Bush asked about going to war with Iraq, to which she said yes?
The same Condoleeza Rice who was in favour of Rumsfeld's 'all out war' plan?
The same Condoleeza Rice who lied about WMDs in Iraq?
The same Condoleeza Rice who equated Saddam Hussein (horrible as he was) with Islamic terrorists?
The same Condoleeza Rice who as early as October 2001 was badgering for war in Iraq?
The same Condoleeza Rice who accused Syria of colluding with terrorists, while at the same time saying the 'war on terror' should have as wide a scope as possible?
The same Condoleeza Rice who said rogue states who they suspect of attempting to use WMDs should face "national obliteration"?
The same Condoleeza Rice who played a central role in BushCo's "team America, world police" craic that saw their national popularity plummet, with comments like “The world is a messy place, and someone has to clean it up.”
The same Condoleeza Rice that right up until the end of her tenure was still callign the Iraq war a 'success' and that Saddam 'had to go, for stability'?

Are you aware of how US relations and how the world viewed them changed from 2001-2009, over her time as chief national security advisor and later SOS?

Spare me. But thanks for confirming you have an issue with Hillary Clinton on the basis that she is Hillary Clinton, and not on the basis of what she has done.

Amerika

On Monday, Hillary Clinton says in a speech she plans on raising taxes on the middle class. The people in the crowd enthusiastically cheer her comment. And people have the audacity to say Trump's supporters are out of touch.

One good thing... At least this time she's telling the truth.

RobertKK

Amerika wrote: »

On Monday, Hillary Clinton says in a speech she plans on raising taxes on the middle class. The people in the crowd enthusiastically cheer her comment. And people have the audacity to say Trump's supporters are out of touch.

One good thing... At least this time she's telling the truth.

With Warren Buffett behind her and looking so happy.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Hold on hold on hold on, so you saying because things have not been good in the middle east the last few years, Clinton was a failure as SOS. But Rice on the other hand, an absolutely key and central part of the Bush administration who caused the whole mess, as well as part of the White House Iraq Group who's purpose was to 'sell' the lies that led to the illegal war was 'one of the best in a good while'.

The same Condoleeza Rice who was talking about war with Iran?
The same Condoleeza Rice who in a meeting fobbed off CIA director George Tenet's warnings about an impending terror attack?
The same Condoleeza Rice who then lied about what took place during this meeting?
The same Condoleeza Rice who was the only member of his war cabinet that Bush asked about going to war with Iraq, to which she said yes?
The same Condoleeza Rice who was in favour of Rumsfeld's 'all out war' plan?
The same Condoleeza Rice who lied about WMDs in Iraq?
The same Condoleeza Rice who equated Saddam Hussein (horrible as he was) with Islamic terrorists?
The same Condoleeza Rice who as early as October 2001 was badgering for war in Iraq?
The same Condoleeza Rice who accused Syria of colluding with terrorists, while at the same time saying the 'war on terror' should have as wide a scope as possible?
The same Condoleeza Rice who said rogue states who they suspect of attempting to use WMDs should face "national obliteration"?
The same Condoleeza Rice who played a central role in BushCo's "team America, world police" craic that saw their national popularity plummet, with comments like “The world is a messy place, and someone has to clean it up.”
The same Condoleeza Rice that right up until the end of her tenure was still callign the Iraq war a 'success' and that Saddam 'had to go, for stability'?

Are you aware of how US relations and how the world viewed them changed from 2001-2009, over her time as chief national security advisor and later SOS?

Spare me. But thanks for confirming you have an issue with Hillary Clinton on the basis that she is Hillary Clinton, and not on the basis of what she has done.

But under Condoleezza Rice Libya gave up all their WMD and were working with the west, and Gaddafi had a crush on her...
No wonder given the crazy secretary of state that followed her.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

But under Condoleezza Rice Libya gave up all their WMD and were working with the west, and Gaddafi had a crush on her...
No wonder given the crazy secretary of state that followed her.

Exactly like I said, you're as eager to overlook the bad and focus only on the good with comparing, as you are to focus only on the bad and ignore all the good with Clinton.

Clinton's sanctions on Iran forced them to come to the table for talks and calm down on the nukes they were very close to completing. Oh look, now her whole tenure was peaches and roses by your standard!

And I hate to break it to you, but the Libyan process began under your best friend, Bill.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-libya-gave-up-on-the-bomb/

The roots of the recent progress with Libya go back not to the eve of the Iraq war, but to the Bush administration’s first year in office. Indeed, to be fair, some credit should even be given to the second Clinton administration. Tired of international isolation and economic sanctions, the Libyans decided in the late 1990’s to seek normalized relations with the United States, and held secret discussions with Clinton administration officials to convey that message. The Clinton White House made clear that no movement toward better relations was possible until Libya met its responsibilities stemming from the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

These discussions, along with mediation by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, produced a breakthrough: Libya turned over two intelligence officers implicated in the Pan Am 103 attack to the Netherlands for trial by a Scottish court, and in 1999 Washington acquiesced to the suspension of United Nations sanctions against Libya

Funny enough, Condoleeza herself is quite approving of Hillary's time as SOS. She was not so fond of Obama's "leading from behind" though, hinting that she would have wanted more direct action and more of the warfare that she had such a key role in during her time as chief national security advisor and secretary of state.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/29/13552011-rice-hillary-clinton-has-done-a-fine-job?lite

“Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said her successor, Hillary Clinton, has done a ‘fine’ job. It’s the overall strategy of the Obama administration, Rice said, that has led the U.S. astray. ‘I think she’s done a fine job. The problem isn’t Hilary Clinton, who’s great,’ Rice told members of Ohio’s delegation to the Republican National Convention. ‘The problem is that we’ve chosen to speak with a muted voice about America’s role in the world. We’ve chosen to try to lead from behind. That’s an oxymoron in my mind.’”

Condi isn't the only Republican who thought Clinton did well as SOS, mind you...

Jeb Bush presented Hillary Clinton with an award for having “dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy.”

Lindsey Graham: “She’s dedicated to her job. She loves her country. And she understands the issues, and there are a lot of them in her job to understand. But more importantly, I think she is a good role model. […] [She is] one of the most effective secretary of states, greatest ambassadors for the American people that I have known in my lifetime.”

Marco Rubio to Secretary Clinton: “I want to share sentiments of my other colleagues of tremendous respect for the hard work and service that you’ve put in on behalf of our country, both as a member of this chamber and then, obviously, now in—in the role you have.”

Rick Perry on Hillary Clinton: “Very, very capable public servant. Great Secretary of State, first lady, and she’s very capable.”

Henry Kissinger: “[Hillary Clinton] ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “Secretary Clinton is admired and respected around the world. She and I have been friends for many years. We used to travel together… So, I have – I admire the fact that she is admired throughout the world and a very effective Secretary of State.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): “I happen to like Hillary Clinton; I think she’s done a good job for the… secretary of state’s position, and I have high respect for her and think a great deal of her.”

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Thank you, Secretary Clinton, for your words of inspiration and for the magnificent job you do as the Secretary of State for our nation.”

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO): “[Hillary Clinton] is successful in her own right, no doubt about that, as a senator, successful as Secretary of State.”

Fmr. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) to Hillary Clinton: “You’ve, I think, taken an international leadership role in, I think, raising the pressure levels in Iran.”

Fmr. Gov. Jon Huntsman (R-UT): “I have to say she’s a very impressive public servant. […] And I have to say, I haven’t been around too many people as professional; as well-briefed. […] I have to say, she’s a very, very capable person.”

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

But under Condoleezza Rice Libya gave up all their WMD and were working with the west, and Gaddafi had a crush on her...
No wonder given the crazy secretary of state that followed her.

You mean the Condoleeza Rice that was still so obsessed with Cod War Politics that she missed the elephant in the room ??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/condi-rice-heres-your-911-smoking-gun_b_8430814.html

You just hate Clinton - by your definition 95% of US politicians are warmongers , but you only seem to have a problem with Hilary

Billy86

marienbad wrote: »

You mean the Condoleeza Rice that was still so obsessed with Cod War Politics that she missed the elephant in the room ??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/condi-rice-heres-your-911-smoking-gun_b_8430814.html

You just hate Clinton - by your definition 95% of US politicians are warmongers , but you only seem to have a problem with Hilary

No, he likes Hillary. Because of the Iran/nukes issue, RobertKK considers Hillary one of the best secretaries of state the US has had in quite some time. I mean, it's not like he's a hypocrite or anything.

Black Swan

This has been a rather extraordinary presidential election year. Is there still room for something extraordinary to occur before 8 November 2016, or is the election now locked between Trump and Clinton with no big surprises left? For Clinton we keep hearing rumours about some massive wikileaks disclosure that may collapse her candidacy, but what about Trump? Are there any hidden surprises that may occur in the coming weeks?

It's been suggested that Trump keeps getting distracted and off-message, continuously getting caught up in side-line controversial issues (Kahn controversy, etc.) having adverse effects on his candidacy, and well known billionaires have recently challenged Trump's self-proclaimed business success (Bloomberg, Buffett, Whitman) suggesting that's why Trump hides his tax return, defense lawyer attempts to have Donald Tump's prosecution dismissed for "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" have failed and defendant Trump will be tried, while several GOP candidates would not campaign with Donald Trump, perhaps because they are in close elections and fear they may lose their election by association with Trump, who knows?

Although only anecdotal, I was chatting with a friend over coffee who is a fan of the telly show Big Brother, and she suggested that because of Donald Trump's continued politically embarrassing statements that almost appear self-destructive, the GOP may make Donald Trump a pawn, and like a pawn, sacrifice him in the next few days (following the Olympics), replacing him with Paul Ryan, who is qualified and constitutionally 3rd in succession from the presidency today as Speaker of the House, and lacks the troublesome political baggage of Hillary Clinton. But I am uncertain how the GOP could do this, short of getting Donald Trump to resign from the Republican nomination, whereupon the GOP would have to replace him. In reply, I told her that Trump is a “textbook narcissist," who would never resign his Republican nomination.

Call Me Jimmy

Amerika wrote: »

On Monday, Hillary Clinton says in a speech she plans on raising taxes on the middle class. The people in the crowd enthusiastically cheer her comment. And people have the audacity to say Trump's supporters are out of touch.

One good thing... At least this time she's telling the truth.

Is this self-satire?

Sand

Black Swan wrote: »

In reply, I told her that Trump is a “textbook narcissist," who would never resign his Republican nomination.

Because he is a narcissist and facing a real trouncing (Clinton holds a 10 point lead) the only way for him to maintain his view of himself is to withdraw, claiming the election is rigged. He wasn't beaten, he was stabbed in the back by the Republicans, a great man dragged down by the jealousies and incompetence of lesser people. His fanbase will eat that right up.

Not saying he will withdraw, but its certainly possible. A narcissist will go to extreme lengths to avoid any situation where they are forced to confront their unrealistic view of themselves and their ability.

From a Democrat perspective the Republicans replacing Trump with literally any other human being would be disastrous news. Clinton is *loathed* by large swathes of the US, and even her support is lukewarm. Watching her attempting to deliver speeches is unnerving - she has this very odd habit of her eyes seeming to bulge or dart around as if she is being constantly startled by loud noises only she can hear. She would lose to any Republican candidate who is not Donald Trump.

Christy42

Black Swan wrote: »

This has been a rather extraordinary presidential election year. Is there still room for something extraordinary to occur before 8 November 2016, or is the election now locked between Trump and Clinton with no big surprises left? For Clinton we keep hearing rumours about some massive wikileaks disclosure that may collapse her candidacy, but what about Trump? Are there any hidden surprises that may occur in the coming weeks?

It's been suggested that Trump keeps getting distracted and off-message, continuously getting caught up in side-line controversial issues (Kahn controversy, etc.) having adverse effects on his candidacy, and well known billionaires have recently challenged Trump's self-proclaimed business success (Bloomberg, Buffett, Whitman) suggesting that's why Trump hides his tax return, defense lawyer attempts to have Donald Tump's prosecution dismissed for "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" have failed and defendant Trump will be tried, while several GOP candidates would not campaign with Donald Trump, perhaps because they are in close elections and fear they may lose their election by association with Trump, who knows?

Although only anecdotal, I was chatting with a friend over coffee who is a fan of the telly show Big Brother, and she suggested that because of Donald Trump's continued politically embarrassing statements that almost appear self-destructive, the GOP may make Donald Trump a pawn, and like a pawn, sacrifice him in the next few days (following the Olympics), replacing him with Paul Ryan, who is qualified and constitutionally 3rd in succession from the presidency today as Speaker of the House, and lacks the troublesome political baggage of Hillary Clinton. But I am uncertain how the GOP could do this, short of getting Donald Trump to resign from the Republican nomination, whereupon the GOP would have to replace him. In reply, I told her that Trump is a “textbook narcissist," who would never resign his Republican nomination.

I reckon Paul Ryan will stay away from this and position himself for 2020 as the man who reconstructs the GOP. I don't see him going into the race now which would be a big risk for him. I agree that Trump will be sacrificed but I imagine they want the votes to show that this doesn't work to help stop it in future.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

But if that was Trump video instead of a Hillary one, it would be getting thanked all around.

Was Hillary under gunfire in the Balkans as she claimed?

No, it's hardly something getting worked up over though.

You must have loved the bit where Iraq was a great opportunity for US corporations to make big money.

Didn't bother bother wasting enough time to see that part.

Or where she as a Senator is against same sex marriage.

As was the majority of the country. She has since changed her view, as has much of the country. Not that her views matter as same sex marriage is protected under the constitution.

Maybe abortion being legal up to birth, how dare Republicans wanting to put limits on it.

She didn't say that. Although the video does cut her off at an opportune moment, so that if you weren't paying attention it would look like she might have been about to say that.

Hiding her Goldman Sachs speeches.

I really find it hard to believe anyone genuinely cares about that.

Maybe you support her for being a Goldwater girl and against civil rights for black people.

She grew up in a Conservative household so there's no surprise she supported Goldwater.

You can in fact be in favour of civil rights for black Americans while simultaneously opposing certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act. Although I do get the impression that such nuance might be difficult to grasp for you.

It's also worth pointing out that you can support a candidate whilst opposing some of their policies. Just like a peace loving man such as yourself supports Trump whilst opposing his intentions to use nuclear weapons, commit war crimes and destabilising Eastern Europe.

Is this why you say "my support for Hillary just got a lot stronger"?

Yup.

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

This has been a rather extraordinary presidential election year. Is there still room for something extraordinary to occur before 8 November 2016, or is the election now locked between Trump and Clinton with no big surprises left? For Clinton we keep hearing rumours about some massive wikileaks disclosure that may collapse her candidacy, but what about Trump? Are there any hidden surprises that may occur in the coming weeks?

In theory? Johnson starts doing well in his home state, which elected him twice as Governor. If he does that, then people start worrying because if he actually wins it, and the other states split more or less equally between Clinton and Trump, he can theoretically become President in the following election. Thus, a focus from both Ds and Rs to try to reclaim voters who are leaning L.

InTheTrees

Suryavarman wrote: »

Not that her views matter as same sex marriage is protected under the constitution.

No. It isn't. It was made legal through a decision by the supreme court. It could just as easily be removed by a conservative majority in the supreme court deciding in some other case. Trump has said he will appoint conservative judges too.

It could also be ended through legislation from congress.

Clinton will not appoint conservative judges.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

In theory? Johnson starts doing well in his home state, which elected him twice as Governor. If he does that, then people start worrying because if he actually wins it, and the other states split more or less equally between Clinton and Trump, he can theoretically become President in the following election. Thus, a focus from both Ds and Rs to try to reclaim voters who are leaning L.

Interesting idea M, but I doubt that Johnson can win the 2016 presidential election 8 November 2016 in less than 100 days distant. For all practical purposes, today he is an unknown for the vast number of American voters across the country. He could draw a small percentage of voters from both parties nullifying his impact, but not a Ross Perot 3rd party affect on one party to where the other party wins, as occurred during the Bush vs Clinton election. Furthermore, I've heard Johnson speak, and he is not a charismatic speaker, who might all of a sudden enthrall the voters as a rapidly emerging dark horse alternative to boring Clinton or loud mouthed Trump. Further, I do not think that Johnson will scare the 2 dominant party nominees, rather they may both continue to adopt Bernie Sanders platform ideas in competition for Sanders independents. Of course stranger things have happened during this particular election, but methinks Johnson does not have a ghost of a chance to win 2016.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

In theory? Johnson starts doing well in his home state, which elected him twice as Governor. If he does that, then people start worrying because if he actually wins it, and the other states split more or less equally between Clinton and Trump, he can theoretically become President in the following election. Thus, a focus from both Ds and Rs to try to reclaim voters who are leaning L.

What chance of that? Go on, stick a percentage on it.

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

On Monday, Hillary Clinton says in a speech she plans on raising taxes on the middle class. The people in the crowd enthusiastically cheer her comment. And people have the audacity to say Trump's supporters are out of touch.

One good thing... At least this time she's telling the truth.

Sounds like she said "aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class" would make more sense in the context of the speech also.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

On Monday, Hillary Clinton says in a speech she plans on raising taxes on the middle class. The people in the crowd enthusiastically cheer her comment. And people have the audacity to say Trump's supporters are out of touch.

One good thing... At least this time she's telling the truth.

She clearly says "We aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class".

Mr Freeze

Brian? wrote: »

She clearly says "We aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class".

She definitely says aren't.