In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 07 2016 11:18 pmh wrote: Would be fun if Bernie ran independent. Would be a 33/33/33 election result or somewhere close to that. He has been in it for so long now,he might as well do it. Its his best change to shake things up but I guess he will settle for a promise of free college for lower income americans, saw him mention something like that on cnn when Bernie was being intervieuwed.
candidates require more than 50% of the vote in order to win.
On July 07 2016 11:10 Plansix wrote: He will get to appoint the next justice, which means reduced voting rights for minorities and god know what else. But whatever.
That sucks, but it's far from the scariest thing I could actually see Trump doing, and again, that's an American problem, not a Trump problem. The quarantining of it as "Trump" by looking in isolation at the supreme court is a huge part of the problem.
The problem isn't worrying about a supreme court siding with some backasswards state usually years after people are impacted (remember Hillary's Democratic NY is one of the worst offenders) it's that these states pass this crap, and citizens live under it in the first place. While Trump brings his own problems, this notion that we've already conceded everything prior to the supreme court is far more damaging than I think many people realize.
Tuna made the case for stagnation as the safest option, that's only true for those who find themselves safe at the moment. Those living in fear for their rights and often lives don't have the luxury of a calm, well timed, gradual, well prepared, gentle drift towards justice. They need action now, whether we're prepared for it or not.
If voting rights laws are getting to the supreme court, it's too late, we've already lost too much. If it's as important to those that use it as a stick to motivate folks to support Hillary, they should seriously consider how important Hillary is to them, because while I may have an affinity toward that line of reasoning, one leg of Hillary's campaign rested on the notion that I'm a rarity among Sanders supporters.
But being black in America isn't getting better under Clinton or Trump it's a decision between under which it would get worse, which is an unacceptable proposition to me.
What do you think Clinton will do to make life for black people worse?
Well they need 50% of the electoral college, which no one has any clue how it would split up in a 3 way race and I don't think it could even be accurately polled without gigantic samples.
As for how she could make it worse, there's a lot that could get worse but it mostly revolves around her pattern of "unintended consequences". But even if somehow she was as good as Obama that still wouldn't be enough to not make it worse, and she's not as good as Obama.
On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote: he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
Is he more pro war than Clinton
His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA.
On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote: @GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here.
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election.
I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all.
The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
So do you think Hillary is strong on that front, or do you just think she is less bad?
Seems like a hard sell to promote Hillary as a not pro-war candidate.
I've said this before, a moron on the oval office sent my brother to two useless wars that accomplished nothing. I am not giving that bigoted, thin skinned trust fund baby the ability to do it a third time.
On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote: he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
Is he more pro war than Clinton
His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA.
On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote: @GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here.
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election.
I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all.
The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
So do you think Hillary is strong on that front, or do you just think she is less bad?
Seems like a hard sell to promote Hillary as a not pro-war candidate.
I've said this before, a moron on the oval office sent my brother to two useless wars that accomplished nothing. I am not giving that bigoted, thin skinned trust fund baby the ability to do it a third time.
On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote: he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
Is he more pro war than Clinton
His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA.
On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote: @GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here.
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election.
I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all.
The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
So do you think Hillary is strong on that front, or do you just think she is less bad?
Seems like a hard sell to promote Hillary as a not pro-war candidate.
I've said this before, a moron on the oval office sent my brother to two useless wars that accomplished nothing. I am not giving that bigoted, thin skinned trust fund baby the ability to do it a third time.
So you would rather let Hillary do the same?
I have 2000% more faith in her that a guy who literally tried to defraud single parents who stated they were worried about feeding their children. There is no contest. That man is a reactionary man-baby that thinks dictators people to look to for how to deal with threats to our country. I'm not some internet kid talking about this election on some theoretical level, I did this shit under Bush for 8 years. I'm not doing it again.
On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote: he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
Is he more pro war than Clinton
His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA.
On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote: @GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here.
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election.
I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all.
The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
So do you think Hillary is strong on that front, or do you just think she is less bad?
Seems like a hard sell to promote Hillary as a not pro-war candidate.
I've said this before, a moron on the oval office sent my brother to two useless wars that accomplished nothing. I am not giving that bigoted, thin skinned trust fund baby the ability to do it a third time.
So you would rather let Hillary do the same?
sorry but what is that "hillary warhawk" meme actually based on? Where is she going to put boots on the ground? If anything she's going to continue Obama's drone war. There doesn't seem to be any kind of support in the US for large scale ground offensives. Pretty much anybody has understood by now that the Middle-East is screwed up beyond repair.
The NATO/Eastern Europe and Pacific situation is more meaningful because on that issue the candidates are actually going to make a difference. Trump's "let's give everybody nukes" policy is fucking crazy. He's essentially the crazy Hungarian guy out of the last MGS game
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here.
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election.
Take a 90 day ban bet on that?
I've already got a 100$ bet on it.
I gain nothing from you being banned for 90 days from TL. Is this something you'd actually want to bet on though?
On July 07 2016 10:28 TMagpie wrote: Legit question, what makes people think anyone would vote for Bernie in the general when they weren't voting for him in the primary?
Insert Trump hysteria here.
it seems you don't too much pay attention to him much out of your obsession with the hillary/bernie issue, but he is really quite frightening and a real possibility. i hope you do enough research to properly scare yourself closer to the GE.
I love it how the same people saying these sorts of things (including also but not limited to him being literally Hitler, will end the world in nuclear warfare, destroy the American economy, etc) are the same people accusing him of fear-mongering.
On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote: he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
Is he more pro war than Clinton
His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA.
On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote: @GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here.
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election.
I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all.
The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
So do you think Hillary is strong on that front, or do you just think she is less bad?
Seems like a hard sell to promote Hillary as a not pro-war candidate.
I've said this before, a moron on the oval office sent my brother to two useless wars that accomplished nothing. I am not giving that bigoted, thin skinned trust fund baby the ability to do it a third time.
So you would rather let Hillary do the same?
I have 2000% more faith in her that a guy who literally tried to defraud single parents who stated they were worried about feeding their children. There is no contest. That man is a reactionary man-baby that thinks dictators people to look to for how to deal with threats to our country. I'm not some internet kid talking about this election on some theoretical level, I did this shit under Bush for 8 years. I'm not doing it again.
You are only talking about how much you don't like Trump and how his character fails to make him a good FP leader. The problem is that Hillary has a long, not so flattering history of supporting poorly planned and ineffective FP strategies. So all I'm seeing is "Hillary cuz not Trump."
So is that all there is, or do you actually have a reason beyond that, FP-wise?
On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote: he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
Is he more pro war than Clinton
His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA.
On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote: @GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here.
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election.
I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all.
The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
So do you think Hillary is strong on that front, or do you just think she is less bad?
Seems like a hard sell to promote Hillary as a not pro-war candidate.
I've said this before, a moron on the oval office sent my brother to two useless wars that accomplished nothing. I am not giving that bigoted, thin skinned trust fund baby the ability to do it a third time.
So you would rather let Hillary do the same?
sorry but what is that "hillary warhawk" meme actually based on? Where is she going to put boots on the ground? If anything she's going to continue Obama's drone war. There doesn't seem to be any kind of support in the US for large scale ground offensives. Pretty much anybody has understood by now that the Middle-East is screwed up beyond repair.
The NATO/Eastern Europe and Pacific situation is more meaningful because on that issue the candidates are actually going to make a difference. Trump's "let's give everybody nukes" policy is fucking crazy. He's essentially the crazy Hungarian guy of the last MGS game
FP is not done particularly democratically. Far as I see she could go send troops to Libya again, to Taiwan, to Ukraine, to Syria, to wherever else she thinks the US should butt its way into. Historically she has done so, and historically her FP decisions have ended badly.
I think Hiliary is fine. I have not bought into the GOP endless media blitz to make her seem untrustworthy. I had a president lie to me to go to war, not really bent out of shape over an email server. As for FP, I have been happy with Obama and I don't expect a huge sea change if she is elected.
On July 07 2016 11:40 biology]major wrote: the debates are going to be so one sided. trump has basically mt everest worth of ammo, and his personality is a giant shield to insults. After realizing that hrc has no effect via shit slinging she will resort to staying on policy which no one will listen to for two reasons: its all stuff the average american has heard before from obama, and second her message will be drowned out by trump's insults. The end result will be a weak, robotic and corrupt politician with no charisma vs a new, anti establishment candidate who dwarfs her non existent personality. The question is how much do the debates affect the GE
I wouldn't be surprised if she just refused to debate. Probably would hurt her less then debating too...
On July 07 2016 11:18 pmh wrote: Would be fun if Bernie ran independent. Would be a 33/33/33 election result or somewhere close to that. He has been in it for so long now,he might as well do it. Its his best change to shake things up but I guess he will settle for a promise of free college for lower income americans, saw him mention something like that on cnn when Bernie was being intervieuwed.
candidates require more than 50% of the vote in order to win.
On July 07 2016 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 07 2016 11:10 Plansix wrote: He will get to appoint the next justice, which means reduced voting rights for minorities and god know what else. But whatever.
That sucks, but it's far from the scariest thing I could actually see Trump doing, and again, that's an American problem, not a Trump problem. The quarantining of it as "Trump" by looking in isolation at the supreme court is a huge part of the problem.
The problem isn't worrying about a supreme court siding with some backasswards state usually years after people are impacted (remember Hillary's Democratic NY is one of the worst offenders) it's that these states pass this crap, and citizens live under it in the first place. While Trump brings his own problems, this notion that we've already conceded everything prior to the supreme court is far more damaging than I think many people realize.
Tuna made the case for stagnation as the safest option, that's only true for those who find themselves safe at the moment. Those living in fear for their rights and often lives don't have the luxury of a calm, well timed, gradual, well prepared, gentle drift towards justice. They need action now, whether we're prepared for it or not.
If voting rights laws are getting to the supreme court, it's too late, we've already lost too much. If it's as important to those that use it as a stick to motivate folks to support Hillary, they should seriously consider how important Hillary is to them, because while I may have an affinity toward that line of reasoning, one leg of Hillary's campaign rested on the notion that I'm a rarity among Sanders supporters.
But being black in America isn't getting better under Clinton or Trump it's a decision between under which it would get worse, which is an unacceptable proposition to me.
What do you think Clinton will do to make life for black people worse?
Well they need 50% of the electoral college, which no one has any clue how it would split up in a 3 way race and I don't think it could even be accurately polled without gigantic samples.
On July 07 2016 11:11 kapibara-san wrote: he'll be commander in chief
this is the key point
he will have control over military action
Is he more pro war than Clinton
His temperament of being unable to back, ever, would be terrible at keeping us out of conflicts. Let alone his control over the FBI and CIA.
On July 07 2016 11:20 oBlade wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:46 ticklishmusic wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 07 2016 09:06 kapibara-san wrote: @GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
Personally I think people are underestimating how much Trump could drive republican turnout against Hillary and overestimating how well Hillary will do to assuage concerns about her among the left and turn people out against Trump. But I can save those conversations for delegates who actually have influence over the outcome rather than here.
I think a lot of people are in for a big surprise in November when Trump destroys her in the general election.
I'm saving this one for posterity. Either there will be posterity to laugh at it, or there will be very little to no posterity at all.
The American experiment, the first country explicitly founded on the Enlightenment, that's stood for over two centuries, through over 40 administrations, a civil and two world wars, isn't going to be suddenly undone by someone who is coincidentally the candidate you don't like in the current election.
It only takes one. But this isn't an endorsement either. "Will not destroy the Union" is not a line on the president's resume.
So do you think Hillary is strong on that front, or do you just think she is less bad?
Seems like a hard sell to promote Hillary as a not pro-war candidate.
I've said this before, a moron on the oval office sent my brother to two useless wars that accomplished nothing. I am not giving that bigoted, thin skinned trust fund baby the ability to do it a third time.
So you would rather let Hillary do the same?
I have 2000% more faith in her that a guy who literally tried to defraud single parents who stated they were worried about feeding their children. There is no contest. That man is a reactionary man-baby that thinks dictators people to look to for how to deal with threats to our country. I'm not some internet kid talking about this election on some theoretical level, I did this shit under Bush for 8 years. I'm not doing it again.
You sound very much like someone spewing irrational emotional feelings rather than logical objective analysis.
On July 07 2016 11:40 biology]major wrote: the debates are going to be so one sided. trump has basically mt everest worth of ammo, and his personality is a giant shield to insults. After realizing that hrc has no effect via shit slinging she will resort to staying on policy which no one will listen to for two reasons: its all stuff the average american has heard before from obama, and second her message will be drowned out by trump's insults. The end result will be a weak, robotic and corrupt politician with no charisma vs a new, anti establishment candidate who dwarfs her non existent personality. The question is how much do the debates affect the GE
I wouldn't be surprised if she just refused to debate. Probably would hurt her less then debating too...
I wouldn't be too surprised either. She's at around 200 days since her last press conference. The more she exposes herself to the public eye the worse she will do in the general. She definitely won't be debating him more than once or twice that's for sure.
On July 07 2016 12:19 Plansix wrote: I think Hiliary is fine. I have not bought into the GOP endless media blitz to make her seem untrustworthy. I had a president lie to me to go to war, not really bent out of shape over an email server.
Hillary was one of the major proponents of that war and actively campaigned for it on the WMD issue. I find it laughable that you think that she is somehow less closely tied to the Iraq and Afghanistan issues than Trump who is on the other end of the issue. And while it's fine to support one over the other, I really don't see your logic here. She is part of the problem. And the possible faults you attribute to Trump, she has. What is your rationale for Hillary other than "not Trump?"
On July 07 2016 12:19 Plansix wrote: I think Hiliary is fine. I have not bought into the GOP endless media blitz to make her seem untrustworthy. I had a president lie to me to go to war, not really bent out of shape over an email server.
Hillary was one of the major proponents of that war and actively campaigned for it on the WMD issue. I find it laughable that you think that she is somehow less closely tied to the Iraq and Afghanistan issues than Trump who is on the other end of the issue. And while it's fine to support one over the other, I really don't see your logic here. She is part of the problem. And the possible faults you attribute to Trump, she has. What is your rationale for Hillary other than "not Trump?"
I supported the war at the time. I was lied to as well. Many people were. What is your point?
We are edging close to the point when I stop politely ask answering these every leading questions. I was pretty clear that I'm not thrilled with Hiliary, but I feel she is the better choice.
On July 07 2016 12:19 Plansix wrote: I think Hiliary is fine. I have not bought into the GOP endless media blitz to make her seem untrustworthy. I had a president lie to me to go to war, not really bent out of shape over an email server.
Hillary was one of the major proponents of that war and actively campaigned for it on the WMD issue. I find it laughable that you think that she is somehow less closely tied to the Iraq and Afghanistan issues than Trump who is on the other end of the issue. And while it's fine to support one over the other, I really don't see your logic here. She is part of the problem. And the possible faults you attribute to Trump, she has. What is your rationale for Hillary other than "not Trump?"
It's basically like this
Except at the end of the video when confronted, the facts are ignored instead of taken into consideration resulting in a modification of viewpoint.
On July 07 2016 12:19 Plansix wrote: I think Hiliary is fine. I have not bought into the GOP endless media blitz to make her seem untrustworthy. I had a president lie to me to go to war, not really bent out of shape over an email server.
Hillary was one of the major proponents of that war and actively campaigned for it on the WMD issue. I find it laughable that you think that she is somehow less closely tied to the Iraq and Afghanistan issues than Trump who is on the other end of the issue. And while it's fine to support one over the other, I really don't see your logic here. She is part of the problem. And the possible faults you attribute to Trump, she has. What is your rationale for Hillary other than "not Trump?"
I supported the war at the time. I was lied to as well. Many people were. What is your point?
You say you can't support Trump because you are afraid he will get the US into shitty wars. Hillary has a history of getting the US into shitty wars. You say you don't want to deal with another president who lies and gets the country into more expensive wars. Hillary was one of the major liars and major proponents of those wars. Trump has been generally anti Iraq even back in 2003.
So where is the internal consistency of your position?
On July 07 2016 12:19 Plansix wrote: I think Hiliary is fine. I have not bought into the GOP endless media blitz to make her seem untrustworthy. I had a president lie to me to go to war, not really bent out of shape over an email server.
Hillary was one of the major proponents of that war and actively campaigned for it on the WMD issue. I find it laughable that you think that she is somehow less closely tied to the Iraq and Afghanistan issues than Trump who is on the other end of the issue. And while it's fine to support one over the other, I really don't see your logic here. She is part of the problem. And the possible faults you attribute to Trump, she has. What is your rationale for Hillary other than "not Trump?"
I supported the war at the time. I was lied to as well. Many people were. What is your point?
You say you can't support Trump because you are afraid he will get the US into shitty wars. Hillary has a history of getting the US into shitty wars. You say you don't want to deal with another president who lies and gets the country into more expensive wars. Hillary was one of the major liars and major proponents of those wars. Trump has been generally anti Iraq even back in 2003.
So where is the internal consistency of your position?
On July 07 2016 12:38 LegalLord wrote: I guess that's one for cognitive dissonance then. Fair enough.
Mostly I got bored explaining myself to a stranger on the internet talking at me. Your approval of my voting decisions and reasons does not matter to me. Likely never will.
EPT
