|
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. |
On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and ....
Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests.
The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism.
|
On July 29 2016 00:54 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Gaddafi and secular don't belong in the same sentence. We can extend the same courtesy to the Jamahiriya.
Well to be fair, relatively speaking, he was pretty secular. A scumbag dictator, that did whatever the fuck he wanted personally but generally speaking he was better for women+ Show Spoiler + (as long as they werent pretty or caught his eye or one of his boys, or his guards or his cabinet peeps, or his friends or their friends friends, or their friends)
|
On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:26 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:23 farvacola wrote:
How many press conference posts does that bring us to now? We get it, you've been told to harp on how many days it's been, thanks for the info. Every time you bring up the talking point of what Trump is saying to the press it is perfectly fine to remind people that at least he is saying something. This thread is moving so fast that I'm sure there are people out there that haven't been shown the fact that Clinton has been avoiding reporters for 236 days now. That doesn’t prove anything though. Clinton still answers the presses questions, just not in that format. The press asks her campaign questions all the time. You might as well cite “It is been 462 since Clinton has done a 1 on 1 hour long interview with someone with opposing views to her” as some sort of evidence that Trumps statements are not directly from a tire fire factory. We get it, she doesn’t do a lot of press conferences. Trump has not detailed a plan to deal with ISIS beyond “we will kill them all with our army, which is the best.” And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand. As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything.
Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever.
On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism.
Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general.
|
• Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans.
Indeed, he/she was poorly informed.
• We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons.
In your opinion they are lacking in details
• Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line.
No mention of context, if you can start the same old talking points I can say the same old rebuttals.
• I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies.
Which is absolutely not true in any way, shape or form. Please read my answer on the last page.
• He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about.
Connecting the press to their special relationship with the Clintons is important in understanding why Clinton hasn't answered a question in two thirds of a year.
• Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions”
Whats wrong with talking about Clintons FP?
Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic.
The point is you cant talk about Clintons answers to the press because she doesn't give them. One should always keep that in mind while talking about Trumps statements otherwise you are not being fair and impartial.
edit: For example: Trump said this and that at a press conference, lets see Clintons answer to reporters and compare... oh, she hasn't talked to reporters in two thirds of a year during an election cycle. This is a problem.
|
On July 29 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:26 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:23 farvacola wrote:
How many press conference posts does that bring us to now? We get it, you've been told to harp on how many days it's been, thanks for the info. Every time you bring up the talking point of what Trump is saying to the press it is perfectly fine to remind people that at least he is saying something. This thread is moving so fast that I'm sure there are people out there that haven't been shown the fact that Clinton has been avoiding reporters for 236 days now. That doesn’t prove anything though. Clinton still answers the presses questions, just not in that format. The press asks her campaign questions all the time. You might as well cite “It is been 462 since Clinton has done a 1 on 1 hour long interview with someone with opposing views to her” as some sort of evidence that Trumps statements are not directly from a tire fire factory. We get it, she doesn’t do a lot of press conferences. Trump has not detailed a plan to deal with ISIS beyond “we will kill them all with our army, which is the best.” And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand. As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything. Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever. Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism. Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general.
Can't disagree with that, but you have to remember that the only president in recent history who had a non-traditional approach of foreign policy was George W Bush and his neo cons hacks, and the result was ten time worse.
I really don't like American FP. I didn't like it under Clinton, I didn't like it under Reagan and Bush senior, and I don't like it under Obama. But it's not because something is not great that any alternative is a good idea.
Trump's proposals are so stupid and suicidal for trhe States and the West that he got Putin's approval. That's bad.
|
On July 29 2016 01:11 zeo wrote:Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Drumpfs plans.
Indeed, he/she was poorly informed.
We then moved to look up Drumpfs plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons..[/QUOTE]
Not really, Ive read his entire platform top to bottom multiple times. I doubt you can say the same. Infact I even opinion tested some of the proposals that seemed reasonable to me both on through research and with people who have knowledge on the subject
But I guess its easy to make statements like you dont know anything when you do it all the time. I can see why you like Drumpf.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 29 2016 01:02 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 00:54 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Gaddafi and secular don't belong in the same sentence. We can extend the same courtesy to the Jamahiriya. Well to be fair, relatively speaking, he was pretty secular. A scumbag dictator, that did whatever the fuck he wanted personally but generally speaking he was better for women + Show Spoiler + (as long as they werent pretty or caught his eye or one of his boys, or his guards or his cabinet peeps, or his friends or their friends friends, or their friends) .
He was secular compared to the most extreme strains of radical Islam, but the same thing could be said for the Ba'athist party during Saddam's regime. It's not really fair to credit either for not being the worst possible option.
Anyway I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in claims. The vetting of journalist questions itself is a common practice these days, and I don't know why zeo is so up-in-arms about it when it comes to Hillary. In the modern system you don't get access if you don't attempt to maintain relationships with your subjects.
|
On July 28 2016 23:48 KwarK wrote:
Bernie knows that it's a two party system. There is no reason to make a third party run in a two party system. Reform FPTP and maybe he'll try.
Yeah, everyone knows the two parties have always been Democrat and Republican... Which two parties are seen as the "two parties" never changes. Not once has a "third party" moved into becoming one of the two major parties. Also, It's not like anyone ever ran for president as third party before later becoming president within one of the parties.
Clearly nothing has been gained in American history from people running third party.
|
On July 28 2016 23:32 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 23:28 Plansix wrote:On July 28 2016 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
The other thing to mention is that policy specifics are highly overrated. Most voters really don't care. We're only 8 years removed from electing a president based upon promises of "hope and change." And healthcare reform, getting out of Iraq, working out way through the bail out. There were issues that Obama voters cared about, even if all you heard of “Hopes and Change”. Also hard to change shit with a do nothing congress, but thats on Americans.
It's actually quite rich from Republicans to blame on Obama's inactivity when all they have done in the last 8 years is to block all possibility of reforming the country and implement his platform regardless the cost for American people.
The fact that he managed to pull the financial reform and the ACA despite the repulsive attitude of the Republican led congress makes him one of the great leaders of our time.
|
On July 29 2016 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:26 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:23 farvacola wrote:
How many press conference posts does that bring us to now? We get it, you've been told to harp on how many days it's been, thanks for the info. Every time you bring up the talking point of what Trump is saying to the press it is perfectly fine to remind people that at least he is saying something. This thread is moving so fast that I'm sure there are people out there that haven't been shown the fact that Clinton has been avoiding reporters for 236 days now. That doesn’t prove anything though. Clinton still answers the presses questions, just not in that format. The press asks her campaign questions all the time. You might as well cite “It is been 462 since Clinton has done a 1 on 1 hour long interview with someone with opposing views to her” as some sort of evidence that Trumps statements are not directly from a tire fire factory. We get it, she doesn’t do a lot of press conferences. Trump has not detailed a plan to deal with ISIS beyond “we will kill them all with our army, which is the best.” And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand. As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything. Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever. On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism. Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general. Can't disagree with that, but you have to remember that the only president in recent history who had a non-traditional approach of foreign policy was George W Bush and his neo cons hacks, and the result was ten time worse. I really don't like American FP. I didn't like it under Clinton, I didn't like it under Reagan and Bush senior, and I don't like it under Obama. But it's not because something is not great that any alternative is a good idea. Trump's proposals are so stupid and suicidal for trhe States and the West that he got Putin's approval. That's bad.
In what way was W non-traditional? As far as I can tell the W years were a pretty logical extension of the Clinton years, which were a pretty logical extension of the H.W. years, which were... and so on.
As far as I can tell, Putin praised Trump for encouraging better US-Russia relations. That's only bad if you want the countries to remain unfriendly towards each other. Beyond that I just see it as pandering to the part of the Republican base that wishes the US "would have a leader as tough as Putin instead of that wimp Obama."
|
On July 29 2016 01:17 Rebs wrote:
Not really, Ive read his entire platform top to bottom multiple times. I doubt you can say the same. Infact I even opinion tested some of the proposals that seemed reasonable to me both on through research and with people who have knowledge on the subject
But I guess its easy to make statements like you dont know anything when you do it all the time. I can see why you like Drumpf.
You said Trumps whole platform was 'America iz looze, I iz gud bizniz man, We gonna win.'. Thats what i was responding to, framing the entirety of trumps policy in that way is what I had a problem with.
I'm sure you know more about Trumps policy than you let on in that post but there are people out there that actually believe what you said.
|
On July 29 2016 01:18 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:02 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:54 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Gaddafi and secular don't belong in the same sentence. We can extend the same courtesy to the Jamahiriya. Well to be fair, relatively speaking, he was pretty secular. A scumbag dictator, that did whatever the fuck he wanted personally but generally speaking he was better for women + Show Spoiler + (as long as they werent pretty or caught his eye or one of his boys, or his guards or his cabinet peeps, or his friends or their friends friends, or their friends) . He was secular compared to the most extreme strains of radical Islam, but the same thing could be said for the Ba'athist party during Saddam's regime. It's not really fair to credit either for not being the worst possible option. Anyway I was just pointing out some inconsistencies in claims.
Not really, he was secular compared to just regular strains also. Same goes for Sadaam, granted the secularism is more a political power play.
|
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16
|
On July 29 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 29 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:26 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:23 farvacola wrote:
How many press conference posts does that bring us to now? We get it, you've been told to harp on how many days it's been, thanks for the info. Every time you bring up the talking point of what Trump is saying to the press it is perfectly fine to remind people that at least he is saying something. This thread is moving so fast that I'm sure there are people out there that haven't been shown the fact that Clinton has been avoiding reporters for 236 days now. That doesn’t prove anything though. Clinton still answers the presses questions, just not in that format. The press asks her campaign questions all the time. You might as well cite “It is been 462 since Clinton has done a 1 on 1 hour long interview with someone with opposing views to her” as some sort of evidence that Trumps statements are not directly from a tire fire factory. We get it, she doesn’t do a lot of press conferences. Trump has not detailed a plan to deal with ISIS beyond “we will kill them all with our army, which is the best.” And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand. As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything. Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever. On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism. Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general. Can't disagree with that, but you have to remember that the only president in recent history who had a non-traditional approach of foreign policy was George W Bush and his neo cons hacks, and the result was ten time worse. I really don't like American FP. I didn't like it under Clinton, I didn't like it under Reagan and Bush senior, and I don't like it under Obama. But it's not because something is not great that any alternative is a good idea. Trump's proposals are so stupid and suicidal for trhe States and the West that he got Putin's approval. That's bad. In what way was W non-traditional? As far as I can tell the W years were a pretty logical extension of the Clinton years, which were a pretty logical extension of the H.W. years, which were... and so on. As far as I can tell, Putin praised Trump for encouraging better US-Russia relations. That's only bad if you want the countries to remain unfriendly towards each other. Beyond that I just see it as pandering to the part of the Republican base that wishes the US "would have a leader as tough as Putin instead of that wimp Obama."
Pretty much every other nation, including China, prefers Clinton over Trump. It strikes me that it may not be worth damaging our relations with pretty much everyone else to cozy up to Putin.
|
On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16
Whats your point? They are just regular emails aren't they? Hillary didn't delete any classified information that should not have been there did she?
Just regular emails that she was subpoenaed to hand over but deleted before the FBI got to her. Hillary should be the one asking around to find those emails so she can clear her name.
|
On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point?
Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious.
|
On July 29 2016 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 29 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:26 zeo wrote:
[quote]
Every time you bring up the talking point of what Trump is saying to the press it is perfectly fine to remind people that at least he is saying something. This thread is moving so fast that I'm sure there are people out there that haven't been shown the fact that Clinton has been avoiding reporters for 236 days now. That doesn’t prove anything though. Clinton still answers the presses questions, just not in that format. The press asks her campaign questions all the time. You might as well cite “It is been 462 since Clinton has done a 1 on 1 hour long interview with someone with opposing views to her” as some sort of evidence that Trumps statements are not directly from a tire fire factory. We get it, she doesn’t do a lot of press conferences. Trump has not detailed a plan to deal with ISIS beyond “we will kill them all with our army, which is the best.” And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand. As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything. Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever. On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism. Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general. Can't disagree with that, but you have to remember that the only president in recent history who had a non-traditional approach of foreign policy was George W Bush and his neo cons hacks, and the result was ten time worse. I really don't like American FP. I didn't like it under Clinton, I didn't like it under Reagan and Bush senior, and I don't like it under Obama. But it's not because something is not great that any alternative is a good idea. Trump's proposals are so stupid and suicidal for trhe States and the West that he got Putin's approval. That's bad. In what way was W non-traditional? As far as I can tell the W years were a pretty logical extension of the Clinton years, which were a pretty logical extension of the H.W. years, which were... and so on. As far as I can tell, Putin praised Trump for encouraging better US-Russia relations. That's only bad if you want the countries to remain unfriendly towards each other. Beyond that I just see it as pandering to the part of the Republican base that wishes the US "would have a leader as tough as Putin instead of that wimp Obama." Pretty much every other nation, including China, prefers Clinton over Trump. It strikes me that it may not be worth damaging our relations with pretty much everyone else to cozy up to Putin.
Sure. But that doesn't mean the original statement "Putin wants Trump just to hurt America" is true either.
Honestly the difference between their rhetoric is less than most make it out to be. Trump says plenty of not-so-flattering things about Russia and I've heard at least a few conciliatory remarks from Hillary. I find the Russia contrast to be blown out of proportion.
|
On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious.
Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails.
|
On July 29 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 29 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 29 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That doesn’t prove anything though. Clinton still answers the presses questions, just not in that format. The press asks her campaign questions all the time. You might as well cite “It is been 462 since Clinton has done a 1 on 1 hour long interview with someone with opposing views to her” as some sort of evidence that Trumps statements are not directly from a tire fire factory.
We get it, she doesn’t do a lot of press conferences. Trump has not detailed a plan to deal with ISIS beyond “we will kill them all with our army, which is the best.”
And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand. As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything. Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever. On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism. Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general. Can't disagree with that, but you have to remember that the only president in recent history who had a non-traditional approach of foreign policy was George W Bush and his neo cons hacks, and the result was ten time worse. I really don't like American FP. I didn't like it under Clinton, I didn't like it under Reagan and Bush senior, and I don't like it under Obama. But it's not because something is not great that any alternative is a good idea. Trump's proposals are so stupid and suicidal for trhe States and the West that he got Putin's approval. That's bad. In what way was W non-traditional? As far as I can tell the W years were a pretty logical extension of the Clinton years, which were a pretty logical extension of the H.W. years, which were... and so on. As far as I can tell, Putin praised Trump for encouraging better US-Russia relations. That's only bad if you want the countries to remain unfriendly towards each other. Beyond that I just see it as pandering to the part of the Republican base that wishes the US "would have a leader as tough as Putin instead of that wimp Obama." Pretty much every other nation, including China, prefers Clinton over Trump. It strikes me that it may not be worth damaging our relations with pretty much everyone else to cozy up to Putin. Sure. But that doesn't mean the original statement "Putin wants Trump just to hurt America" is true either. Honestly the difference between their rhetoric is less than most make it out to be. Trump says plenty of not-so-flattering things about Russia and I've heard at least a few conciliatory remarks from Hillary. I find the Russia contrast to be blown out of proportion.
Trump's tacit alliance (if you could call it that) is for self-interest more than anything else. He (Trump) doesn't want to hurt the US, but I find it hard to believe that Trump's concept of improving Russian relations would have a net benefit to us. He;s just not equipped with the knowledge, skills or people to secure a win here.
|
On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails.
Deflection from the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
