• filter:
  • 1254255256257 258
  • Page
  • Previous 40
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
Visual summary of the debate:

 

rated:
Hillary was looking good last night. Looks like she took my advice and hired a makeup artist to do her makeup. 

rated:
KayK said:   Morning after.. who won the debate?

National Review... a conservative magazine: Clinton
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440436/if-night-doesnt-save-hillarys-campaign-nothing-willh

  National Review - a conservative (extremist) magazine who started the whole #NeverTrump, , and whose readers are mostly #NeverTrump.   I will vote for Trump, and admit that based on 1 debate, the Secretary won.  I know people complained that Trump missed easy layups, but the truth is most likely that he underprepared for this one, and will look much better for the next two, having the greater delta in his presentation and demeanor, just like he sand bagged the first Republican debate.  He is very much like the WWE owner, trying to set up the sand bagging and then impress on the next outing.

rated:
I think that was the most important debate. Will any of the further debates matter for anything other than train-wreck entertainment?

rated:
The Wall Street Journal's oped column today  "Underwhelming Trump-Clinton Debate -- Trump takes Clinton’s bait and underplays his best case for change" was one of the better assessments of the debate published by the news media.   

Excerpt:

"The two most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history had their first debate Monday, and the best we can say is that they lived up to those expectations. Hillary Clinton offered a relentless assault on Donald Trump ’s business record and qualifications to be President, but she offered little reason to believe she would lift the country out of its economic and psychological funk. Mr. Trump made the case for change, but in a blunderbuss fashion that will have voters wondering if he knows enough for the job." 


Entire column can be read at this link - you can close the subscription window that pops up part way through the article in order to view the article without signing up for a trial subscription 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-underwhelming-trump-clinton-debate-1474950430 

rated:
MilleniumBuc said:   
KayK said:   Morning after.. who won the debate?

National Review... a conservative magazine: Clinton
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440436/if-night-doesnt-save-hillarys-campaign-nothing-will h

  National Review - a conservative (extremist) magazine who started the whole #NeverTrump, , and whose readers are mostly #NeverTrump.   I will vote for Trump, and admit that based on 1 debate, the Secretary won.  I know people complained that Trump missed easy layups, but the truth is most likely that he underprepared for this one, and will look much better for the next two, having the greater delta in his presentation and demeanor, just like he sand bagged the first Republican debate.  He is very much like the WWE owner, trying to set up the sand bagging and then impress on the next outing.

Just wondering, but what is your reasoning process when choosing a car, school for your kids, doctor for important surgery, flavor of ice cream among the 31 offered at Baskin-Robbins, etc?

As for your WWE reference, are you saying the election is rigged?

rated:
riznick said:   I think that was the most important debate. Will any of the further debates matter for anything other than train-wreck entertainment?
  Trump could do better in a debate about foreign policy because there's so much failure to attack, fairly or unfairly.

rated:
bighitter said:   The Wall Street Journal's oped column today  "Underwhelming Trump-Clinton Debate -- Trump takes Clinton’s bait and underplays his best case for change" was one of the better assessments of the debate published by the news media.   

Excerpt:

"The two most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history had their first debate Monday, and the best we can say is that they lived up to those expectations. Hillary Clinton offered a relentless assault on Donald Trump ’s business record and qualifications to be President, but she offered little reason to believe she would lift the country out of its economic and psychological funk. Mr. Trump made the case for change, but in a blunderbuss fashion that will have voters wondering if he knows enough for the job." 


Entire column can be read at this link - you can close the subscription window that pops up part way through the article in order to view the article without signing up for a trial subscription 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-underwhelming-trump-clinton-debate-1474950430

Predictable of the WSJ, unlike what our state's most popular newspaper, The Arizona Republic, did for the first time in its history since its founding in 1890, endorse a Democrat for President:  "Hillary Clinton is the only choice to move America ahead"

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
bighitter said:   The Wall Street Journal's oped column today  "Underwhelming Trump-Clinton Debate -- Trump takes Clinton’s bait and underplays his best case for change" was one of the better assessments of the debate published by the news media.   

Excerpt:

"The two most unpopular presidential candidates in modern history had their first debate Monday, and the best we can say is that they lived up to those expectations. Hillary Clinton offered a relentless assault on Donald Trump ’s business record and qualifications to be President, but she offered little reason to believe she would lift the country out of its economic and psychological funk. Mr. Trump made the case for change, but in a blunderbuss fashion that will have voters wondering if he knows enough for the job." 


Entire column can be read at this link - you can close the subscription window that pops up part way through the article in order to view the article without signing up for a trial subscription 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-underwhelming-trump-clinton-debate-1474950430

Predictable of the WSJ, unlike what our state's most popular newspaper, The Arizona Republic, did for the first time in its history since its founding in 1890, endorse a Democrat for President:  "Hillary Clinton is the only choice to move America ahead"

Until I read the article you linked  from The Arizona Republic,  I thought the Wall Street Journal was pretty tough.  The Arizona Republic states, "The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified."  

The problem I have voting for Hillary is that I don't believe she is qualified OR honest.  My hope is that if Trump is elected he will be fiscally conservative and lean socially liberal.

I watched the debate in its entirety.  I didn't think Trump did well.  Hillary, although robotic and scripted in her responses and delivery, did far better than Trump in the debate in my opinion.



 

rated:
bighitter said:   
 
Until I read the article you linked  from The Arizona Republic,  I thought the Wall Street Journal was pretty tough.  The Arizona Republic states, "The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified."  


 

  Except that Trump is more conservative than most of the GOP such as McConnell and Paul Ryan and John McCain. 

Most importantly, Trump is conservative on immigration.  That is the most important issue and makes all other issues practically irrelevant.  Hillary will be the Angela Merkel of the U.S.  Her open border polices will destroy the U.S.as is happening to Sweden and Germany and Britain and France.  The damage will be irreparable, and the U.S. will never recover.    

People unaware of the current destruction of those countries and their turning into the third world by excessively importing the third world should look into that before voting.   

rated:
^
I wonder what people said as Italians and Jews and Poles and Scandinavians immigrated. I assumed they Chicken Littled away.

Saying that Hillary has an open border policy (or that our borders are open today) doesn't make it true, unless you're in the Tremendous Trump Echo Chamber. It's the best, the very best echo chamber.

rated:
ganda said:   ^
I wonder what people said as Italians and Jews and Poles and Scandinavians immigrated. I assumed they Chicken Littled away.

Saying that Hillary has an open border policy (or that our borders are open today) doesn't make it true, unless you're in the Tremendous Trump Echo Chamber. It's the best, the very best echo chamber.

  
Were those people infiltrated by ISIS?  Were those people going to get endless welfare benefits courtesy of U.S. taxpayers?  Were those people intent on not assimilating as Americans?

A lot of people are naive about what is happening with immigration in Europe.  And why are only certain countries pushed to embrace "diversity?"  Shouldn't open borders and diversity be pushed on the countries that need it more, such as Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, most countries in Africa....

http://www.infowars.com/tv-ad-encourages-german-women-to-wear-hijabs/ 
. said: Instead of reversing its suicidal immigration policy, it appears as though Germany is now encouraging its female population to avoid the mass sex assaults committed by Muslim migrants in numerous major cities by submitting to Islam and covering themselves up.Holding potential rapists at arms’ length, not wearing provocative clothing, or wearing sneakers so they can run away – all advice given to German women by authorities – appears to not be working.With birth rates in the central European nation flatlining, as Germans become less interested in sex, the dream of Green Party leader Stefanie von Berg, who celebrated the fact that mass migration will bring an end to German majority populations in cities within a few decades, is drawing closer.

The German television ad is extremely revealing. “Tolerance” means submission. “Diversity” means the willful extinction of German culture. 


Here's some Germans praising the extinction of their own people and culture and country.

https://youtu.be/KK-U6Eaiz3g



rated:
Did the immigrants you mentioned come to America to wave foreign flags at U.S. political rallies and say things like, "Make America Mexico Again?"

What do you think about what happened to the Native Americans of America?  I think they could have used stronger immigration laws and border security. How about you?

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/30/mexico-sending-us-colonists-not-immigrants/ 
. said: “Mexico First” has been the open, avowed policy of the government of Mexico for a generation, and Mexico expects its former residents to be loyal to Mexico for the next 200 years.
Yet, when Donald Trump calls for an “America First” foreign policy, as he did in a speech this past week, he is denounced by pundits and the national security establishment for “nativism” and “demagoguery,” as if that policy is a novel and radical idea.

In my conversation with Hernandez in Mexico’s capital city, he explained quite eagerly and candidly the reasons for the Mexican government’s active encouragement of Mexicans to “go north” — legally and illegally. 

Mexico sees Mexicans in the United States as strategic assets in every sense of that word. They are seen as extensions of the Mexican state and partners in Mexico’s plans,

Those policies cannot be dismissed as mere expressions of Mexican pride. They are indications of a policy of planned interference in American domestic affairs. The policy of dual citizenship is only the visible tip of the iceberg of a strategic plan for active and overt involvement in American politics to advance Mexican government interests.


Watch the Chicken Little Native Americans wanting to preserve their culture from invaders.

https://youtu.be/ibP22-DoH6Y



 

rated:
 Were those people infiltrated by ISIS?    Were those people intent on not assimilating as Americans?

 

  
Although ISIS has apparently been around for all of Hillary's adult life (?!), I'm referring to a time pre-ISIS. Italians certainly brought their violent crime wave with them.

Assimilating?! Have you been to Williamsburg recently?

If Hillary's mythical Open Borders actually existed, we'd have cargo ships of Sudanese arriving daily on the east coast. That we don't should tell you how open our borders really are, back here in the real world. It is rightly very difficult to emigrate to the US.

rated:
ganda said:   
 
If Hillary's mythical Open Borders actually existed, we'd have cargo ships of Sudanese arriving daily on the east coast. That we don't should tell you how open our borders really are, back here in the real world. It is rightly very difficult to emigrate to the US.

 
Hillary has promised not to deport anyone (except "criminals").  Hillary wants to give amnesty to 10s of millions of illegal alien invaders, who will then bring in 10s of millions of family members.  And they will get endless welfare, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.  Some people are pushing to let those imported family members be put on Social Security, despite never paying a dime into it.

U.S. schools spend 10s of billions of dollars every year on illegal aliens and the children of illegal aliens. That's 10s of billions of dollars every year that isn't being used to help Americans' children.  Also, teachers dumb down their classrooms in order to deal with students who often can barely speak English and are behind other students their own age.  This means a worse education for Americans' children.

Donald Trump wants to send jobs to Detroit.  Hillary wants to send low-skill refugees to Detroit.

U.S. veterans healthcare has been cut by billions of dollars in order to import more "refugees."   Hillary wants to import at least 550,000 more "refugees," at a cost of over $400 billion dollars.  That's on top of all the illegal aliens and the 100s of billions of dollars they cost.  

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/21/come-see-what-mass-immigration-looks-like-in-my-school/
. said: As someone who has taught English language learners in public schools for more than 10 years, I enjoy working with those from other countries. It can be exciting and rewarding. I’ve learned a lot from my students. Even when the challenges become exhausting, at least I can say there is rarely a dull day.

But over the past few years, I’ve found myself asking this: how much immigration diversity is too much? Is it even possible to ask this question anymore without the risk of getting called a xenophobe?

One problem is that school officials make things look better on paper than they do in reality. Immigrant students pass classes and graduate at surprising rates given their continual low skills, ... Principals and teachers get smashed between a rock and a hard place. Don’t lower your standards, but make sure that 15-year-old who just arrived from Honduras speaking no English graduates.

School officials want students at this level to be analyzing complex ideas and producing sophisticated written work. But my students are still developing their vocabulary and need continual refreshers. Many still struggle to write a coherent paragraph. Even if they have good ideas in their heads, it’s hard to get them on paper. 

In his article in The Atlantic, Frum makes the point that while immigrants benefit from coming to the United States, we don’t stop to consider enough whether America is benefitting. 


 



 

rated:
The Atlantic article linked within is well worth a read

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/refugees/419976/

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
kopiz said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
kopiz said:     (1) How can "extremists" be "huge"?  If that were the case, why wouldn't they simply overthrow the gov't?

Obviously, both the left & the right have 1 thing that's "huge:" mediocrities who follow convention & ideology.  those mediocrities spend their lives claiming that the other side's mediocrities are "extremists."  and so it goes.

(3)  Well look at it this way.  Lots of your left wingers in Congress were all "anti war," right?  But how may of them green lighted the attack on Iraq?  Wasn't your girl Hillary for it too?  Circumstances change people.  You should know that, since liberal philosophy tilts heavily toward nurture than nature.  That's a page out of your own playbook.  Strangely, you're arguing for a fixed, enduring personality.  Better stop doing that.  Otherwise, you'll be ex-communicated from your left-wing tribe.

So POTUS was supposed to bribe these people, so that they wouldn't join anti-American terrorists groups?

Here's what would've been hilarious.  POTUS bribes those people.  Then they turn around, & join terrorist groups that attack America.  Then what would you have had to say?  You should be GLAD that those people were NOT bribed.  Otherwise, your left-wing ideology would've been annihilated. (Ya think that's a big reason the left jumped on board for a war?). lol, just lol.

(4) Those may have been "talking points" @ a convention, since those are issues a minor party has some chance of fixing.  But that's a gross oversimplification of libertarian philosophy.

Sure, as a rule, libertarians are for relaxed immigration policies.  but we're not for relaxed immigration policies for EVERY country, since obviously some countries want to do us serious harm.  (Even in countries where we'd permit relaxation, some people would still be deemed "high risk," & denied entry).

Obviously, airlines would've been given a choice.  Install secure cockpit doors or face extreme repercussions, since vulnerable cockpit doors possessed a clear risk to national security.  

Who said police/military need to be privatized?  libertarians are willing to take a hard look at privatization as an option.  But it's just that: an option.  We know  that a "private" solution is not always best.  Sometimes, either a "public" or a private-public solution is what's most effective.  So, whatever the case, those planes would've had air marshals, and our skies would've had air patrols.  Would there have been a 9-11 under libertarian rule? quite doubtful.

(1) Huge but not that huge, much more prominent in primaries than in general elections, and huge because of our lethargically small total voter turnout.

(3) Why did you say lots of "your" left wingers in Congress were all anti-war??   Are they related to the "indians" who crashed planes into buildings on 9/11?  I've already explained why I think Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution -- for political cover or to give the president's threat of action more credibility to Saddam so it wouldn't have to be used.  I suspect Clinton did it for the first reason because Republicans were attacking every Democrat's patriotism -- even Republican Ron Paul feared that earlier, with the 2001 Afghanistan vote.  But I seriously doubt she thought Saddam had WMDs, because that was ridiculous.

As for my own playbook tilting in favor of nurture over nature, I believe people get fairly set in their world view in their 40s, including politicians, especially when it's not an extreme view, like the extreme kind Sen. Robert Byrd had about race, before he did a 180 degree and endorsed Barack Obama for President in 2008.  And when you say I'm a liberals, you're again making a conjecture.

Bribing the suddenly unemployed Sunni Iraqi bureaucrats and soldiers would have been much cheaper than fighting ISIS.  Do you understand how important it is for people to have food and security in a war situation like that? The US gave about 1% of its GDP each year to help Europe and Japan recover from WWII, and that turned out to be a very cheap price.  

(4) What happened was that the Republicans and Democrats were a bunch of glad handers, while the Libertarians kind of obsessed about which Enlightnement philosophers were best.  The stereotypes were right.  

I used real examples about what airlines actually did for security -- they wanted no part of it, meaning your libertarian argument didn't work.  You haven't been around enough libertarians, including registered Libertarian party members, if you think privatization is just an option with them. They love privatization, while the ones who hold a softer line think public-private partnerships are the answer.  I'm not talking the most extreme Ayn Rand libertarians but the Reason magazine type.

 

  (1) First, "all extremists" were voters.  Then they weren't.  But "extremist" voters were "huge."  Now they're "not so huge." lol

You don't even seem to know what an "extremist" is. 

Example of a right-wing extremist: tars & feathers Blacks.

Example of a left-wing extremist:  Sends pipe bombs to the Forbes 400.

Somebody who stands in line and casts a worthless ballot for a watered-down candidate: not an extremist.

I'm glad I got that settled for you.

(3) Those are figures of speech, not words meant to be taken literally.

So she was "anti war" until she needed political cover from attacks on her patriotism?  That sounds as if a circumstance altered her fixed personality, no?

Apparently people have their "world views" fixed @ around (an arbitrary) age of 40.  But, when that "fixed world view" doesn't fit an unusual circumstance, they alter their perspective?  That's what I said all along.  And that's why I said you had no way of knowing what Gore would've done if he were POTUS during 9-11.  (recall that 9-11 qualified as an unusual circumstance).

You spend a lot time bashing the right and cheer-leading/excusing the left.  How silly of me to label you a liberal.

Perhaps it would've been cheaper.  Did I saw otherwise?  What I said was that it wasn't politically feasible, given that those people might've taken the handouts and then turned around and terrorized us a second time.  (You mention what the US did after an officially sanctioned war.  But the 9-11 incident was spun to the American people as an "act of terrorism."  That's a big, big difference. 

(Out of curiosity, how many left-wing politicians got together with their supporters and kept the sunni stabilized?  Did Hilliary orchestrate such an endeavor?  Why not, given that all "the experts" said sunni would suit up and kill us?)

(4) I wasn't around when dinosaurs roamed the earth.  So I don't know how libertarians operated back then.  Nowadays, they're far more focused on practicality than philosophy.

I know what the airlines did for security.  But how is that relevant, given that they were not under libertarian rule? (Recall, that a libertarian gov't would put great emphasis on security.  The airlines would've been told to install secure cockpit doors or be sanctioned.  By sanctioned, I mean banned from flying.  Did the 9-11 erar gov't do that? lol).  Now you're going to say my argument doesn't work, since -- under a non-libertarian gov't -- airlines got away with lax security?  lol wtf?

It actually sounds as if you haven't been around enough libertarians to get a sophisticated feel for libertarians.  We LOL @ Reason magazine..  (Of course, we also LOL @ National Review & Mother Jones).

(1) You're not accurate, and you don't seem to understand.  Right-wing extremists in the US tend to be fundamentalist Protestants who think their candidate was chosen by God and the Bible should be the law of the land (57% of Republicans have said the latter).  

(3) Calling the terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 "indians" isn't a very popular figure of speech, or it's an archaic one.  

Hillary always talked hawkish against Saddam, as did about every Democrat.  I don't know what she actually thought, but Bill Clinton seemed to believe in the policies of George Bush, who, after winning the Gulf War stuck with using air power, not ground troops, most exemplified by Operation Desert Fox in 1999.  And only a few weeks ago, Hillary said she'd send no ground troops to Iraq or Lebanon.

Yes, people are fairly set in their beliefs in their 40s.  I'm sure you can list some counter examples among politicians, other than the ones I've mentioned.

You implied that paying the suddenly unemployed members of Saddam's bureaucracy and military was a waste of money.  

How would Hillary Clinton and liberals have been able to change US foreign policy back then to get Paul Bremer's orders #1 and #2 reversed when GW Bush was President?  

You got it wrong when you said nobody knew what would happen in Iraq, and now you're using reasoning based on more ignorance.  

Airlines didn't care anything about security before 9/11.  Before then, they'd be fairly lax at Sky Harbor in Phoenix unless they heard that a federal inspection was imminent, and I did not like driving around the gates with so much vehicle traffic and the guy I was supposed to follow drove too fast for me to follow.  

Airlines didn't install cockpit security doors voluntarily, and "volunteer or be sanctioned" is not voluntary in any sense, libertarian or not.  

(4)  You weren't around, 6,000 years ago?

  (1) You don't get it.  What's important is what those people DO about their beliefs.  Extremists take ACTION.  But posers go "blah, blah, blah." Then they go stand in line and cast a vote.  It will drowned by the other side's poser's who go, "blah, blah, blah," and cast a vote that will drown at the hands of the other side's blah, blah blahers..  Who knew "extremists" were so easy to control?

(3) First, I don't care about popularity (Recall that I'm using a forum where many people vote.  Yet I said voting is stupid).  Second, I will now use the modern term: 7-11 indians.

You're really big on fixed policies, in a dynamic world.  Understand that, during the Bush era, 7-11 indians hadn't done enough to warrant a full-on beat down by an 800-pound gorilla (aka the US).  A few air strikes (here or there) were about as far as the US could go, for fear of looking like a bully.  But 9-11 changed that.  Air strikes hadn't worked.  So what was a politican to do?  Suggest "moar airstrikes," and have them come up short a 2nd time? lol  (That's hard for you to understand, though, since you slant towards consistency rather than effectiveness).

Maybe many people are "set in their beliefs by 40."  But I would hope the smart ones would realize that "beliefs" are crude ways of dealing with a complex world.  One's "beliefs" are ok for dealing with ordinary issues/events, since the basis of "beliefs" is ordinary issues/events.  Should you apply your beliefs to an extraordinary situation?  (HINT: an extraordinary event shows us that our beliefs are vulnerable.  That's a big reason that, after a big anomaly, you see many people shell shocked).

What I said was that "cost" was not necessarily the dominant issue for US politicians in determining whether to beat down the 7-11 indians.  (Of course, I would say the big issue was political cover, in case of a second attack.  The thinking was probably something like, "Shock-and-awe the 7-11's.  It'll take them quite awhile to recover from trauma, meaning we're unlikely to get lit up again anytime soon.  But let's also heighten domestic security, in case a few of those fuc*ers are cock-roach resilient."

Change foreign policy?  Where did I say Hillary could do that?  What I said is that I didn't see the left raising $$$ to stabilize the 7-11's.  Apparently, when POTUS speaks, nobody can collect aid, and send aid abroad? who knew?

You said it was "obvious" what would happen (due to what experts had said).  If that were the case, why didn't left-wing politicians encourage you people to do what I said above? (Do fundraisers & send the proceeds abroad?) Why was no independent action taken?  (As an aside, how come so many of you voter types complain/argue, instead of DOING something?  Is that for extremists?).

Why mention what airlines did/cared about?  We've already established that they didn't care.  No need to argue a point that's not under contention.

Once again, you're taking a figure of speech literally.  haha!

That said, It would've been "voluntary" before it became "involuntary."  Under libertarian rule, a law would've required secure cockpit doors.  Instead of having their planes seized & retro-fitted, airlines would've had time to comply with on their own, without gov't intervention.

(4) Well, I hate to admit it.  But I lied to you.  I'm actually a vampire.  

rated:
bighitter said:   Until I read the article you linked  from The Arizona Republic,  I thought the Wall Street Journal was pretty tough.  The Arizona Republic states, "The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified."  

The problem I have voting for Hillary is that I don't believe she is qualified OR honest.  My hope is that if Trump is elected he will be fiscally conservative and lean socially liberal.

I watched the debate in its entirety.  I didn't think Trump did well.  Hillary, although robotic and scripted in her responses and delivery, did far better than Trump in the debate in my opinion.

 

Hillary was even honest when she criticized Trump, except on that "gold standard" trade thing.   As for her emails, according to the FBI report, in Dec. 2014 her staff turned her work e-mails to the State Dept. and  requested that her work and private e-mails be deleted from the Platte River Networks server, but for some reason nothing was deleted  Then in March 2015, her staff informed Platte River that Congress had issued an order of preservation and said that the e-mails could not be erased.  But then the Platte River tech who was supposed to delete the e-mails 3 months before the order -- the tech who more recently took the 5th Amendment, erased them.  

It's hard to make the argument that Trump is any more qualified or honest than Clinton, compared to saying he's much worse in those respects. He took over his father's successful real estate company and ran it subpar, he way overspent on 2 Atlantic City Casinos, causing them to fail soon, wiping out the value of the then publicly-traded Trump Corp, and he unsuccessfully sued the Wall Street analyst who predicted the Trump Taj Mahal casino's failure.  The choice between Hillary and Donald isn't about liberal or conservative but between qualified and unqualified and between less than Ford-Carter-Truman honesty and the biggest liar in the world.  

rated:
No trump isnt qualified for the job. Not at all. The main qualification to be president is to be a political insider that can get the nod from their chosen party. The people stole that from the republican party.

He's going to have a hard time getting things done. Will he go the way of Obama, backpedaling on the promise to stop legislating by executive order? Or will his plans be mired by a Congress that doesn't appreciate his populist usurpation?

I'll vote for him knowing full well I'm voting for the unqualified one. The one that doesn't have experience carpet bagging into a state to return right back to Washington, the one that doesn't have experience negotiating trade deals like TPP, one that doesn't know how to protect an embassy, the one that didn't take out Osama bin laden, and the one that didn't take millions from terrorist supporters.

I could go on. Hell I never liked her since she stole a Senate seat from my state, back when I lived in NY. Back when I was an unabashed liberal that thought the right government controls could cure the ailing world, let alone solve our country's long standing issues. I would have voted against her then, but I wasnt old enough.

rated:
kopiz said:   
larrymoencurly said:   (1) You're not accurate, and you don't seem to understand.  Right-wing extremists in the US tend to be fundamentalist Protestants who think their candidate was chosen by God and the Bible should be the law of the land (57% of Republicans have said the latter).  

(3) Calling the terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 "indians" isn't a very popular figure of speech, or it's an archaic one.  

Hillary always talked hawkish against Saddam, as did about every Democrat.  I don't know what she actually thought, but Bill Clinton seemed to believe in the policies of George Bush, who, after winning the Gulf War stuck with using air power, not ground troops, most exemplified by Operation Desert Fox in 1999.  And only a few weeks ago, Hillary said she'd send no ground troops to Iraq or Lebanon.

Yes, people are fairly set in their beliefs in their 40s.  I'm sure you can list some counter examples among politicians, other than the ones I've mentioned.

You implied that paying the suddenly unemployed members of Saddam's bureaucracy and military was a waste of money.  

How would Hillary Clinton and liberals have been able to change US foreign policy back then to get Paul Bremer's orders #1 and #2 reversed when GW Bush was President?  

You got it wrong when you said nobody knew what would happen in Iraq, and now you're using reasoning based on more ignorance.  

Airlines didn't care anything about security before 9/11.  Before then, they'd be fairly lax at Sky Harbor in Phoenix unless they heard that a federal inspection was imminent, and I did not like driving around the gates with so much vehicle traffic and the guy I was supposed to follow drove too fast for me to follow.  

Airlines didn't install cockpit security doors voluntarily, and "volunteer or be sanctioned" is not voluntary in any sense, libertarian or not.  

(4)  You weren't around, 6,000 years ago?

  (1) You don't get it.  What's important is what those people DO about their beliefs.  Extremists take ACTION.  But posers go "blah, blah, blah." Then they go stand in line and cast a vote.  It will drowned by the other side's poser's who go, "blah, blah, blah," and cast a vote that will drown at the hands of the other side's blah, blah blahers..  Who knew "extremists" were so easy to control?

(3) First, I don't care about popularity (Recall that I'm using a forum where many people vote.  Yet I said voting is stupid).  Second, I will now use the modern term: 7-11 indians.

You're really big on fixed policies, in a dynamic world.  Understand that, during the Bush era, 7-11 indians hadn't done enough to warrant a full-on beat down by an 800-pound gorilla (aka the US).  A few air strikes (here or there) were about as far as the US could go, for fear of looking like a bully.  But 9-11 changed that.  Air strikes hadn't worked.  So what was a politican to do?  Suggest "moar airstrikes," and have them come up short a 2nd time? lol  (That's hard for you to understand, though, since you slant towards consistency rather than effectiveness).

Maybe many people are "set in their beliefs by 40."  But I would hope the smart ones would realize that "beliefs" are crude ways of dealing with a complex world.  One's "beliefs" are ok for dealing with ordinary issues/events, since the basis of "beliefs" is ordinary issues/events.  Should you apply your beliefs to an extraordinary situation?  (HINT: an extraordinary event shows us that our beliefs are vulnerable.  That's a big reason that, after a big anomaly, you see many people shell shocked).

What I said was that "cost" was not necessarily the dominant issue for US politicians in determining whether to beat down the 7-11 indians.  (Of course, I would say the big issue was political cover, in case of a second attack.  The thinking was probably something like, "Shock-and-awe the 7-11's.  It'll take them quite awhile to recover from trauma, meaning we're unlikely to get lit up again anytime soon.  But let's also heighten domestic security, in case a few of those fuc*ers are cock-roach resilient."

Change foreign policy?  Where did I say Hillary could do that?  What I said is that I didn't see the left raising $$$ to stabilize the 7-11's.  Apparently, when POTUS speaks, nobody can collect aid, and send aid abroad? who knew?

You said it was "obvious" what would happen (due to what experts had said).  If that were the case, why didn't left-wing politicians encourage you people to do what I said above? (Do fundraisers & send the proceeds abroad?) Why was no independent action taken?  (As an aside, how come so many of you voter types complain/argue, instead of DOING something?  Is that for extremists?).

Why mention what airlines did/cared about?  We've already established that they didn't care.  No need to argue a point that's not under contention.

Once again, you're taking a figure of speech literally.  haha!

That said, It would've been "voluntary" before it became "involuntary."  Under libertarian rule, a law would've required secure cockpit doors.  Instead of having their planes seized & retro-fitted, airlines would've had time to comply with on their own, without gov't intervention.

(4) Well, I hate to admit it.  But I lied to you.  I'm actually a vampire. 

(1) That's about what I said, and that's why extremists can be dangerous.

(3) You should, because if you use figures of speech that aren't very popular, you may not be understood.  "7-11 indian" isn't the vernacular around here, and while your spelling indicates you were referring to people whose ancestors were the first to inhabit the Americas, maybe you were instead referring to Indians, those people from the biggest nation in the middle Asian subcontinent of India.  I'm in Arizona, where we have more indians than Indians.  Still, you make no sense because those '"indians" who crashed planes into buildings on 9/11' didn't exist -- the 9/11 hijackers were overwhelmingly Saudi Arabian (I early wrongly said all were), an Egyptian, a Lebanese, and a couple from the United Arab Emirates -- none from the Indian subcontinent or descended from indians.  Here in Maricopa County (named after the Maricopa indians), soon after 9/11 an immigrant Sikh gas station owner was murdered because somebody thought he was Muslim.  

Considering the current state of Afghanistan, 9/11 didn't exactly prove that ground attacks worked, but the outcome may have been better if GW Bush hadn't diverted so many troops away from Afghanistan to fight in the Iraq war.  OTOH the Gulf War was won almost exclusely through, the Kosovo War even more so. 

Some things don't change that much in the world, such a tribalism and nationalism and the importance of not intervening overseas unless one's security is directly threatened (and I don't mean preemptive war that's way short of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war), and in the Middle East it's better to favor the secular over the religious.  Also always give the impression  you're respecting the UN because it's actually very popular in foreign countries where the people don't like their own governments.    Please explain how you think the dynamics of the world are different.  

You seemed to say that in Libertarian World, at least some airlines would handle security matters on their own, and I said in Real World none had.


 

rated:
scrouds said:   No trump isnt qualified for the job. Not at all. The main qualification to be president is to be a political insider that can get the nod from their chosen party. The people stole that from the republican party.

He's going to have a hard time getting things done. Will he go the way of Obama, backpedaling on the promise to stop legislating by executive order? Or will his plans be mired by a Congress that doesn't appreciate his populist usurpation?

I'll vote for him knowing full well I'm voting for the unqualified one. The one that doesn't have experience carpet bagging into a state to return right back to Washington, the one that doesn't have experience negotiating trade deals like TPP, one that doesn't know how to protect an embassy, the one that didn't take out Osama bin laden, and the one that didn't take millions from terrorist supporters.

I could go on. Hell I never liked her since she stole a Senate seat from my state, back when I lived in NY. Back when I was an unabashed liberal that thought the right government controls could cure the ailing world, let alone solve our country's long standing issues. I would have voted against her then, but I wasnt old enough.

Good arguments, except Trump is worse in every one of those respects.  

Robert Kennedy was a carpetbagger to New York, but he would have made a great president, and while hillary isn't as good as him, but she's a lot better than Trump and doesn't say crazy things about not supporting our allies unless they pay us more -- exactly what  our enemies want to hear and want happen.

TPP is an anti-China trade deal, and if we don't get TPP, China will step in and negotiate a treaty among the very same Pacific nations but exclude the US.  

 

rated:
deusxmachina said:   Hillary has promised not to deport anyone (except "criminals").  

 

  Why do you hate Ronald Reagan?

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   scrouds said:   No trump isnt qualified for the job. Not at all. The main qualification to be president is to be a political insider that can get the nod from their chosen party. The people stole that from the republican party.

He's going to have a hard time getting things done. Will he go the way of Obama, backpedaling on the promise to stop legislating by executive order? Or will his plans be mired by a Congress that doesn't appreciate his populist usurpation?

I'll vote for him knowing full well I'm voting for the unqualified one. The one that doesn't have experience carpet bagging into a state to return right back to Washington, the one that doesn't have experience negotiating trade deals like TPP, one that doesn't know how to protect an embassy, the one that didn't take out Osama bin laden, and the one that didn't take millions from terrorist supporters.

I could go on. Hell I never liked her since she stole a Senate seat from my state, back when I lived in NY. Back when I was an unabashed liberal that thought the right government controls could cure the ailing world, let alone solve our country's long standing issues. I would have voted against her then, but I wasnt old enough.

Good arguments, except Trump is worse in every one of those respects.  

Robert Kennedy was a carpetbagger to New York, but he would have made a great president, and while hillary isn't as good as him, but she's a lot better than Trump and doesn't say crazy things about not supporting our allies unless they pay us more -- exactly what  our enemies want to hear and want happen.

TPP is an anti-China trade deal, and if we don't get TPP, China will step in and negotiate a treaty among the very same Pacific nations but exclude the US.  

 


What does Robert Kennedy have to do with the price of tea in china? He could have been the best president we ever had, but that doesn't transfer to Clinton solely on the basis of being a NY carpet bagger.

For all that mars trump in this election, the one thing I think any rational person needs to acknowledge is that he understands negotiations and leverage. Go to fwf. There are a number of car threads there of people that completed a purchase but want to go back to the dealer to remedy something at the dealers expense. The advice is clear, they have to leverage, they won't get anything else.

We can't get NATO freeloaders to pay their fair share, a share they've already agreed to, without at least threatening consequences.

As for China, let them make their own deals. If they want to cut us off of trade, we'll build cheap shit here.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
TPP is an anti-China trade deal, and if we don't get TPP, China will step in and negotiate a treaty among the very same Pacific nations but exclude the US.  

 

So, if Hillary is against TPP, why don't you call her out on it ... or do you believe she's just holding the Sanders crowd's water until January?

rated:
FWIW, anyone who know anything about trade knows TPP is a good deal. It was designed to form a block against China. However, the coliation is already breaking apart thanks to no small part to the little Trump in Philippine.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippines-leader-to-end-joint-mili...

In my mind, there's no doubt that Hillary is just playing to the crowd. She ain't that dumb.

Man, I just can imaging how damn pleased Putin and Xi are right now. American is too strong to break but self-destruction is always an option. Look back in history, that's what happens to all the great powers.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
deusxmachina said:   Hillary has promised not to deport anyone (except "criminals").  

 

  Why do you hate Ronald Reagan?

  Reagan was dumb in regards to having faith that other people in government would do what they said they would do and build a wall and enforce immigration laws so that Reagan's "one time" amnesty never happened again.  

Fool me twice, shame on me.  No amnesty.  Build the wall.
scrouds said:   
 
We can't get NATO freeloaders to pay their fair share, a share they've already agreed to, without at least threatening consequences.

 

  
Self-described Republican larrymoencurly wants to send America's sons and daughters, (will he send his own?), to fight and die for "ally" countries for free even if those "ally" countries agreed to pay their fair share but then do not, thus making them liars and bad "allies."

 

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
The choice between Hillary and Donald isn't about liberal or conservative but between qualified and unqualified and between less than Ford-Carter-Truman honesty and the biggest liar in the world.  

  
The choice between Crooked Hillary and Donald Trump is about globalist elitists vs. America.

If Crooked Hillary wins, she will destroy America as Sweden and Germany and France are being destroyed.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/21/norway-teaches-migrant-men-not-rape/ 
. said: “This was a big problem but it was difficult to talk about it,” she said, adding there is a “clear statistical connection” between rape and male migrants from countries where “women have no value of their own”.



http://toprightnews.com/heres-what-moderate-american-muslims-said-when-asked-about-sharia-law/ 
. said: The conversations started out normally at first, with answers to the simple question, “Is it easy to be Muslim in America?” being met with an emphatic, “Yes.”

With all of the controversy in the media about how badly Muslims are treated in this country, hearing a yes to that question was surprising. But it didn’t compare with what Horowitz began hearing shortly thereafter.

“Do you feel more comfortable living under American law or Shariah law?” Horowitz asked several Muslim men, women, and children.

Every single one of them gave their answer: Sharia law.




 And here's the big one.  Watch this video and then see how you feel about open borders.

With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb0_1447249820 

 

rated:
ZenNUTS said:   FWIW, anyone who know anything about trade knows TPP is a good deal. It was designed to form a block against China. However, the coliation is already breaking apart thanks to no small part to the little Trump in Philippine.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/philippines-leader-to-end-joint-mili...

In my mind, there's no doubt that Hillary is just playing to the crowd. She ain't that dumb.

Man, I just can imaging how damn pleased Putin and Xi are right now. American is too strong to break but self-destruction is always an option. Look back in history, that's what happens to all the great powers.

And how would you explain how the tpp is good for America to someone that doesn't know trade?

As a bonus, feel free to explain how the boon foe bug agriculture is of net benefit to the American people and not the select few that control farming in the US

rated:


 And here's the big one.  Watch this video and then see how you feel about open borders.

With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb0_1447249820 

  Anyone supporting the idea to take more refugees should watch this video and think again.  There is a frightening long term effect to this and no one knows how it will play out in 10-20 years.
I spent some time in Helsinki Finland this summer and the street scene is very different now from what it was when I lived there 25+ years ago. 
 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1254255256257 258
  • Page
  • Previous 40


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2016