lwien
Well-Known Member
Voting for someone in order to keep a madman from gaining the presidency could very well be viewed as following their moral compass.
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
Voting for someone in order to keep a madman from gaining the presidency could very well be viewed as following their moral compass.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
My moral compass tells me to never vote for bigotry, hate, torture, war on women, theocracy etc.
And Hillary is just fine with me. I will bitch that change does not come fast enough but progressives will eventually win this war. It will take time.
What is yours telling you to do?
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Story highlights A little bit of the Interview With Leslie Stahl
Cleveland (CNN)Donald Trump says he would declare war on ISIS and send "very few" U.S. troops to the Middle East to combat the terrorist organization, speaking in his first interview alongside his new running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.
"We're going to declare war against ISIS. We have to wipe out ISIS," Trump said in the interview with CBS' Lesley Stahl, which aired on "60 Minutes" Sunday night.
"I am going to have very few troops on the ground. We're going to have unbelievable intelligence, which we need; which, right now, we don't have. We don't have the people over there," he said.
Trump added: "We're going to have surrounding states and, very importantly, get NATO involved because we support NATO far more than we should, frankly, because you have a lot of countries that aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing. We have to wipe out ISIS."
The interview -- featuring Trump and Pence side-by-side for the first time -- comes the week the Republican National Convention in Cleveland is set to nominate the two to face Hillary Clinton in the general election.
Trump tweeted on Sunday, "We are TRYING to fight ISIS, and now our own people are killing our police. Our country is divided and out of control. The world is watching."
Trump also laid the blame for the rise of ISIS at the feet of Clinton -- who was President Barack Obama's secretary of state during his first four years in office.
"Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS. She led Barack Obama -- because I don't think he knew anything; I think he relied on her," Trump said. "As Bernie Sanders said, 'Her judgment is so bad.' She's got bad judgment. She's got bad instincts."
Pence criticized Obama and Clinton, saying the two have "led from behind."
Did you hear that? "Clinton invented ISIS." It was a pretty crazy interview. At times I felt sorry for Leslie Stahl. I felt satisfied that Trump made again an ass of himself.
- Donald Trump says he would declare war on ISIS
- Trump says Hillary Clinton 'invented ISIS with her stupid policies'
Cleveland (CNN)Donald Trump says he would declare war on ISIS and send "very few" U.S. troops to the Middle East to combat the terrorist organization, speaking in his first interview alongside his new running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.
"We're going to declare war against ISIS. We have to wipe out ISIS," Trump said in the interview with CBS' Lesley Stahl, which aired on "60 Minutes" Sunday night.
"I am going to have very few troops on the ground. We're going to have unbelievable intelligence, which we need; which, right now, we don't have. We don't have the people over there," he said.
Trump added: "We're going to have surrounding states and, very importantly, get NATO involved because we support NATO far more than we should, frankly, because you have a lot of countries that aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing. We have to wipe out ISIS."
The interview -- featuring Trump and Pence side-by-side for the first time -- comes the week the Republican National Convention in Cleveland is set to nominate the two to face Hillary Clinton in the general election.
Trump tweeted on Sunday, "We are TRYING to fight ISIS, and now our own people are killing our police. Our country is divided and out of control. The world is watching."
Trump also laid the blame for the rise of ISIS at the feet of Clinton -- who was President Barack Obama's secretary of state during his first four years in office.
"Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS. She led Barack Obama -- because I don't think he knew anything; I think he relied on her," Trump said. "As Bernie Sanders said, 'Her judgment is so bad.' She's got bad judgment. She's got bad instincts."
Pence criticized Obama and Clinton, saying the two have "led from behind."
Did you hear that? "Clinton invented ISIS." It was a pretty crazy interview. At times I felt sorry for Leslie Stahl. I felt satisfied that Trump made again an ass of himself.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Now that all of the reasonable ways for the Republicans to stop Trump have failed, I think the likelihood that Trump voters would riot at the convention have been all but eliminated. There will be no dramatic effort to interfere with his nomination because they know now that it wouldn't work. They are coming to terms (I think) with the fact that his nomination is not stoppable.
If there is violence outside the convention at this point, it is much more likely to be upset minorities and women who are just pissed off that he has gotten this close to the Presidency.
There will be protest I'm sure, but I don't expect them to be violent. It won't be the crazies (read KKK, supremacists, gun nuts and bigots), unless they are not kept apart from the Trump haters.
If there is violence outside the convention at this point, it is much more likely to be upset minorities and women who are just pissed off that he has gotten this close to the Presidency.
There will be protest I'm sure, but I don't expect them to be violent. It won't be the crazies (read KKK, supremacists, gun nuts and bigots), unless they are not kept apart from the Trump haters.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Story highlights A little bit of the Interview With Lesie Stahl
- Donald Trump says he would declare war on ISIS
- Trump says Hillary Clinton 'invented ISIS with her stupid policies'
She let Drumpf get away with blaming Hillary for the lies Bush/Cheney told the congress but let Pence off for voting the same way as Hillary.
The word Leslie was searching for during the interview is "HYPOCRITE".
The 4th estate has failed us. Since the great satan Reagan they have let the right get away with murder.
1DMF
Old School Cheesy Quaver
well to be fair USA created Al Qaeda, and supported Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi when it suited them, so it's not like it isn't possible!
Also as USA support Israel and Israel support ISIS, seems like an oxymoron to me?
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
Farid
Well-Known Member
It is absolutely absurd to say that "Clinton created ISIS." Hogwash.
However... Clinton is HUGELY pro KSA, which has been funding ISIS via wealthy donors. Likewise she supports the current government in Turkey which is also funding ISIS.
Israel does not fund ISIS, but they allow ISIS to exist while only targeting the Syrian Army and Hezbollah, the forces which are fighting ISIS. They do support Al Nusa (Syrian Al Qaeda) and FSA groups which have a presence on the border of the Golan. Israel has given medical aid to Al Nusra forces before, and has even given food and medical aid to rebels. There is evidence of rebels using Israeli weapons as well, however it cannot be proven that those weapons were provided by Israel and were not just leftover weapons floating around the region.
Regardless no matter the extent to which they are supporting them, the fact is the KSA, Turkey, and Israel have all been taking actions in Syria to weaken the Syrian government.
However... Clinton is HUGELY pro KSA, which has been funding ISIS via wealthy donors. Likewise she supports the current government in Turkey which is also funding ISIS.
Israel does not fund ISIS, but they allow ISIS to exist while only targeting the Syrian Army and Hezbollah, the forces which are fighting ISIS. They do support Al Nusa (Syrian Al Qaeda) and FSA groups which have a presence on the border of the Golan. Israel has given medical aid to Al Nusra forces before, and has even given food and medical aid to rebels. There is evidence of rebels using Israeli weapons as well, however it cannot be proven that those weapons were provided by Israel and were not just leftover weapons floating around the region.
Regardless no matter the extent to which they are supporting them, the fact is the KSA, Turkey, and Israel have all been taking actions in Syria to weaken the Syrian government.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Agreed but I don't think it's too far off base to say that Bush did, eh or at the very least played a major role in being the catalyst for their birth.
Serious
Liable to snap at any moment.
I think it's worth remembering that Hillary Clinton had a 67% approval rating when she was Secretary of State, and that despite constant Republican demonization for the last... what would you say... 25 years?, she consistently finishes at the top of the list when Americans name the woman they most admire.
Yes, she's a terrible campaigner, and she occasionally says things like the dumb Bosnia statement, but frankly, none of the "big issues" the Republicans keep harping about amount to a hill of beans. It boggles the mind that all this hand-wringing is going on is about an email server. Can you imagine how much traction that would have if it were a Republican server?
And Bernie? He lost -- because he didn't have the minority vote that's going to be required to beat Trump. I like Bernie, and his politics are closer to mine than are Hillary's, but that doesn't matter if he doesn't win, and I don't believe he could match her foreign policy knowledge.
I will proudly vote for Hillary Clinton, easily the most tested and experienced candidate we've had in years.
I don't even need to consider the (shudder) alternative.
Yes, she's a terrible campaigner, and she occasionally says things like the dumb Bosnia statement, but frankly, none of the "big issues" the Republicans keep harping about amount to a hill of beans. It boggles the mind that all this hand-wringing is going on is about an email server. Can you imagine how much traction that would have if it were a Republican server?
And Bernie? He lost -- because he didn't have the minority vote that's going to be required to beat Trump. I like Bernie, and his politics are closer to mine than are Hillary's, but that doesn't matter if he doesn't win, and I don't believe he could match her foreign policy knowledge.
I will proudly vote for Hillary Clinton, easily the most tested and experienced candidate we've had in years.
I don't even need to consider the (shudder) alternative.
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
You can see the difference in traction by the amount of news coverage Hillarys emails have had compared to the amount of news coverage trump university has had, it absolutely beggars belief that this hasn't been splashed across the networks and hammered home that trump isn't a man you can trust.
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
How many folks think Drumpf is a choke artist waiting to happen or are expecting him to self destruct when the debates are held?
Many have stated that Drumpf will turn into a petulant baby when he debates Hillary because he won't be able to contain his ego/narcissism in the face of her factual, calm criticisms. Add to that .... Hillary is too experienced a speaker and politician to lose her cool the way some of Drumpf's primary competitor's did. Drumpf will spout his 'reality show' based drivel and Hillary will 'professionally' call him on his BS and then we'll see if he can remain in control long enough to hold his own (with his tiny little hands).
The debates will be must see TV for sure thanks to Drumpf. I just hope he does lose his shit because if he doesn't he could very well make a show of it.....and we all know how much the US likes a good show. Hillary will debate with intelligence and class and Drumpf will deliver his 'I know you are but what am I' retorts and glue them to Hillary with personal attacks.
Will the US vote more for entertainment or competence?
Many have stated that Drumpf will turn into a petulant baby when he debates Hillary because he won't be able to contain his ego/narcissism in the face of her factual, calm criticisms. Add to that .... Hillary is too experienced a speaker and politician to lose her cool the way some of Drumpf's primary competitor's did. Drumpf will spout his 'reality show' based drivel and Hillary will 'professionally' call him on his BS and then we'll see if he can remain in control long enough to hold his own (with his tiny little hands).
The debates will be must see TV for sure thanks to Drumpf. I just hope he does lose his shit because if he doesn't he could very well make a show of it.....and we all know how much the US likes a good show. Hillary will debate with intelligence and class and Drumpf will deliver his 'I know you are but what am I' retorts and glue them to Hillary with personal attacks.
Will the US vote more for entertainment or competence?
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
I think you might be underestimating Trump's performance capabilities. It won't be true or factual, but I would not be surprised if Trump does VERY well in a debate, though I doubt it will be consistent.
He is above all a character, fabricated for public consumption. He plays that character very well, and is very adaptable when it comes to different situations. Take his ability to believe his own lies mixed with his ability to manipulate facts, and you have a very dangerous machine with decades of negotiating experience. This is why he has been successful thus far.
He is above all a character, fabricated for public consumption. He plays that character very well, and is very adaptable when it comes to different situations. Take his ability to believe his own lies mixed with his ability to manipulate facts, and you have a very dangerous machine with decades of negotiating experience. This is why he has been successful thus far.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
After slayings, Trump sees US as a ‘divided crime scene’
07/18/16 08:00 AM—Updated 07/18/16 09:02 AM
By Steve Benen
Details are still emerging after yesterday’s murders in Baton Rouge, where a gunman killed three police officers. As of this morning, it appears the killer acted alone and did not use a 911 call to lure the officers into an ambush.
NBC News’ report noted overnight, “Law enforcement officials initially believed that two other suspects were at large, but later said the deceased suspect was likely the only shooter.”
The gut-wrenching murders would be tragic under any circumstances, but the fact that the Baton Rouge slayings come on the heels of last week’s police shooting in Dallas only intensifies the scope and scale of the heartbreak.
What’s more, this violence is unfolding against a political backdrop of a presidential campaign and the start of the Republican National Convention, which kicks off today in Cleveland. Yesterday’s shootings prompted a variety of U.S. political leaders to respond in competing ways – and the differences between them matter.
President Obama, for example, condemned the attack, extended his support to the community and law enforcement, and called for unity and calm. Similarly, Hillary Clinton explained that there is “no justification for violence, for hate, for attacks on men and women who put their lives on the line every day in service of our families and communities.” She called for Americans to “stand together to reject violence and strengthen our communities.”
And there was Donald Trump.
“We grieve for the officers killed in Baton Rouge today. How many law enforcement and people have to die because of a lack of leadership in our country? We demand law and order.”
So, let me get this straight. A madman killed three police officers because of national “leadership,” which the Republican presidential hopeful believes he can address with a ’60s-era slogan and a policy matter he knows nothing about.
On Twitter, the GOP candidate added, soon after the president urged Americans to stand together, “President Obama just had a news conference, but he doesn’t have a clue. Our country is a divided crime scene, and it will only get worse!”
I’ve read this a few times, and I’m still not sure what “divided crime scene” means, exactly. If we elect Trump, is he promising to create a united crime scene?
This morning on Fox News, Trump went on to say that he sees something more nefarious coming from the White House: Obama’s rhetoric about law enforcement is “OK,” Trump said, but the president’s body language suggests “there’s something going on.”
Remember, in less than four months, tens of millions of people will voluntarily vote to make this man the leader of the free world.
More broadly, comparing the reactions to yesterday’s killings in Baton Rouge helps bring the entire election season into focus. Clinton called for unity; Trump emphasized division. Clinton chose to aim high; Trump aimed for the gutter.
This keeps happening. It’s not an accident; it’s emblematic of who Donald J. Trump really is.
I’m reminded of something the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent said last week: “With many political observers and commentators wringing their hands about the failure of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to unite the country in the wake of police killings in both directions … we should be pointing out that one of the two candidates is actively trying to divide the country, while the other just isn’t.”
And by any sensible measure, that’s just not normal. Even if we put aside the oddity of a major political party nominating a television personality who relies on overt racism to lead a presidential ticket, Americans aren’t generally confronted with national candidates who, quite deliberately, see value in dividing the country.
Even when they don’t mean it, presidential hopefuls have traditionally maintained the pretense that unity is preferable to division, and bringing people together is better than tearing them apart. Even George W. Bush, you’ll recall, spent months insisting he’s a “uniter, not a divider.”
Trump has no use for such niceties. He seems to believe there’s value in tearing the country in half – just so long as he’s left with the bigger chunk.
07/18/16 08:00 AM—Updated 07/18/16 09:02 AM
By Steve Benen
Details are still emerging after yesterday’s murders in Baton Rouge, where a gunman killed three police officers. As of this morning, it appears the killer acted alone and did not use a 911 call to lure the officers into an ambush.
NBC News’ report noted overnight, “Law enforcement officials initially believed that two other suspects were at large, but later said the deceased suspect was likely the only shooter.”
The gut-wrenching murders would be tragic under any circumstances, but the fact that the Baton Rouge slayings come on the heels of last week’s police shooting in Dallas only intensifies the scope and scale of the heartbreak.
What’s more, this violence is unfolding against a political backdrop of a presidential campaign and the start of the Republican National Convention, which kicks off today in Cleveland. Yesterday’s shootings prompted a variety of U.S. political leaders to respond in competing ways – and the differences between them matter.
President Obama, for example, condemned the attack, extended his support to the community and law enforcement, and called for unity and calm. Similarly, Hillary Clinton explained that there is “no justification for violence, for hate, for attacks on men and women who put their lives on the line every day in service of our families and communities.” She called for Americans to “stand together to reject violence and strengthen our communities.”
And there was Donald Trump.
“We grieve for the officers killed in Baton Rouge today. How many law enforcement and people have to die because of a lack of leadership in our country? We demand law and order.”
So, let me get this straight. A madman killed three police officers because of national “leadership,” which the Republican presidential hopeful believes he can address with a ’60s-era slogan and a policy matter he knows nothing about.
On Twitter, the GOP candidate added, soon after the president urged Americans to stand together, “President Obama just had a news conference, but he doesn’t have a clue. Our country is a divided crime scene, and it will only get worse!”
I’ve read this a few times, and I’m still not sure what “divided crime scene” means, exactly. If we elect Trump, is he promising to create a united crime scene?
This morning on Fox News, Trump went on to say that he sees something more nefarious coming from the White House: Obama’s rhetoric about law enforcement is “OK,” Trump said, but the president’s body language suggests “there’s something going on.”
Remember, in less than four months, tens of millions of people will voluntarily vote to make this man the leader of the free world.
More broadly, comparing the reactions to yesterday’s killings in Baton Rouge helps bring the entire election season into focus. Clinton called for unity; Trump emphasized division. Clinton chose to aim high; Trump aimed for the gutter.
This keeps happening. It’s not an accident; it’s emblematic of who Donald J. Trump really is.
I’m reminded of something the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent said last week: “With many political observers and commentators wringing their hands about the failure of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to unite the country in the wake of police killings in both directions … we should be pointing out that one of the two candidates is actively trying to divide the country, while the other just isn’t.”
And by any sensible measure, that’s just not normal. Even if we put aside the oddity of a major political party nominating a television personality who relies on overt racism to lead a presidential ticket, Americans aren’t generally confronted with national candidates who, quite deliberately, see value in dividing the country.
Even when they don’t mean it, presidential hopefuls have traditionally maintained the pretense that unity is preferable to division, and bringing people together is better than tearing them apart. Even George W. Bush, you’ll recall, spent months insisting he’s a “uniter, not a divider.”
Trump has no use for such niceties. He seems to believe there’s value in tearing the country in half – just so long as he’s left with the bigger chunk.
Serious
Liable to snap at any moment.
I don't expect Hillary to debate Trump to his knees. He'll be his usual self, it's pretty clear that without a teleprompter, he can't hold it in. She's good, very good, but she's still a woman, a Democrat, and a Clinton, so there's just so many percentage points she's going to get.
I think Trump's debating will go over well with his supporters, because they won't give fig about debate rules or policy arguments, he just has to say she's a vampire or something and they'll go wild.
However, it appears that most of the populace actually can tell whether a question has been answered or not, so I expect things to remain just the way they are only a little more so.
I think Trump will ultimately lose by more than Romney did, but maybe not a lot more.
I think Trump's debating will go over well with his supporters, because they won't give fig about debate rules or policy arguments, he just has to say she's a vampire or something and they'll go wild.
However, it appears that most of the populace actually can tell whether a question has been answered or not, so I expect things to remain just the way they are only a little more so.
I think Trump will ultimately lose by more than Romney did, but maybe not a lot more.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump questioned President Barack Obama’s response to the shooting deaths of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge during a Monday telephone interview with “Fox and Friends.”
“I mean, you know, I watched the president and sometimes the words are okay,” Trump said. “But you just look at the body language. There’s something going on. Look, there’s something going on, and the words are not often okay, by the way.”
“What does that mean, there’s something going on?” host Steve Doocy asked.
“There’s just a bad feeling, a lot of bad feeling about him,” Trump replied. “I see it, too. There’s a lot of bad feeling about him. We have a country that has not been like this since I can remember it.”
Trump repeatedly said that he believes “there’s something going on” driving “bad people” to perpetrate violence against law enforcement officers.
Host Brian Kilmeade asked Trump about a speech recently delivered by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the lone black Republican serving in the Senate, about him being targeted by police due to his race. Scott also said police officers should be shown gratitude for the dangerous work they do.
“Is there something on the other side that needs to be addressed, too?” Kilmeade asked.
“It’s probably something that we really don’t know and maybe we can’t feel it unless we’re black,” Trump said. “It is … definitely something going on there also. That has to do with training, and it has to do with something. But there is something going on that maybe, Brian, we can’t recognize or we can’t see it unless you’re black and it’s an experience. There’s no question about that.”
Trump added that “we have to bring law and order back to this country, whether we like it or not.”
Trump again trying to imply something more sinister going on with Obama. This guy doesn't know when to fucking shut up.
“I mean, you know, I watched the president and sometimes the words are okay,” Trump said. “But you just look at the body language. There’s something going on. Look, there’s something going on, and the words are not often okay, by the way.”
“What does that mean, there’s something going on?” host Steve Doocy asked.
“There’s just a bad feeling, a lot of bad feeling about him,” Trump replied. “I see it, too. There’s a lot of bad feeling about him. We have a country that has not been like this since I can remember it.”
Trump repeatedly said that he believes “there’s something going on” driving “bad people” to perpetrate violence against law enforcement officers.
Host Brian Kilmeade asked Trump about a speech recently delivered by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the lone black Republican serving in the Senate, about him being targeted by police due to his race. Scott also said police officers should be shown gratitude for the dangerous work they do.
“Is there something on the other side that needs to be addressed, too?” Kilmeade asked.
“It’s probably something that we really don’t know and maybe we can’t feel it unless we’re black,” Trump said. “It is … definitely something going on there also. That has to do with training, and it has to do with something. But there is something going on that maybe, Brian, we can’t recognize or we can’t see it unless you’re black and it’s an experience. There’s no question about that.”
Trump added that “we have to bring law and order back to this country, whether we like it or not.”
Trump again trying to imply something more sinister going on with Obama. This guy doesn't know when to fucking shut up.
Last edited:
Serious
Liable to snap at any moment.
[QUOTE="This is why he has been successful thus far.[/QUOTE]
If you mean his life's work, and not just his presidential campaign, I don't think he's been that successful.
First of all, you know he doesn't have $10 billion as he says, because if he DID, he'd say he has $100 billion.
Second, how many of us wouldn't be quite a bit better off if our fathers had given us a small fortune and a real estate machine worth a large fortune as we were starting out? If that had happened to one of us, couldn't most of us then avoid taking bankruptcy four times?
If you mean his life's work, and not just his presidential campaign, I don't think he's been that successful.
First of all, you know he doesn't have $10 billion as he says, because if he DID, he'd say he has $100 billion.
Second, how many of us wouldn't be quite a bit better off if our fathers had given us a small fortune and a real estate machine worth a large fortune as we were starting out? If that had happened to one of us, couldn't most of us then avoid taking bankruptcy four times?
Serious
Liable to snap at any moment.
Trump again trying to imply something more sinister going on with Obama. This guy doesn't know when to fucking shut up.
I agree, there's something going on here.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
I think he's been very successful. I'm not saying he's a winner, but he's landed major television, real estate, and other situations. Definitely a jackass and liar and a thief, but he's succeeded in at least the perception of wealth.
I don't care how much money he has. He has a lot, that much is certain. He thinks his "brand" is worth $3b, so that alone is an indication of his lunacy. In regards to bankruptcy, out of his 500 or so ventures, three caused bankruptcy. If you take a look a the number of failures MOST businesses or individuals participate in, those are some absolutely stellar results. Doesn't make him a better person, but the idea that he is a business failure just doesn't hold water IMO.
Serious
Liable to snap at any moment.
Oh, I wouldn't call him a business failure... Or would I? Since I consider myself something of a businessman, I don't think I'd call anyone who, on a regular basis refuses to pay his bills, breaks his contracts, and lies about what he's to promising to deliver, a business success. To be the best athlete, you have to win without cheating, it should be the same with business. Nobody said Al Capone was a business success.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Can anyone really miss this?
"There is something going on..." alright. There is a black man who got to the Presidency, and he speaks clearly, honestly and competently to the American people. And Donald Trump just can't handle it, and he doesn't think you can handle it either. So he drives right up to the edge of direct and honest bigotry, and then stops to try and let YOU fill in the blanks. But those blanks are only being filled in as Trump wants them to be by the bigots and racists that are his core following. The rest of us should see EXACTLY where he is going.
I sure do.