2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 09:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Including....

That means other options too.

So you concede it doesn't say war anywhere and the decision was not made to go to war with Iraq until Rice and Bush did so in their meeting together. Good. That's what I've been trying to tell you, over and over, for months on end.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 09:21PM

marienbad wrote: »

Robert your hatred of HRC in actually quite outlandish , you need to step back a bit .

She has only held an executive office position for 4 years and yet you saddle her with responsibility for all that is worst in the USA .

What is your opinion of Bill Clinton ?

You are reading that all wrong.
I am not blaming Hillary for that, I am saying she said regime and the options for regime change in Iraq became US foreign policy under the Clinton administration.

If you disagree with that, then you are saying Hillary is lying.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 09:23PM

Billy86 wrote: »

So you concede it doesn't say war anywhere and the decision was not made to go to war with Iraq until Rice and Bush did so in their meeting together. Good. That's what I've been trying to tell you, over and over, for months on end.

If i gave you €100 including a €50 note, does that mean you only get €50?

I am saying it was policy since the Clinton administration and it was during the Bush administration that the policy was carried out, as Hillary said it became US foreign policy back in 1998.

Permabear · 03-10-2016 09:28PM

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 09:30PM

RobertKK wrote: »

If i gave you €100 including a €50 note, does that mean you only get €50?

Does it mean you gave me the rest in 5c coins?

Now go ahead and remind me what Hillary Clinton's job was in 2002.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 09:33PM

marienbad wrote: »

Robert your hatred of HRC in actually quite outlandish , you need to step back a bit .

She has only held an executive office position for 4 years and yet you saddle her with responsibility for all that is worst in the USA .

What is your opinion of Bill Clinton ?

Sorry, forgot to answer about Bill.
Too busy with his sexcapades, fighting scandal, the WTC was attacked during his presidency, the USS Cole, the American embassies in Africa and he fired a few cruise missiles at then which did nothing to stop the rise of Al Qaeda.
He had the chance to take out Bin Laden but didn't.

Helped with the Irish peace process.
A tech bubble built up during his presidency.
Like the Bush administration, pedaled the lies about Saddam and WMD.
Started the path to the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

marienbad · 03-10-2016 09:40PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry, forgot to answer about Bill.
Too busy with his sexcapades, fighting scandal, the WTC was attacked during his presidency, the USS Cole, the American embassies in Africa and he fired a few cruise missiles at then which did nothing to stop the rise of Al Qaeda.
He had the chance to take out Bin Laden but didn't.

Helped with the Irish peace process.
A tech bubble built up during his presidency.
Like the Bush administration, pedaled the lies about Saddam and WMD.
Started the path to the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Is he better or worse than Hilary do you think ?

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 09:46PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Does it mean you gave me the rest in 5c coins?

Now go ahead and remind me what Hillary Clinton's job was in 2002.

As Hillary said, 'examine options to effect such a change, including...'.
So it could be 5c coins, €10 notes...

She was a senator and on the various committees like the budget committee, special committee for the aging, committee on security and co-operation in Europe.
Strongly supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and voted for them. If there had been a vote against then Bush would not have been able to continue the Clinton administration policy on Iraq which was for regime change.

I bet Tony Blair was telling her that Iraq could attack the UK in 45 minutes.

K-9 · 03-10-2016 09:46PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It seems to be more an anti-Trump endorsement than pro Libertarian.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 09:50PM

marienbad wrote: »

Is he better or worse than Hilary do you think ?

Hillary will be far worse and given Bill was not great, that is not good.
The US have the most awful options that I can ever remember them having.
I don't think either of the two main candidates are fit to be president.

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 09:51PM

RobertKK wrote: »

As Hillary said, 'examine options to effect such a change, including...'.
So it could be 5c coins, €10 notes...

She was a senator and on the various committees like the budget committee, special committee for the aging, committee on security and co-operation in Europe.
Strongly supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and voted for them. If there had been a vote against then Bush would not have been able to continue the Clinton administration policy on Iraq which was for regime change.

I bet Tony Blair was telling her that Iraq could attack the UK in 45 minutes.

So basically, she never said there was a plan for war. Exactly what I have been saying. You on the other hand, have been saying that she had meant war back in 1998, without being able to back it up. Meaning that following your analogy, Clinton absolutely meant the other €50 was in 5c coins, and nothing else. And here is why...

Billy86 wrote: »

So you do accept that Condoleezza Rice was the single most responsible person for the Iraq War?

RobertKK wrote: »

No, the plan was first drawn up under the Clinton administration.

K-9 · 03-10-2016 09:54PM

gosplan wrote: »

It really sounds stupid at this stage and anyone continuing along these lines is a troll or an idiot.

Mod:
Cut it out please. That is below the standard expected in the forum, any repeat will get a ban.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 09:56PM

Billy86 wrote: »

So basically, she never said there was a plan for war. Exactly what I have been saying. You on the other hand, have been saying that she had meant war back in 1998, without being able to back it up. Meaning that following your analogy, Clinton absolutely meant the other €50 was in 5c coins, and nothing else. And here is why...

The options including supporting the opposition for regime change started in 1998, that means the other options including war would have been started in 1998.
The US after all did spend about 6 days in 1998 attacking Iraq under operation Desert Fox.

The planning was years in the making, and still a disaster.

marienbad · 03-10-2016 09:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary will be far worse and given Bill was not great, that is not good.
The US have the most awful options that I can ever remember them having.
I don't think either of the two main candidates are fit to be president.

Time to let you to it Robert , I think you are in for a long 8 years .

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 10:01PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The options including supporting the opposition for regime change started in 1998, that means the other options including war would have been started in 1998.
The US after all did spend about 6 days in 1998 attacking Iraq under operation Desert Fox.

The planning was years in the making, and still a disaster.

So she called for Saddam Hussein to be made President of the United States, in order for him to give up his leadership of Iraq? I mean that's your argument, that the use of the word 'including' means 'literally anything'.

You'll note how in 1998, the US did not invade Iraq in an attempt to overthrow Saddam, making that entirely irrelevant. Had they actually tried to overthrow Saddam, then it would be. But they didn't, so it isn't. Very simple stuff.

Meanwhile a few years later, Condoleezza Rice did advise to go to war with Iraq in an attempt Saddam, hence that is relevant. As only her and Bush were involved in the discussion, it makes her (and Bush) the two most responsible people for the Iraq War. Again, very simple.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 10:02PM

marienbad wrote: »

Time to let you to it Robert , I think you are in for a long 8 years .

It will be long whoever wins and if they haven't destroyed the planet, it will be a 4 year presidency.
Both of them are terrible.

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 10:08PM

Billy86 wrote: »

So she called for Saddam Hussein to be made President of the United States, in order for him to give up his leadership of Iraq? I mean that's your argument, that the use of the word 'including' means 'literally anything'.

You'll note how in 1998, the US did not invade Iraq in an attempt to overthrow Saddam, making that entirely irrelevant. Had they actually tried to overthrow Saddam, then it would be. But they didn't, so it isn't. Very simple stuff.

Meanwhile a few years later, Condoleezza Rice did advise to go to war with Iraq in an attempt Saddam, hence that is relevant. As only her and Bush were involved in the discussion, it makes her (and Bush) the two most responsible people for the Iraq War. Again, very simple.

I am going to bring the cows in to milk, including the lame cow.
I am going to start the options for regime change in Iraq, including supporting the opposition.
It is basic English, and given Iraq was attacked by George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton, you are going to argue that war was not an option, do you think that makes sense?

What happened under Bush remains the policy that Hillary Clinton said became US policy in 1998 however you want to spin it.

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 10:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am going to bring the cows in to milk, including the lame cow.
I am going to start the options for regime change in Iraq, including supporting the opposition.
It is basic English, and given Iraq was attacked by George Bush Sr and Bill Clinton, you are going to argue that war was not an option, do you think that makes sense?

What happened under Bush remains the policy that Hillary Clinton said became US policy in 1998 however you want to spin it.

So we're onto another very poor analogy. Unless that is, you're saying you're going to shoot all of the cows. Which would be an extraordinary reach to make off the back of such a comment and would require quite a strong amount of cognitive dissonance from the listener, who would have to really, really dislike the farmer and want to discredit them even when the opportunity is not presenting itself. Why were you bringing up Colin Powell earlier, again?

And there you go again, completely ignoring that Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq with a goal of overthrowing Saddam. Meanwhile, Bush did... because Condoleezza Rice said to do so.

Hence, Condoleezza Rice and George Bush are the two most responsible people for the second Iraq War. It's as open and shut as can be.

Overheal · 03-10-2016 10:32PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's a forum for that

<---

RobertKK · 03-10-2016 10:36PM

Billy86 wrote: »

So we're onto another very poor analogy. Unless that is, you're saying you're going to shoot all of the cows. Which would be an extraordinary reach to make off the back of such a comment and would require quite a strong amount of cognitive dissonance from the listener, who would have to really, really dislike the farmer and want to discredit them even when the opportunity is not presenting itself. Why were you bringing up Colin Powell earlier, again?

And there you go again, completely ignoring that Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq with a goal of overthrowing Saddam. Meanwhile, Bush did... because Condoleezza Rice said to do so.

Hence, Condoleezza Rice and George Bush are the two most responsible people for the second Iraq War. It's as open and shut as can be.

Who do you think the US wanted to replace Saddam Hussein with after all options had been explored, the opposition maybe who would need to be supported/hidden away in the Green zone...?
War was always on the table, it had been since the first Gulf war. Regime change became policy during the Clinton administration and war was inevitable, hence the lies.

Overheal · 03-10-2016 10:38PM

Is war not inevitable with "bomb the **** out of them" "take out their families" "we should go much stronger than waterboarding" Trump?

I'm getting dozy just reading page after page of "she does this thing I don't like that both candidates are actors of" - you're not swaying anyone and you yourself are not being swayed; how about we move on to a different category of begrudgement?

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 10:39PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Who do you think the US wanted to replace Saddam Hussein with after all options had been explored, the opposition maybe who would need to be supported/hidden away in the Green zone...?
War was always on the table, it had been since the first Gulf war. Regime change became policy during the Clinton administration and war was inevitable, hence the lies.

If your argument had any basis in reality, they would have tried to remove him in 1998. But they didn't. Rice & Bush did a few years later. You know, the two people most responsible for the Iraq War that both Clinton and Trump supported.

You seem to be letting the cognitive dissonance cause you to forget who was in power during the first Gulf war, and where the Clintons were at that point in time by the way.

Maybe it was all Eisenhower's plan?

AbusesToilets · 03-10-2016 10:55PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The debate gave Clinton enough time to get under Trump's skin and demonstrate that he was unfit to be president. How would the debate have been improved by having another two candidates on stage that don't really have any significant understanding of the issues?

How much money did Trump spend on ads during the primary season? How much did Jeb Bush spend? The effect of ad buys is marginal at best. If your candidacy and message doesn't resonate then ad buys don't matter.

If you vote for a third party in a swing state then you are voting for whoever wins the state. That's how a first-past-the-post voting system works.

And their inclusion in the debates had little to no effect on their polling numbers.

Contradicting yourself there. You stated a third party representative in a debate would detract from the main candidates ability to speak on the issues, yet then laud Clinton for using the debate as opportunity to needle Trump.

To say a third candidate would lack understanding of the issues is disingenuous at best. How well did Trump or Clinton display their knowledge of issues such as trade deals, economic theory or gun rights? How many times have they been exposed making a gaffe when speaking publicly? Condemning a candidate for a mistake or gotcha moment is a childish approach to selecting our public servants.

Your point re: public perception of candidates and their message ignores the fact that the public needs to be able to hear a candidate's message in order to form an opinion on it. Therefore, having the money to publish ads etc absolutely affords well monied candidates considerable advantages.

Your final point goes against the polling data from the 1992 election, which showed very favorable numbers for Perot after the debates. Giving third party candidates an opportunity to present their ideas and challenge the main party candidates would have no downside to my eyes, and could show up the establishment parties for the unoriginal, blustering corporate representatives they are.

Overheal · 03-10-2016 10:59PM

Gaffe's slips are heavily weighed given the nature of US Politics, where most things are carefully prepared and thought out. This sometimes leads us to truths - like Donald not running ads because he doesn't want to spend the money (money troubles?) or on the extreme end, leads to erroneous or dangerous assumptions, such as Obama's "Muslim faith" gaffe. I guess its up to the individual to decide which gaffe's they choose to take stock in. There are a few of Trumps this cycle that I frankly wouldn't bat an eyelid at, some others however are a bit more enlightening.

Quin_Dub · 03-10-2016 11:28PM

The Polls get worse for Trump..

RCP "No Toss ups" view has moved even further in Clintons favour..

Now showing 322-216 to Clinton.

In the lead-up to the debate is was 272-264 , huge shift in a short space of time..

Billy86 · 03-10-2016 11:32PM

Still, you never know. For example, and it's not applicable to this race of course, but I heard during the week that one of, if not the single biggest factor in a re-election cycle is how the economy is doing on the week of the election. Not even so much leading up to it, or during the year of the election or whatnot. Just on the very week of the election itself.

Voters can be remarkably fickle and short-sighted, is what I'm saying!

RobertKK · 04-10-2016 12:20AM

Billy86 wrote: »

If your argument had any basis in reality, they would have tried to remove him in 1998. But they didn't. Rice & Bush did a few years later. You know, the two people most responsible for the Iraq War that both Clinton and Trump supported.

You seem to be letting the cognitive dissonance cause you to forget who was in power during the first Gulf war, and where the Clintons were at that point in time by the way.

Maybe it was all Eisenhower's plan?

Because it was not policy for regime change so no planning for war to remove Saddam and replace him had started until 1998.

First war involved removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Clinton in 1998 was based on lies and he was in trouble back home.

No, Hillary Clinton says it was 1998 that regime change in Iraq became US policy and the options to achieve it started, you can't blame Eisenhower

You accept Hillary Clinton told the truth to the senate when she said regime change in Iraq became US policy in 1998?

Brian? · 04-10-2016 07:08AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Because it was not policy for regime change so no planning for war to remove Saddam and replace him had started until 1998.

First war involved removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Clinton in 1998 was based on lies and he was in trouble back home.

No, Hillary Clinton says it was 1998 that regime change in Iraq became US policy and the options to achieve it started, you can't blame Eisenhower
You accept Hillary Clinton told the truth to the senate when she said regime change in Iraq became US policy in 1998?

I don't get your point at all. Hillary voted for the war based on the evidence provided by the Bush administration. Fabricated evidence, in parts.

The Bush administration is responsible for invading Iraq. But you want to blame Hillary because you hate her.

Brian? · 04-10-2016 07:31AM

I can see a new round of "that's not what he meant" by Trump supporters.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-suggests-vets-ptsd-aren-strong-article-1.2815752

How much lower can he go? After his attacks on McCain and this, how can any veteran vote for the man?

Igotadose · 04-10-2016 09:04AM

Brian? wrote: »

I can see a new round of "that's not what he meant" by Trump supporters.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-suggests-vets-ptsd-aren-strong-article-1.2815752

How much lower can he go? After his attacks on McCain and this, how can any veteran vote for the man?

FWIW I think this one's kind of blown out of proportion, I think Trump's such a dreadful public speaker that he actually didn't mean to attack veterans. Hard to say - he's like Phalin, endless 'word salad'.

Millions will vote for this guy, no matter what he says. Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone seems to be the only journalist who is getting the election right, latest good article here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/stop-whining-about-false-balance-w440228 . Ending quote sums up this election perfectly: "I'm as worried as anyone else about the possibility of Trump getting elected. But if it happens, it's not going to be because The New York Times allowed a few reporters to investigate the Clinton Foundation. It'll be because we're a nation of idiots, who vote the same way we choose channels: without thinking. "

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments