Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

1…285286288290291…314

Comments

  • #8612
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.H wrote: »
    I love the way people lambaste Trump for trying to make peace with Russia while calling him a warmonger..................

    The US is currently at peace with Russia. Has been for quite some time.


  • #8613
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Or it could also be seen as make friends with the bully in order to improve diplomatic relations and get them to stop this new cold war that is currently happening.

    Stopping this hatred between two big nations can only be a good thing

    Yes, you could be right. There is also the possibility of being allowed to pursue an agenda without your new friend objecting.


  • #8614
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    I am in no way a Trump fan. I wouldnt even say I am of the "anyone but Hillary" camp.

    It is easier to sum up my views as "Not ANYONE, would be better than Trump"

    They where both horrible candidates and I could not envision either of them doing a better job than the other. I do believe Trump was a patsy used to get Clinton elected and the fact she didnt says more about her than him........

    alastair wrote: »
    The US is currently at peace with Russia. Has been for quite some time.

    Wow just wow.

    If you really believe that then you are very naive

    While they are certainly not at open war, they are certainly not at peace.

    Are they on the same side in the middle east conflicts?? How about Korea? China?

    Russia and America have not been on the same page ever. Sure they have had many peace talks but do you really believe they are not both arming the opposite sides of current conflicts?


  • #8615
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Yes, you could be right. There is also the possibility of being allowed to pursue an agenda without your new friend objecting.

    Of course. That is the worry with all peace talks. I just think its a positive


  • #8616
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Wow just wow.

    If you really believe that then you are very naive

    While they are certainly not at open war, they are certainly not at peace.

    Are they on the same side in the middle east conflicts?? How about Korea? China?

    Russia and America have not been on the same page ever. Sure they have had many peace talks but do you really believe they are not both arming the opposite sides of current conflicts?

    So, the new definition of 'not being at peace' is any manner of difference? Every nation is seemingly in desperate need of peaces talks with every other nation.

    I don't think I'm the naive one here at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #8617
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr.H wrote: »
    I love the way people lambaste Trump for trying to make peace with Russia while calling him a warmonger..................

    Did you miss the Giuliani quote just four posts above yours?


  • #8618
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    alastair wrote: »
    So, the new definition of 'not being at peace' is any manner of difference? Every nation is seemingly in desperate need of peaces talks with every other nation.

    I don't think I'm the naive one here at all.

    Big difference between a manner of difference and arming a nation to kill the nation your enemy is arming.................

    Its Korea all over again


  • #8619
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Big difference between a manner of difference and arming a nation to kill the nation your enemy is arming.................

    Its Korea all over again

    No it's not. There's a civil war in Syria and the US and Russia are both supporting and opposing some of the combatant groups in that civil war. There's the one nation involved in the war, and none of the opposed groups are a proxy for either the US or Russia.


  • #8620
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Did you miss the Giuliani quote just four posts above yours?

    Quotes are funny.

    Often the quotes are taken out of context but mostly they are used to just prove one point.

    The common thing about all quotes are that most people who look at the quotes dont actually watch the interview they come from and end up drawing conclusions from a theory they manifested due to pre determined assumptions.

    In the interview he was quoted saying that he also talked about how Trump borrowed a quote from (was it?) Regan (I watched this interview last night so I'm trying to recall it to be honest. The quote he borrowed is "peace through strength"

    Hitler wiped out half of Europe while Camberline sat back thinking "if we give the bully what he wants he will go away" and was eventually dragged into the war with Europe already desolated.

    the Peace through strength approach is where you have the biggest army and most powerful backing and then you tell the bully "your with us or against us"

    Now I am not an advocate for America being the world police but it is a strong approach and not one I would consider war mongering.

    Recently we have seen in Crimea where Russia could do what they wanted. I mean where was the mighty USA then? I thought they where the self proclaimed world police? or maybe its only when oil is on the line?

    Point is that building peace with Russia is imperative no matter who the president is


  • #8621
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    alastair wrote: »
    No it's not. There's a civil war in Syria and the US and Russia are both supporting and opposing some of the combatant groups in that civil war. There's the one nation involved in the war, and none of the opposed groups are a proxy for either the US or Russia.

    You dont think they are being used as proxies?

    See the burden of proof falls on both of us here. Where It is common knowledge that both Countries have backed opposing sides, there is no proof to suggest that they are not doing it to get one over on each other.

    Just like time and time again that conflicts have been used by both sides to get one over on each other.


  • Advertisement
  • #8622
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,858 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mr.H wrote: »
    the Peace through strength approach is where you have the biggest army and most powerful backing and then you tell the bully "your with us or against us"

    What do you do when the bully says "we're against you"?


  • #8623
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.H wrote: »
    Hitler wiped out half of Europe while Camberline sat back thinking "if we give the bully what he wants he will go away" and was eventually dragged into the war with Europe already desolated.

    the Peace through strength approach is where you have the biggest army and most powerful backing and then you tell the bully "your with us or against us"

    You do realise Trump is the Chamberlain in this analogy? He's the candidate that has stated that he's open to recognising the annexation of Crimea and lifting sanctions based on that annexation. Not much strength in that message.


  • #8624
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.H wrote: »
    You dont think they are being used as proxies?
    Not by the US and Russia. Nobody who understands the situation does.
    Mr.H wrote: »
    See the burden of proof falls on both of us here. Where It is common knowledge that both Countries have backed opposing sides, there is no proof to suggest that they are not doing it to get one over on each other.
    Other than common sense, and the logic of how the conflict escalated.
    Mr.H wrote: »
    Just like time and time again that conflicts have been used by both sides to get one over on each other.
    Amongst many more conflicts that had little or nothing to do with the cold war.


  • #8625
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What do you do when the bully says "we're against you"?

    Well you have then proved you are not just sitting back letting the bully do what they want in the first place


  • #8626
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    alastair wrote: »
    Nobody who understands the situation does.
    So explain it to me then?

    You have two major sides backing opposing groups. They are playing chess except the chess pieces are neither Russian or American lives. They have full deniability while having all the pleasure of backing "their" choice for succession.

    Is that completely unheard of between both countries?

    alastair wrote: »
    Amongst many more conflicts that had little or nothing to do with the cold war.

    China
    Korea
    Berlin
    Afghan
    Yugoslavia
    Iraq
    Syria

    Only some from a massive list of conflicts where both countries used opposing groups to fund and arm while hoping that their backed militia would gain control.

    Its is an indirect war where the victor insures their say in that region.

    Its not an obvious war.
    It IS a continuation of the Cold War.

    Do you not think if a Russian or American soldier was killed by the opposite that it would escalate quickly?

    I suppose you feel the Cold war ended the day the "Iron Curtain" came down yea?


  • #8627
    Thomas_...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 744 ✭✭✭Thomas_...


    Mr.H wrote: »
    I am in no way a Trump fan. I wouldnt even say I am of the "anyone but Hillary" camp.

    It is easier to sum up my views as "Not ANYONE, would be better than Trump"

    They where both horrible candidates and I could not envision either of them doing a better job than the other. I do believe Trump was a patsy used to get Clinton elected and the fact she didnt says more about her than him........



    This says more about his followers and supporters than anything:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967
    Michelle Obama 'ape in heels' post causes outrage

    Racism in the USA is breathing a fresh air and the insulters are just having their usual half-hearted excuses like "I am no racist ... bla, bla, bla". Of course they are racists and they meant it the way they have posted it. No doubt about that and Mr Trump is acting as if he has got nothing to do with it. Well, not directly but his awful conduct of his campaign made it possible to free this racism once again. This is all disgusting.


  • #8628
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.H wrote: »
    So explain it to me then?

    You have two major sides backing opposing groups. They are playing chess except the chess pieces are neither Russian or American lives. They have full deniability while having all the pleasure of backing "their" choice for succession.

    Is that completely unheard of between both countries?

    It's a pretty uninformed read of the situation tbh. Firstly they both oppose and support different groups involved at the same time. Secondly the US is far less involved in supporting anti-Assad groups than the Saudis and Emirate states are, and Iran is far more involved in supporting Assad than Russia is. About the only group that the US is clearly the primary supporter of are the Syrian Kurds, and yet they're being undermined by the Turks, the local allie of the US. The cold war (or cold war Mk II) really plays no role in the war at all. The Russians just care about hanging on to their toehold for regional purposes.


    Mr.H wrote: »
    China
    Korea
    Berlin
    Afghan
    Yugoslavia
    Iraq
    Syria

    Only some from a massive list of conflicts where both countries used opposing groups to fund and arm while hoping that their backed militia would gain control.

    Its is an indirect war where the victor insures their say in that region.

    Its not an obvious war.
    It IS a continuation of the Cold War.

    Do you not think if a Russian or American soldier was killed by the opposite that it would escalate quickly?

    I suppose you feel the Cold war ended the day the "Iron Curtain" came down yea?
    Russian soldiers have already killed in Syria, and the Turks shot down one of their jets, killing the pilot. I didn't see any quick escalation. Whatever Syrian arrangement that comes out of this war will not be beholden to either the US or Russia. It's not about them.


  • #8629
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Thomas_... wrote: »
    This says more about his followers and supporters than anything:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37985967


    Racism in the USA is breathing a fresh air and the insulters are just having their usual half-hearted excuses like "I am no racist ... bla, bla, bla". Of course they are racists and they meant it the way they have posted it. No doubt about that and Mr Trump is acting as if he has got nothing to do with it. Well, not directly but his awful conduct of his campaign made it possible to free this racism once again. This is all disgusting.

    Listen there is no excuse for racists. But They do not represent everyone.

    Yes Trumps actions have been awful both so have Clintons. Neither candidate stayed on point and very little was said about true policies. If these are teh two best people in America then wow


  • #8630
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    on a side note

    Let me ask you all this. What do you think of this for a speech:

    "And to all the men, and especially the young men, who put their faith in this campaign and in me: I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion."

    "And to all of the little boys who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams"

    Now that is Clintons speech with me changing the word women for men and girls for boys.

    This is not something I am aiming at Clinton but the wider world right now. If my edited speech was read out it is deemed sexist but Clintons version is seen as good..........


  • #8631
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,107 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Mr.H wrote: »
    on a side note

    Let me ask you all this. What do you think of this for a speech:

    "And to all the men, and especially the young men, who put their faith in this campaign and in me: I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion."

    "And to all of the little boys who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams"

    Now that is Clintons speech with me changing the word women for men and girls for boys.

    This is not something I am aiming at Clinton but the wider world right now. If my edited speech was read out it is deemed sexist but Clintons version is seen as good..........

    Women have been traditionally held back from certain careers, especially politics.

    Having said that the speech doesn't seem sexist no matter the genders. It is one sided sure but you can talk to a certain audience. I would be confused as to why men require a speech like this (potentially from a disadvantaged area but then the wording is off). Women can feel like certain careers are blocked off for them as they have traditionally been and sexism still exists.

    Edit: I mean men tend not to need a new champion as we have them in abundance in every field I can think of. Most CEOs, supwrheroes, presidents are male. There is an abundance of men in politics, as business men, sports stars and scientists. I don't see why being a champion of men would be a big selling point. There are hordes in every field.


  • Advertisement
  • #8632
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    alastair wrote: »
    It's a pretty uninformed read of the situation tbh. Firstly they both oppose and support different groups involved at the same time. Secondly the US is far less involved in supporting anti-Assad groups than the Saudis and Emirate states are, and Iran is far more involved in supporting Assad than Russia is. About the only group that the US is clearly the primary supporter of are the Syrian Kurds, and yet they're being undermined by the Turks, the local allie of the US. The cold war (or cold war Mk II) really plays no role in the war at all. The Russians just care about hanging on to their toehold for regional purposes.

    Ok but do you not think that there is any bi-proxy involved theer what so ever?

    Saudi and Emirate states are very close to USA right now and likewise Iran and Russia.

    I know that if you dont believe its true it sounds tinfoil hatty and I assure you this isnt something I preach about 24/7 while preparing for the end.

    But I do believe that the cold war never ended and see nothing that proves it did.

    Hell you just look at the slight anti Russian propaganda that appears quiet often on western media. Maybe it is just residual effects of non-closure of the past but I think that is is quiet obvious that Russia are "the enemy"

    alastair wrote: »
    Russian soldiers have already killed in Syria, and the Turks shot down one of their jets, killing the pilot. I didn't see any quick escalation. Whatever Syrian arrangement that comes out of this war will not be beholden to either the US or Russia. It's not about them.

    Not what I was talking about. Maybe I wasnt clear. Sorry

    I said if an American was killed by a Russian soldier or vice versa


  • #8633
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Women have been traditionally held back from certain careers, especially politics.

    Having said that the speech doesn't seem sexist no matter the genders. It is one sided sure but you can talk to a certain audience. I would be confused as to why men require a speech like this (potentially from a disadvantaged area but then the wording is off). Women can feel like certain careers are blocked off for them as they have traditionally been and sexism still exists.

    I just believe that instead of aiming at little boys or little girls we say both...............

    I mean if I have a son and a daughter should I just keep telling my daughter every day that she can accomplish anything while not saying anything like that to my son because men generally are not held back?

    I know that this conversation is too close to being off subject so I am trying not to get too lost in it but I was just wondering if it would have been deemed sexist if the "male" version was used?

    I think it would have been


  • #8634
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,107 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Mr.H wrote: »
    I just believe that instead of aiming at little boys or little girls we say both...............

    I mean if I have a son and a daughter should I just keep telling my daughter every day that she can accomplish anything while not saying anything like that to my son because men generally are not held back?

    I know that this conversation is too close to being off subject so I am trying not to get too lost in it but I was just wondering if it would have been deemed sexist if the "male" version was used?

    I think it would have been

    Your own son is different. Your son isn't a general population. You also don't have to mention both in every speech you have. You can talk up one of them while the otber is not around. You don't tell your daughter she is playing great but her brother who is at home is also a good striker. Also see my edit which clears up some parts of my answer I felt I wrote badly.

    I don't think it would be sexist. I just don't think men would care to have someone call themselves their champion when they have so many.


  • #8635
    Mr.H
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,861 ✭✭✭Mr.H


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Your own son is different. Your son isn't a general population. You also don't have to mention both in every speech you have. You can talk up one of them while the otber is not around. You don't tell your daughter she is playing great but her brother who is at home is also a good striker. Also see my edit which clears up some parts of my answer I felt I wrote badly.

    I don't think it would be sexist. I just don't think men would care to have someone call themselves their champion when they have so many.

    Thats a fair point. I think the line that irritated me a little was more:

    "And to all of the little girls" who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams"

    I just felt

    "And to all of the little girls and boys who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams"

    That would have actually made me think "f###ing hell that is a admirable"

    Again though just to be clear I dont condone Clinton for it I just felt that she pushed too much for the "women" card when she could have went more for the "equality" route. Like why does she have to be anyones champion? She is suppose to be a president for everyone not just a certain demographic?

    I feel that in this modern day it seems to be either you are all for women in power or you are a misogynist.

    Instead we should be thinking we need the right PERSON in power.

    Turns out we got neither but ..................:D


  • #8636
    TheOven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 222 ✭✭TheOven


    Ben Carson has just realised he has no government experience so thankfully won't be involved with education or be part of the administration.

    He is a very odd person.


  • #8637
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    It’s been a week now since the election. Why won’t Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama denounce the violent, anti-Trump protests going on in urban areas across the nation? It’s not Trump’s supporters who are destroying police cars, torching businesses, or beating up Trump supporters, but rather people that voted for Hillary and Obama. There can only be one reason... they want the violence to continue. Can’t wait until the names Obama and Clinton are purged from our lexicon.


  • #8638
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    It’s been a week now since the election. Why won’t Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama denounce the violent, anti-Trump protests going on in urban areas across the nation? It’s not Trump’s supporters who are destroying police cars, torching businesses, or beating up Trump supporters, but rather people that voted for Hillary and Obama. There can only be one reason... they want the violence to continue. Can’t wait until the names Obama and Clinton are purged from our lexicon.

    More made up controversy?

    “It’s time really for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to say to these protesters, ‘This man is our president,’ ”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/republicans-call-clinton-obama-reel-professional-a/

    Which, he had:

    “The people have spoken. Donald Trump will be the next president,” Obama said. “And it will be up to him to set up a team that he thinks will server him well and will reflect his political, and those who didn’t vote for him have to recognize that that’s how democracy works. That’s how the system operates.”

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-people-have-spoken-obama-addresses-his-past-criticisms-of-trump-bannon-hire/

    and before that...

    "We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead," Clinton said.

    “Now, it is no secret that the president-elect and I have some pretty significant differences,” Obama said. “But remember, eight years ago President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush's team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running.”

    Like Clinton, he called for cooperation, even from those who adamantly opposed Trump.

    “We are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country,” he said.


  • #8639
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Overheal wrote: »
    More made up controversy?

    “It’s time really for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to say to these protesters, ‘This man is our president,’ ”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/14/republicans-call-clinton-obama-reel-professional-a/

    Which, he had:

    “The people have spoken. Donald Trump will be the next president,” Obama said. “And it will be up to him to set up a team that he thinks will server him well and will reflect his political, and those who didn’t vote for him have to recognize that that’s how democracy works. That’s how the system operates.”

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-people-have-spoken-obama-addresses-his-past-criticisms-of-trump-bannon-hire/

    and before that...

    "We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead," Clinton said.

    “Now, it is no secret that the president-elect and I have some pretty significant differences,” Obama said. “But remember, eight years ago President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush's team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running.”

    Like Clinton, he called for cooperation, even from those who adamantly opposed Trump.

    “We are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country,” he said.

    Maybe they should now try this... "Knock off the violence and destruction, you idiots, or you'll get your asses thrown in jail."


  • #8640
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,107 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Amerika wrote: »
    It’s been a week now since the election. Why won’t Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama denounce the violent, anti-Trump protests going on in urban areas across the nation? It’s not Trump’s supporters who are destroying police cars, torching businesses, or beating up Trump supporters, but rather people that voted for Hillary and Obama. There can only be one reason... they want the violence to continue. Can’t wait until the names Obama and Clinton are purged from our lexicon.

    Pretty sure Obama didn't run this time. The rest of your post was countered better by the post above me.

    Also who are they to call out the largely peaceful protests when the president elect asked for a March on Washington when he didn't like the result of a presidential election. I mean from their words they clearly said Donald is the president and seem not to agree with the protests but it would undercut the president elect if they tried to shout down a form of protest Trump so obviously agrees with.


  • Advertisement
  • #8641
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Amerika wrote: »
    Maybe they should now try this... "Knock off the violence and destruction, you idiots, or you'll get your asses thrown in jail."

    Do people need to be told not to break the law? There's an irony: anti-Obama conservative wants the 'Messiah' to shout, 'thou shall not loot!'


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement