EPTOn July 27 2016 21:38 m4ini wrote:
Mainly because it's not entirely up to the president to just "decide" we go to war.
Mainly because it's not entirely up to the president to just "decide" we go to war.
Bush kind of pulled that off
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4513
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
Bush kind of pulled that off | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
In the wake of thousands of dead people and a national symbol going to rubble. What was Hillaries stance on that? Hillary won't balance the budget on the backs of the poor and she won't nominate SC justices who'll do things like try and overturn Roe v. Wade. That's all I really need, and believe me, there's plenty more, particularly with regards to federal agency direction. That's not entirely true. While she won't "balance the budget on the backs of the poor", the taxes for low income (~14k$) will still go up. Not by much, but still. As i said, i do agree that trumps tax plan is unrealistic in its current form, there's no reason to constantly bring it up since i've already agreed to it - same with the judge, where i also said you're right. It feels like you're running out of arguments, you also don't respond to points i make, so we could just leave it there, you accept what i'm saying and we both agree that it's pointless anyway because i'm not voting in the US either way. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Yet another reason. We would be one major terrorist attack away from having Commander and Chief Trump leading our armed service in military actions overseas. A man who doesn’t listen to anyone, no matter how qualified or skilled. The thought of it is terrifying for our service members and anyone between Trump and who he believed were the terrorist. On July 27 2016 21:52 m4ini wrote: In the wake of thousands of dead people and a national symbol going to rubble. What was Hillaries stance on that? 9/11? That it was horrible. The Iraq war? She was lied to by Bush, like a large number of democrats and Republicans. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
On July 27 2016 21:38 m4ini wrote: If you disregard pretty much every opinion of experts on that topic, then yes. Further russian expansion is "highly likely". Sidenote: it actually doesn't even work the way you describe it. The US has military bases in plenty of european countries. If you think that they just "leave" there, .. Hehe. Right. Of course the US presence in foreign nations will not evaporate the day Trump gets into office. However, his stance against NATO, his stance pro-Putin, his protectionistic anti-globalism rethoric, as well as him wanting to demand tax from countries with american bases, does imply he's looking to lessen the global US military presence. Anyhow, as to Clinton vs Trump in regards to Russia - Putin has everything to gain from a Trump presidency, and nothing to lose. While I'll hold my judgement on the DNC leaks being caused by a foreign power until there's been a proper checkout of the situation, this, too, would be purely in Putin's favour. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
| ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On July 27 2016 21:52 m4ini wrote: In the wake of thousands of dead people and a national symbol going to rubble. What was Hillaries stance on that? That's not entirely true. While she won't "balance the budget on the backs of the poor", the taxes for low income (~14k$) will still go up. Not by much, but still. As i said, i do agree that trumps tax plan is unrealistic in its current form, there's no reason to constantly bring it up since i've already agreed to it - same with the judge, where i also said you're right. It feels like you're running out of arguments, you also don't respond to points i make, so we could just leave it there, you accept what i'm saying and we both agree that it's pointless anyway because i'm not voting in the US either way. Maybe you should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton There is good and there is bad in there. Her Iraq stance was bad, however it does not distinguish her from Trump (or most other politicians) all that much. To her (very small) credit she now thinks the decision has been wrong. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 27 2016 21:57 plated.rawr wrote: Of course the US presence in foreign nations will not evaporate the day Trump gets into office. However, his stance against NATO, his stance pro-Putin, his protectionistic anti-globalism rethoric, as well as him wanting to demand tax from countries with american bases, does imply he's looking to lessen the global US military presence. Anyhow, as to Clinton vs Trump in regards to Russia - Putin has everything to gain from a Trump presidency, and nothing to lose. While I'll hold my judgement on the DNC leaks being caused by a foreign power until there's been a proper checkout of the situation, this, too, would be purely in Putin's favour. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-fbi-idUSKCN1051TD The official word: "indicated beyond a reasonable doubt that it originated in Russia." They also say it has all the signs of a classic intelligence operation. Unless some other evidence comes out, I think it is safe to assume Russia hacked the DNC. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 27 2016 21:55 Plansix wrote: 9/11? That it was horrible. The Iraq war? She was lied to by Bush, like a large number of democrats and Republicans. Right.. Could you tell me what she said as "excuse" to why she voted in favor? Makes the context of "bush lied" more interesting. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 27 2016 21:58 farvacola wrote: Let's take Trump's recent words at face value: if what he says about letting the VP take the reigns is true, it is almost certain that Pence and Congress would dive headfirst into military escalation, particularly with regards to Iran. I'd prefer that we not allow for that possibility. I would very much prefer not to be in a useless cold war with Iran any longer. I don’t want them to have nukes, but there is more than one way to handle that issue. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On July 27 2016 21:52 m4ini wrote: In the wake of thousands of dead people and a national symbol going to rubble. What was Hillaries stance on that? That's not entirely true. While she won't "balance the budget on the backs of the poor", the taxes for low income (~14k$) will still go up. Not by much, but still. As i said, i do agree that trumps tax plan is unrealistic in its current form, there's no reason to constantly bring it up since i've already agreed to it - same with the judge, where i also said you're right. It feels like you're running out of arguments, you also don't respond to points i make, so we could just leave it there, you accept what i'm saying and we both agree that it's pointless anyway because i'm not voting in the US either way. You claim that it's just taxes but tax policy underpins the entire function of the regulatory state, which is comprised primarily of executive agencies that are all headed by the president. The EPA, the VA, the IRS, the SSA, the FDA, the list goes on: every single one of these agencies and the things they govern would be affected by Trump's tax policy. Add in explicit promises to cut some of those programs and it should become clear that there is broad ground on which to oppose Trump. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10769 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:03 m4ini wrote: Right.. Could you tell me what she said as "excuse" to why she voted in favor? Makes the context of "bush lied" more interesting. Wmd's, involvement in iraq... Were you asleep the last 10 years? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:06 Velr wrote: Wmd's, involvement in iraq... Were you asleep the last 10 years? That answer doesn't make any sense. And as a sidenote, the military base i served on was at high alert for months because of this, so no, i wasn't asleep. Literally. edit: Clinton said that she voted for the resolution under the impression that Bush would allow more time for UN inspectors to find proof of weapons of mass destruction before proceeding. That's what i'm referring to. Maybe it's just me, but i do think that plans including steps to go to war are better explained than "Yo, here, vote yes or no for stuff in middle east, maybe tanks n shit". She knew what she was voting on/ | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:03 m4ini wrote: Right.. Could you tell me what she said as "excuse" to why she voted in favor? Makes the context of "bush lied" more interesting. She said the exact same thing all the other Democrats at the time said: we trusted that they wouldn’t lie to congress or take us to war on bad intelligence. The idea that a president would push for war on intelligence that was that poor was unthinkable at the time. I’m a liberal guy and even I defended it at the time. Everyone did at the time. We trusted them and Bush and his buddies burned us. And before people say I’m an apologist. Please remember that her vote sent my brother to Iraq for 2 of the worst years my family has ever gone through. And we did that twice, though the second time was Afghanistan. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11561 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:07 m4ini wrote: That answer doesn't make any sense. And as a sidenote, the military base i served on was at high alert for months because of this, so no, i wasn't asleep. Literally. So are you disputing the fact that Bush(and/or his leading clique) lied to start a war with iraq, or is your question about whether Hillary's "yes" vote was influenced by those lies? | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
And before people say I’m an apologist. Please remember that her vote sent my brother to Iraq for 2 of the worst years my family has ever gone through. And we did that twice, though the second time was Afghanistan. Oh i remember afghanistan. Where were your brothers stationed, maybe we've met them? So are you disputing the fact that Bush(and/or his leading clique) lied to start a war with iraq, or is your question about whether Hillary's "yes" vote was influenced by those lies? As i said over and over again, it was obvious that it was a lie, from start to beginning. What i'm disputing is that she didn't know or didn't expect. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11561 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:10 m4ini wrote: Oh i remember afghanistan. Where were your brothers stationed, maybe we've met them? As i said over and over again, it was obvious that it was a lie, from start to beginning. What i'm disputing is that she didn't know or didn't expect. Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6298 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:02 Plansix wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russia-fbi-idUSKCN1051TD The official word: "indicated beyond a reasonable doubt that it originated in Russia." They also say it has all the signs of a classic intelligence operation. Unless some other evidence comes out, I think it is safe to assume Russia hacked the DNC. Reading that article how is it possible that the FBI doesnt know if or who compromised Clintons email server? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:10 m4ini wrote: Oh i remember afghanistan. Where were your brothers stationed, maybe we've met them? As i said over and over again, it was obvious that it was a lie, from start to beginning. What i'm disputing is that she didn't know or didn't expect. He commanded convoys from Kandahar Air Field into a bunch of places, but he was based out of that area. It was better than his Iraq assignment, which was a prison and local transport. He got shot at a lot more there. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 27 2016 22:15 zeo wrote: Reading that article how is it possible that the FBI doesnt know if or who compromised Clintons email server? To be fair, it's not necessarily that easy, if done well. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 27 2016 21:46 farvacola wrote: Hillary won't balance the budget on the backs of the poor and she won't nominate SC justices who'll do things like try and overturn Roe v. Wade. That's all I really need, and believe me, there's plenty more, particularly with regards to federal agency direction. Don't be so sure of that tho. In France, we elected a socialist in 2012 who argued that his ennemy was "finance" and who promised to tax up to 75 % every bit of income above 1 million euro. In the end, he forgot all his promises and pushed forward a neoliberal agenda like any right wing president. | ||
| ||
