Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:09 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107281 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 2683  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6262
Is there anyone on this bored that is a genuine bone fide Republican?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 1:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64192
Mullet


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6262
bimboman wrote:
Mullet

Idol worshipping at the foot of Reagan's statue isn't quite what I had in mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 5:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3121
towny wrote:
Ewinkum wrote:
towny wrote:
I just don't understand how Clinton is regarded as a 'heavyweight'. Who has she beaten? Ever? With all of the political machinations and support behind her, she is struggling to overcome an old bloke who calls himself a socialist who never acomplished much in the game. Bernie Sanders shouldn't have gone close to a serious contender. He wouldn't have gotten a single delegate against the likes of Obama or Bill Clinton. Hillary made him look like a big deal though...

When it all boils down to it, Hillary Clinton's only great asset is being Bill Clinton's wife. All of her power comes from that. She got to where she is by calling in favours. That's really all she has. The ultimate political insider trading off her accomplished husband's name and powerbase. And favours don't mean much anymore. Fortunately for her, the GOP's division and the rise of the crazies means that actual political operators are sidelined. Hillary won't have to contend with a Romney, McCain or Ryan. She is going to up against a reality tv star who got the nomination by whipping some Tea Party loons.

This is truly a cripple fight.

I find it laughable that people regard either of them with much respect.


I think it's presumptive to assume she will be the nominee.

Her aides are currently giving evidence to the FBI over the email thing.
Another investigation into possible corruption while she was Secretary of State is ongoing.
That hacker fella claims he was all over her server.

The republicans want her to win the nomination because there is a cornucopia of sleaze to dive into if she does. Trump will beat her and it will be fun.

The Dems deserve all they get for running with the most rancid candidate in the stable.


Yeah, reckon your fantasy is more to do with wishful thinking than anything else. I don't mean to be rude, but I enjoy discussing politics with people who aren't lunatics and/or ideological stooges.


Yeah, and not to be rude back, but there are better places on the Internet to post your shit if you are uncomfortable discussing it here.
Yes, it is wishful thinking on my part, but this is a mental election. Most pundits and pollsters have been a mile wide in their predictions to date.
Trump was a joke candidate. Sanders was to be dead and buried by March and yet on he goes, against an opponent who is hugely despised and running in the shadow of two FBI investigations.
Nothing is certain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 6:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3471
Flockwitt wrote:
Is there anyone on this bored that is a genuine bone fide Republican?




A real one, or what the GOP is these days?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 6:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
RodneyRegis wrote:
She's poison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

The Bosnia sniper fire stuff is f**k hilarious - around 9 mins.



Hillary is a nutcase. She should be on medication not running for President

Another video that is even more concerning about Hillary's mental state

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 6:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 12067
I read that as nominee, Trump will be getting access to some classified information on the nation's secrets. The intelligence agencies are reportedly worried about his lack of discretion, and the closeness of his campaign manager to pro-Putin oligarchs.

This information would obviously just be the tip of the iceberg should he actually be elected. If he gets into office he will have access to everything.

Anyone think he can be trusted not to use classified information he learns to blackmail and lever his position? or even to keep the secrets and not leak them for his own self-serving purposes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 7:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33675
Rugby2023 wrote:
I read that as nominee, Trump will be getting access to some classified information on the nation's secrets. The intelligence agencies are reportedly worried about his lack of discretion, and the closeness of his campaign manager to pro-Putin oligarchs.

This information would obviously just be the tip of the iceberg should he actually be elected. If he gets into office he will have access to everything.

Anyone think he can be trusted not to use classified information he learns to blackmail and lever his position? or even to keep the secrets and not leak them for his own self-serving purposes?


When his supporters realise that they'll be putting a foreigner in the White House as First Lady then there'll be a mass turnaround.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
Rugby2023 wrote:
I read that as nominee, Trump will be getting access to some classified information on the nation's secrets. The intelligence agencies are reportedly worried about his lack of discretion, and the closeness of his campaign manager to pro-Putin oligarchs.

This information would obviously just be the tip of the iceberg should he actually be elected. If he gets into office he will have access to everything.

Anyone think he can be trusted not to use classified information he learns to blackmail and lever his position? or even to keep the secrets and not leak them for his own self-serving purposes?



:roll: Maybe its a good thing that the US elects a President that wants to be friendly with Russia. Unlike Clinton and her controllers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
Duff Paddy wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
I read that as nominee, Trump will be getting access to some classified information on the nation's secrets. The intelligence agencies are reportedly worried about his lack of discretion, and the closeness of his campaign manager to pro-Putin oligarchs.

This information would obviously just be the tip of the iceberg should he actually be elected. If he gets into office he will have access to everything.

Anyone think he can be trusted not to use classified information he learns to blackmail and lever his position? or even to keep the secrets and not leak them for his own self-serving purposes?


When his supporters realise that they'll be putting a foreigner in the White House as First Lady then there'll be a mass turnaround.


Just maybe they already realize this. And don't care.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40665
Fair comment from the muslim socialist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1jRvibTueM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40609
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Kiwias wrote:
Fair comment from the muslim socialist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1jRvibTueM


Yup. People seem determined to rebut this but the simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats are a fairly ordinary political machine trying to run the country and line their pockets in the process. It's not admirable exactly but it's pretty commonplace. By contrast, the Republicans have courted obstructionism and fantasyland demonisation of their opposition to the point where they have lost control of the beast they created. The two are not equal, and the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves for the situation they now find themselves in


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9527
Rugby2023 wrote:
I read that as nominee, Trump will be getting access to some classified information on the nation's secrets. The intelligence agencies are reportedly worried about his lack of discretion, and the closeness of his campaign manager to pro-Putin oligarchs.

This information would obviously just be the tip of the iceberg should he actually be elected. If he gets into office he will have access to everything.

Anyone think he can be trusted not to use classified information he learns to blackmail and lever his position? or even to keep the secrets and not leak them for his own self-serving purposes?


Classic FUD.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 2:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9852
Location: Indiana
Deadtigers wrote:
Congrats on the Kid, Ry. I see someone made use of that Honeymoon.


Thanks.

Quote:
I do agree with you regarding both Trump and Sanders. The thing for me that I hope comes out of this is we get at least 1 new party so people have better options though I doubt it. I also hope the parties pay attention to the wave of nationalism sweeping the nation, on both sides. There is a clear concern by the left and the right as the state of country and what will be the future going forward. I don't think we can reverse some of the trade agreements but plans need to be made for jobs and if we are not going to be a manufacturing economy and are a service economy then we have to adjust the way we do things.


If we adjust from being a manufacturing economy to a service economy than the national standard of living is going to decline and our unemployment rate will go way up. End of story.

Quote:
The country is in need of massive infrastructure rebuilds, upgrades and new builds. This extends from NYC's train tunnels, to dams all over the country as well as bridges. If we raise taxes enough we can subsidize these projects and then provide a level of work and certification for people.


New York City train tunnels are an intrastate infrastructure expense and should not be funded by the federal government but instead by the New York State and City governments. (You can argue the feds can or should pay for a train line going from New Jersey to New York City.)

Quote:
Problem would be most of these college grades want sit down jobs and have turned their back on construction.


Yes. It's one of the major negative points against my generation. My dad works for the largest air base on the east coast which is the largest non-military employer in eastern North Carolina. You don't need a college degree and you can get there and make good money and be set for life, like $20+ an hour in an area with a low standard of living. They had to start up a college in town to train kids for aircraft maintenance and similar jobs because none of my generation does trades and people were retiring. And this being an area of the country that is hardly prosperous, and the jobs aren't going to get outsourced because they're not going to have the Chinese repair Navy and Marine Corps aircraft up close. The only other jobs for young people to go to is beach tourism which you get a nice tan but it's seasonal and doesn't pay anything.

Quote:
The problem we have is that no one and I mean no one trusts the government to over see and accomplish such a project, which makes no sense to me but whatever.


My dad's worked for the federal government his whole life, he tells me his stories, and it makes perfect sense to me. :lol:

Quote:
Also there should be free education if you major in an industry that the nation needs like Nurses or Teachers and work wherever you are sent for the 5 years or so.


In North Carolina they have such a program calling "Teaching Fellows", or at least they did when I was in high school there, where they do what you say.

I do agree with you on that. The problem is university education people are not going to like prioritizing some degrees above others, but it's what should be done. I don't really even trust them to have the best intentions to be honest. College is not about teaching students, it's a business, and some parts of that business are going to fight tooth and nail if you say the College of Education inside the university gets federal subsidy money for its students while the College of Humanities and Social Sciences does not. The (Republican) governor of North Carolina tried to do something going toward that line of thinking about a couple years ago and UNC-Chapel Hill raised hell about it. Then talking to people on my alma mater's message board one person said they don't think college should be preparatory for your career. To which I replied "fine, why are you here and why should the state subsidize you?" I'm not sure why college is viewed now as a four-year long party that allows its students to postpone becoming adults. Yeah, I did my fair share of dumb stuff too in college, but I went there to become an engineer for my career. I have a cousin of mine that went to a two-year college in contrast for the sole reason I think of being a cheerleader. She had a 2.0 GPA in high school because she didn't try and neither her nor her father nor the state gains anything by her throwing money down the toilet on the notion she'll graduate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9852
Location: Indiana
https://twitter.com/costareports/status ... 6804120576

Quote:
NEWS: ROMNEY took the meeting... he met privately w/ Kristol on Thurs at JW Marriott in DC. Kristol urged Romney to consider indpnt bid...


Romney is too "old news" in my eyes. This would be his 3rd presidential run if he took it. He may have the most name recognition of anyone, but there is candidate fatigue. In a campaign for the Republican nod where Trump successfully vanquished the Republican Party of old, they need a candidate for the future, not the past.

Kristol is Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, a weekly conservative magazine. He said this in an editorial published yesterday:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/neither-c ... le/2002274

Quote:
Neither Clinton Nor Trump

May 16, 2016 | By William Kristol

"Sometimes party loyalty asks too much."

—John F. Kennedy, 1960

I have always voted for the Republican presidential candidate. From Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to Ronald Reagan (twice) and George H. W. Bush (twice) and Bob Dole, from George W. Bush (twice) to John McCain and Mitt Romney—I've checked the box next to those eight names on all 11 occasions I've had the chance. About half the time, I've voted for someone else in the primary. But even in those cases I never hesitated before supporting the Republican nominee in the general election.

I regret none of those votes. I believe in retrospect, as I believed at the time, that in every case these men would have pursued policies better for the country than their opponents would have, and I believe now, as I did then, that in almost every case the Republican nominee was also superior to his opponent in terms of character and temperament and judgment.

My GOP presidential voting streak will end at 11. I cannot vote for Donald Trump. It's not clear that his mixed bag of motley policies would be superior to those of his Democratic opponent. He could well pick better Supreme Court justices, which is important; but he could well pursue a less sound foreign policy, which is also important. But policy is not the issue. Character is. It is clear that Donald Trump does not have the character to be president of the United States.

And it is clear Hillary Clinton ought not to be our next president either.

What to do?

Find a better choice. Recruit and support an independent candidate.

I'm not prone to encouraging or supporting independent candidacies. I've never done so. I think the two-party system has served America well. I think, all in all, the Republican party has served the country well. I could even make a case that, of all the political parties in the world, the Republican party is one of the most impressive: It's been right more often about more consequential things than almost any other.

But it was wrong to nominate Donald Trump.

The good news is that it is not too late to give Republican voters, a majority of whom have not supported Donald Trump in the primaries, an alternative. An independent Republican candidate can help prevent the conflation of the Republican party with Trump and of conservatism with Trumpism. Such a candidate could also appeal to many independents and some Democrats. He or she could win.

Really? Yes. Getting an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states is less difficult than conventional wisdom has it. The only states whose ballot access deadlines are before the end of June are Texas and North Carolina, and those deadlines are susceptible to legal challenges that are being drawn up as I write. Those challenges will probably succeed—but if they fail, one would have to resort to a write-in campaign in those two states. A U.S. Senate candidate won a write-in campaign in 2010.

Of course, putting together a serious independent campaign is a formidable task—but plenty of operatives and aides and donors and lawyers stand ready. They are at present only loosely organized, if at all. But it is appropriate in this era of distributed intelligence that this independent campaign start as a distributed campaign, especially since the need for a far broader distribution of power and responsibility to citizens and for bottom-up policies is likely to be a theme of such an effort.

And the fact is that an articulate and independent-minded conservative, perhaps a generation younger than the two elderly plutocrats between whom the parties are asking us to choose, could make a real race of it. He or she could build enough momentum over the summer to get into the debates, and then .  .  . couldn't the debates be a moment when large numbers of our countrymen might awaken with relief and greet with excitement the possibility of liberation from the nightmare of Clinton or Trump? How exciting would it be to inaugurate an attractive candidate who's neither Clinton nor Trump on January 20, 2017?


Negating the bottom paragraph because I think he's being very optimistic, the key thing is they're already preparing legal papers on getting ballot access, so I think the decision has been made, they're just finding a candidate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5141
Location: NZ, but England fan.
Neither Clinton nor Trump my ass. Kristol is a neocon who was one of the big talking heads when George Bush was prepping the American people for war with Iraq. Clinton is their candidate now that Jeb Bush and Rubio failed and they're just terrified Trump will beat her. So they're running another Republican not in any belief he'd win but to split the conservative vote and make sure Hillary wins. Kristol would have no belief a hump like Romney would actually win. He has to say neither Clinton nor Trump because just saying Clinton not Trump would probably backfire with too many Republican voters. So he's just lying about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
a big Hillary fan

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/05 ... g-roberts/

Quote:
A Dire Future

Paul Craig Roberts

Do you remember all the hopes Americans had for Obama when we elected him to his first term? Painful memories. He betrayed the voters on every one of his promises. There was no change, except for the worst as Obama went on to become one of the most vicious war criminals in world history. Despite his horrific record, we re-elected him, only to have US economic policy turn against the people in order to bail out at our expense the mega-banks and the One Percent.

Now Obama is coercing Asia and Europe to turn the governments of their countries over to rapacious American corporations empowered by TPP and TTIP to subordinate all interests to their profits.

Here is Pepe Escobar on how the great and wonderful United States treats its enserfed vassals: “Hardball, predictably, is the name of the game. Washington no less than threatened to block EU car exports [to the US] to force the EU to buy [Monsanto’s] genetically engineered fruits and vegetables.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e44594.htm

Now we face the prospect of electing an even worse president than Obama—Killary Clinton. Killary is the bought-and-paid-for property of Wall Street, Israel, and the military-security complex. She will bring back to power the totally discredited neoconservatives, and the US will proceed with its butchery and slaughter of other countries and all reformist governments everywhere.

The question is: will enough insouciant Americans align with the One Percent, the neocons, the men-hating feminists, homosexuals, the transgendered, and other “preferred minorities” to put the US presidency in the hands of an aggressive, corrupt person with a conscience deficit? That is the goal toward which the presstitutes are driving the brainwashed.

If we end up with Killary, neither the US nor the world will survive the mistake. She will be the last American president.

Killary is compromised with secret agendas, and secret agendas lead to conflict and war. With a crazed President Killary who declared Russian Presient Vladimir Putin, the world’s leading peacemaker, to be “the new Hitler,” with crazed American generals who declare Russia to be “an existential threat to the United States,” and with the insane neoconservatives back in the saddle determined to impose American hegemony on the rest of the world, Killary’s election will terminate life on earth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2016 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25660
Rugby2023 wrote:
I read that as nominee, Trump will be getting access to some classified information on the nation's secrets. The intelligence agencies are reportedly worried about his lack of discretion, and the closeness of his campaign manager to pro-Putin oligarchs.

This information would obviously just be the tip of the iceberg should he actually be elected. If he gets into office he will have access to everything.

Anyone think he can be trusted not to use classified information he learns to blackmail and lever his position? or even to keep the secrets and not leak them for his own self-serving purposes?


Clinton :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 1:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2293
Location: This vale of tears.
Silver wrote:
a big Hillary fan

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/05 ... g-roberts/

Quote:
A Dire Future

Paul Craig Roberts

Do you remember all the hopes Americans had for Obama when we elected him to his first term? Painful memories. He betrayed the voters on every one of his promises. There was no change, except for the worst as Obama went on to become one of the most vicious war criminals in world history. Despite his horrific record, we re-elected him, only to have US economic policy turn against the people in order to bail out at our expense the mega-banks and the One Percent.

Now Obama is coercing Asia and Europe to turn the governments of their countries over to rapacious
American corporations empowered by TPP and TTIP to subordinate all interests to their profits.

Here is Pepe Escobar on how the great and wonderful United States treats its enserfed vassals: “Hardball, predictably, is the name of the game. Washington no less than threatened to block EU car exports [to the US] to force the EU to buy [Monsanto’s] genetically engineered fruits and vegetables.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e44594.htm

Now we face the prospect of electing an even worse president than Obama—Killary Clinton. Killary is the bought-and-paid-for property of Wall Street, Israel, and the military-security complex. She will bring back to power the totally discredited neoconservatives, and the US will proceed with its butchery and slaughter of other countries and all reformist governments everywhere.

The question is: will enough insouciant Americans align with the One Percent, the neocons, the men-hating feminists, homosexuals, the transgendered, and other “preferred minorities” to put the US presidency in the hands of an aggressive, corrupt person with a conscience deficit? That is the goal toward which the presstitutes are driving the brainwashed.

If we end up with Killary, neither the US nor the world will survive the mistake. She will be the last American president.

Killary is compromised with secret agendas, and secret agendas lead to conflict and war. With a crazed President Killary who declared Russian Presient Vladimir Putin, the world’s leading peacemaker, to be “the new Hitler,” with crazed American generals who declare Russia to be “an existential threat to the United States,” and with the insane neoconservatives back in the saddle determined to impose American hegemony on the rest of the world, Killary’s election will terminate life on earth.


Laughable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 1:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8736
dynamo_kev wrote:
Silver wrote:


Laughable.

Yep, puerile rubbish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5141
Location: NZ, but England fan.
SecretAgentMan wrote:
dynamo_kev wrote:
Silver wrote:


Laughable.

Yep, puerile rubbish.

The bits rightly highlighted by dynamo were hysterical crap, embarrassing. But a lot of the rest of it about how Hillary's presidency would see a huge push for the neo con nightmare again is most likely true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27517
Location: Queensland
It's interesting to see the posters who have become anti-Clinton bedfellows with Silver. As the saying goes, men should be judged by the company they keep.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 1:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2293
Location: This vale of tears.
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's interesting to see the posters who have become anti-Clinton bedfellows with Silver. As the saying goes, men should be judged by the company they keep.


Omigod.

I'm in bed with you x( x( x( x(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 3:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6798
AC what do you like about Clinton (apart from she is not Donald Trump/ Ted Cruz etc)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 3:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
kiwinoz wrote:
AC what do you like about Clinton (apart from she is not Donald Trump/ Ted Cruz etc)?



AC is like a naive child. He still doesn't know or understand what is going on in the world. And has read somewhere that Hillary is good and Trump is bad. When in fact Killary would be a disaster. She's corrupt, half mad, loves war and killing and is owned by people who are as bad as her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 4:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 27517
Location: Queensland
kiwinoz wrote:
AC what do you like about Clinton (apart from she is not Donald Trump/ Ted Cruz etc)?


Firstly, can I just say that the fact that she is a the best of the potential candidates is a rather big deal. Her experience and level headedness should not be dismissed or discounted, especially when you consider the alternative is a lunatic.

But since you asked, I support her position on many issues.

Immigration: She has proposed sensible and progressive reforms that include a pathway to citizenship for most current residents.

Social Issues: I support her views on abortion and gay marriage. Again, she's sensible and progressive on these key social issues.

Gun control: Clinton advocates for toughening the current laws and making it harder for criminals, ex-convicts and minors to gain access to guns. Sure I'd like her to go much further, but given her context and the realities of America's obsession with guns, I think her policies on gun control are the best.

Taxation: I think her taxation policies are sound. Higher taxes for the wealthy and tax relief for the poor and lower middle tiers of earners. She also wants to limit the ability of big business to minimise their tax through the use of offshore havens.

Healthcare: I also think her views on Healthcare are sound. She will defend the Affordable Health Care Act and take it further by reducing costs. She also wants to limit the ability of Big Pharma to gouge consumers and provide lines of credit to people who face ballooning bills.

Climate Change: I agree with her policies on climate change. Unlike "climate change is a hoax" Trump, she believes that humans are greatly contributing to climate change. She wants to invest heavily in renewable and cut subsidies to oil and gas companies.

I could go on mate, but I think I've done a reasonable job addressing your question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4297
Unfortunately Ali left out foreign policy, where Clinton apparently considers the globe to be a chess board in a game where the opponent is Russia and Israel's apartheid policies is to be protected at all costs, amongst other things. Furthermore her record shows she is an interventionist and a supporter of escalating the devastating wars and destabilisation in the Middle East specifically.

Apartheid apologist?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 4:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
Ali's Choice wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
AC what do you like about Clinton (apart from she is not Donald Trump/ Ted Cruz etc)?


Firstly, can I just say that the fact that she is a the best of the potential candidates is a rather big deal. Her experience and level headedness should not be dismissed or discounted, especially when you consider the alternative is a lunatic.

But since you asked, I support her position on many issues.

Immigration: She has proposed sensible and progressive reforms that include a pathway to citizenship for most current residents.

Social Issues: I support her views on abortion and gay marriage. Again, she's sensible and progressive on these key social issues.

Gun control: Clinton advocates for toughening the current laws and making it harder for criminals, ex-convicts and minors to gain access to guns. Sure I'd like her to go much further, but given her context and the realities of America's obsession with guns, I think her policies on gun control are the best.

Taxation: I think her taxation policies are sound. Higher taxes for the wealthy and tax relief for the poor and lower middle tiers of earners. She also wants to limit the ability of big business to minimise their tax through the use of offshore havens.

Healthcare: I also think her views on Healthcare are sound. She will defend the Affordable Health Care Act and take it further by reducing costs. She also wants to limit the ability of Big Pharma to gouge consumers and provide lines of credit to people who face ballooning bills.

Climate Change: I agree with her policies on climate change. Unlike "climate change is a hoax" Trump, she believes that humans are greatly contributing to climate change. She wants to invest heavily in renewable and cut subsidies to oil and gas companies.

I could go on mate, but I think I've done a reasonable job addressing your question.


Only the naive still believe in dangerous manmade climate change

But re gay marriage & immigration. She has completely opposite viewpoints to suit the audience. And then lies that her stand is consistent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

but I guess she is brave. Landing under sniper fire. So when she supports sending the men and women off to kill and be killed its not quite so bad really

http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-suppor ... -no-fluke/
Quote:
Hillary Clinton’s Support for the Iraq War Was No Fluke

Hillary Clinton has run to the right of the Obama administration on every major foreign policy issue — and she’s left a trail of devastation in her wake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 5:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10736
Location: Spiritual Guardianland
Bokkom wrote:
Unfortunately Ali left out foreign policy, where Clinton apparently considers the globe to be a chess board in a game where the opponent is Russia and Israel's apartheid policies is to be protected at all costs, amongst other things. Furthermore her record shows she is an interventionist and a supporter of escalating the devastating wars and destabilisation in the Middle East specifically.

Apartheid apologist?


Give it a rest why don't ya? I am fairly certain AC has you on ignore....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3471
Ali's Choice wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
AC what do you like about Clinton (apart from she is not Donald Trump/ Ted Cruz etc)?


Firstly, can I just say that the fact that she is a the best of the potential candidates is a rather big deal. Her experience and level headedness should not be dismissed or discounted, especially when you consider the alternative is a lunatic.

But since you asked, I support her position on many issues.

Immigration: She has proposed sensible and progressive reforms that include a pathway to citizenship for most current residents.

Social Issues: I support her views on abortion and gay marriage. Again, she's sensible and progressive on these key social issues.

Gun control: Clinton advocates for toughening the current laws and making it harder for criminals, ex-convicts and minors to gain access to guns. Sure I'd like her to go much further, but given her context and the realities of America's obsession with guns, I think her policies on gun control are the best.

Taxation: I think her taxation policies are sound. Higher taxes for the wealthy and tax relief for the poor and lower middle tiers of earners. She also wants to limit the ability of big business to minimise their tax through the use of offshore havens.

Healthcare: I also think her views on Healthcare are sound. She will defend the Affordable Health Care Act and take it further by reducing costs. She also wants to limit the ability of Big Pharma to gouge consumers and provide lines of credit to people who face ballooning bills.

Climate Change: I agree with her policies on climate change. Unlike "climate change is a hoax" Trump, she believes that humans are greatly contributing to climate change. She wants to invest heavily in renewable and cut subsidies to oil and gas companies.

I could go on mate, but I think I've done a reasonable job addressing your question.




:lol:


Shes doesnt stand for or want any of that. She just knows lots of people will fall for it if she says she does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3471
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's interesting to see the posters who have become anti-Clinton bedfellows with Silver. As the saying goes, men should be judged by the company they keep.




Silver is a broken clock, stuck on 'be contrarion to everything of popular belief".

Its infuriating because he occasionally stumbles across positions of merit and then discredits by association anyone else who is in that camp :x :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
Brumbieman wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's interesting to see the posters who have become anti-Clinton bedfellows with Silver. As the saying goes, men should be judged by the company they keep.


Silver is a broken clock, stuck on 'be contrarion to everything of popular belief".

Its infuriating because he occasionally stumbles across positions of merit and then discredits by association anyone else who is in that camp :x :lol:


And who are you to judge what has merit. You're a no one like the rest of us on this forum. But think you're a bit special. A little man with a big ego.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17215
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Silver wrote:
Brumbieman wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's interesting to see the posters who have become anti-Clinton bedfellows with Silver. As the saying goes, men should be judged by the company they keep.


Silver is a broken clock, stuck on 'be contrarion to everything of popular belief".

Its infuriating because he occasionally stumbles across positions of merit and then discredits by association anyone else who is in that camp :x :lol:


And who are you to judge what has merit. You're a no one like the rest of us on this forum. But think you're a bit special. A little man with a big ego.


Quote:
AC is like a naive child. He still doesn't know or understand what is going on in the world. And has read somewhere that Hillary is good and Trump is bad. When in fact Killary would be a disaster. She's corrupt, half mad, loves war and killing and is owned by people who are as bad as her.


little man, naive child...these epithets you like to throw around suggest a staggering self-regard...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 7:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
Silver wrote:
Brumbieman wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
It's interesting to see the posters who have become anti-Clinton bedfellows with Silver. As the saying goes, men should be judged by the company they keep.


Silver is a broken clock, stuck on 'be contrarion to everything of popular belief".

Its infuriating because he occasionally stumbles across positions of merit and then discredits by association anyone else who is in that camp :x :lol:


And who are you to judge what has merit. You're a no one like the rest of us on this forum. But think you're a bit special. A little man with a big ego.


Quote:
AC is like a naive child. He still doesn't know or understand what is going on in the world. And has read somewhere that Hillary is good and Trump is bad. When in fact Killary would be a disaster. She's corrupt, half mad, loves war and killing and is owned by people who are as bad as her.


little man, naive child...these epithets you like to throw around suggest a staggering self-regard...


Do you like Clinton. Or see her for what she is

And not liking Clinton does not mean you must adore Trump. He might be as bad as her (he could not be worse). But Trump just might be for the 99%. And do the best he can for them in difficult circumstances

edit and I only ever respond like this to childish comments from others. Otherwise I stick to discussing the topic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11473
Location: STRAYA CUNT
Is there any actual evidence that Clinton likes killing more than any other President, presumptive or actual? They've pretty much all done a bang up job of it at one point or another.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 9:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6798
Dumbledore wrote:
Is there any actual evidence that Clinton likes killing more than any other President, presumptive or actual? They've pretty much all done a bang up job of it at one point or another.


Start with this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

Psychopath at the top of their game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11473
Location: STRAYA CUNT
kiwinoz wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Is there any actual evidence that Clinton likes killing more than any other President, presumptive or actual? They've pretty much all done a bang up job of it at one point or another.


Start with this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

Psychopath at the top of their game.

You'd have to be a psychopath to want to be President. Is there any actual reason to believe she's going to be responsible for more dead brown children than Obama, or any of the boys who came before him? Her support for Israel isn't quite going to cut it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
Dumbledore wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Is there any actual evidence that Clinton likes killing more than any other President, presumptive or actual? They've pretty much all done a bang up job of it at one point or another.


Start with this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

Psychopath at the top of their game.

You'd have to be a psychopath to want to be President. Is there any actual reason to believe she's going to be responsible for more dead brown children than Obama, or any of the boys who came before him? Her support for Israel isn't quite going to cut it.


This video is scary. And shows in a few seconds what a nutcase she is.

Also this

http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-suppor ... -no-fluke/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11473
Location: STRAYA CUNT
Silver wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Is there any actual evidence that Clinton likes killing more than any other President, presumptive or actual? They've pretty much all done a bang up job of it at one point or another.


Start with this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

Psychopath at the top of their game.

You'd have to be a psychopath to want to be President. Is there any actual reason to believe she's going to be responsible for more dead brown children than Obama, or any of the boys who came before him? Her support for Israel isn't quite going to cut it.


This video is scary. And shows in a few seconds what a nutcase she is.

Also this

http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-suppor ... -no-fluke/

Yeah, she's a hawk. I get all this. I agree with virtually none of her foreign policy stances, I just don't think they're particularly unusual ones.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6798
Dumbledore wrote:
Silver wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Is there any actual evidence that Clinton likes killing more than any other President, presumptive or actual? They've pretty much all done a bang up job of it at one point or another.


Start with this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM

Psychopath at the top of their game.

You'd have to be a psychopath to want to be President. Is there any actual reason to believe she's going to be responsible for more dead brown children than Obama, or any of the boys who came before him? Her support for Israel isn't quite going to cut it.


This video is scary. And shows in a few seconds what a nutcase she is.

Also this

http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-suppor ... -no-fluke/

Yeah, she's a hawk. I get all this. I agree with virtually none of her foreign policy stances, I just don't think they're particularly unusual ones.


DD its a fair enough statements both sides have prosecuted invasions and wars. US foreign policy is a global disaster. You could argue Madeline Albrights comments re 500k+ child deaths "was worth it" as much worse. Its just a question of when do you decide enough is enough? No, Trump isn't the answer either.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107281 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 2683  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cartman, diarm, ElementFreak, Google Adsense [Bot], Lenny, Mr Mike, Muttonbirds, UncleFB, wamberal and 57 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group