2016 Presidential Race Topic

Posted by Bernie10025 on 5/27/2016 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 5/27/2016 7:49:00 PM (view original):
Not having Bush on that short list of worst ever says enough about ignorance.
I didn't say it was "worst ever" -- I said it was similar to the Obama Presidency

Bush = Interventionist
Buchanan/Carter = Non-interventionist

PS
I don't have to plug my credentials -- I think my posts speak for themselves. Only somebody who's insecure has to talk about their degree, etc.
Obama has offed over 25 terrorist figure heads/leaders/commanders. Often without cooperation from foreign governments as he tapped them out on foreign soil.


Do you really consider that non-interventionist?


Saying that Obama has been reluctant to use force is pretty ******* stupid.
5/28/2016 4:26 AM (edited)
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Posted by The Taint on 5/28/2016 4:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Bernie10025 on 5/27/2016 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 5/27/2016 7:49:00 PM (view original):
Not having Bush on that short list of worst ever says enough about ignorance.
I didn't say it was "worst ever" -- I said it was similar to the Obama Presidency

Bush = Interventionist
Buchanan/Carter = Non-interventionist

PS
I don't have to plug my credentials -- I think my posts speak for themselves. Only somebody who's insecure has to talk about their degree, etc.
Obama has offed over 25 terrorist figure heads/leaders/commanders. Often without cooperation from foreign governments as he tapped them out on foreign soil.


Do you really consider that non-interventionist?


Saying that Obama has been reluctant to use force is pretty ******* stupid.
You'll have to forgive me for injecting substance into this discussion, but have you ever read the sequel "Game Change" book about the 2012 election? Does anybody actually read books anymore?...

The President was widely critiqued by Democrats/progressives for being too aggressive with certain defense/military policies during his first term. (Also see the Woodward book, "Obama's Wars".) The "Game Change" 2012 book even quotes Obama in a meeting saying, "Well, that's the one thing I do really well; I'm really good at killing people." Basically, Obama felt that his own policies to this effect were at odds with his actual views.

For that reason, as the book explains in black and white, he replaced National Security Advisor Tom Donilon with Susan Rice, whose views are much closer to Obama's. Accordingly, Obama's policies in his second term have been far less aggressive. Aid to the Free Syrian Army has been scaled back (and Assad has been basically accepted). Fewer drone strikes (and more apologies about this, and they're going to release the classified casualty statistics). Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Etc.

So yes, I think it's fair to say that Obama's personal inclinations are (basically) non-interventionist (I'm certainly not the first or thousandth person to suggest this), and the evolution of his policies from his first to his second term reflect this.

The whole reason we're having this exchange is that I pointed out that Bush is not comparable to Obama, but Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan are.

My particular objection, like many people, is with the way Obama has prevaricated in the face of Islamism. He refuses to even discuss (or name) it. Killing individual high-ranking terrorists and then refusing to conduct a proper dialogue about this problem can very easily be seen as analogous to James Buchanan's feckless Presidency, as the tension between North and South became worse and worse. Killing 25 terrorist commanders isn't going to change anything -- they're a few trees in a giant forest.

Bush was a terrible President, and he was incomparable to Obama. He sprayed Agent Orange on the "forest." That wasn't a good idea, either.
5/28/2016 6:45 AM (edited)
Posted by The Taint on 5/28/2016 4:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by Bernie10025 on 5/27/2016 5:37:00 PM (view original):
He's right down there with Carter and James Buchanan -- RC Bracco's favorites. They were so reluctant to use force that they wouldn't even intervene in their own internal affairs, let alone those of other countries!
For posterity.


Tard.
And Obama has frequently been compared to both Carter and Buchanan; this isn't even close to an original idea. No need to queef yourself because I repeated it.
5/28/2016 6:46 AM (edited)
Posted by The Taint on 5/27/2016 7:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by RCBracco on 5/27/2016 7:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Bernie10025 on 5/27/2016 7:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by RCBracco on 5/27/2016 7:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Bernie10025 on 5/27/2016 5:37:00 PM (view original):
He's right down there with Carter and James Buchanan -- RC Bracco's favorites. They were so reluctant to use force that they wouldn't even intervene in their own internal affairs, let alone those of other countries!
Kiss my *** you piece of s##t. Sorry, that should be ignorant piece of s##t
I'm ignorant? Actually I'd be surprised if you knew who James Buchanan was without looking him up.
Look dipshit, I majored in history in college and I damn well know who Bucky was. Clearly since I find your candidate worthless I have already proven to have higher IQ then you.
The last sentence there is pretty much spot on.
Well, if you don't know the difference between "then" and "than", I'm sure your IQ is double digits.
5/28/2016 6:58 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/28/2016 6:58:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 5/27/2016 7:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by RCBracco on 5/27/2016 7:48:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Bernie10025 on 5/27/2016 7:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by RCBracco on 5/27/2016 7:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Bernie10025 on 5/27/2016 5:37:00 PM (view original):
He's right down there with Carter and James Buchanan -- RC Bracco's favorites. They were so reluctant to use force that they wouldn't even intervene in their own internal affairs, let alone those of other countries!
Kiss my *** you piece of s##t. Sorry, that should be ignorant piece of s##t
I'm ignorant? Actually I'd be surprised if you knew who James Buchanan was without looking him up.
Look dipshit, I majored in history in college and I damn well know who Bucky was. Clearly since I find your candidate worthless I have already proven to have higher IQ then you.
The last sentence there is pretty much spot on.
Well, if you don't know the difference between "then" and "than", I'm sure your IQ is double digits.
5/28/2016 7:36 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 1:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 5/27/2016 10:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/27/2016 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 5/27/2016 9:00:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/26/2016 4:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by all3 on 5/26/2016 4:24:00 PM (view original):
Dems trying to deflect ridicule from their probable candidate not even bothering to debate Sanders.
Shame how low they'll stoop, now that they're getting desperate (and with over 5 months still to go).
Clinton essentially has the nomination secured. Why would she debate Sanders? Just like Trump doesn't want to debate Sanders because Sanders has nothing to lose, Clinton doesn't want to either.
"Essentially . . . secured"? Is that like actually secured; like Trump? I guess we should give her a break though, since she had so many different opponents to defeat.
She should debate Sanders because she acted like a freakin' 2 year old four years ago. Now it's another example of her "Do as I say, not as I do." and "Rules are for other people; certainly NOT me." attitudes.
She has nothing to gain by debating Sanders. So she won't. End of story. Sorry.
You sound just like her - "'Cause I said so, that's why.".
She can't have it both ways and expect not to get ridiculed. If it was the right thing for Obama to do 4 years ago, it's the right thing for her to do now. If it's unnecessary now, then it was unnecessary then. Either way, she's wrong at some point. THAT is the end of the story.
I'm sure she'll debate Trump at some point (assuming he doesn't ***** out), but it's not rational for her to debate Sanders. He's a non-factor at this point.
OK, so we agree she was being a whiny, irrational b!tch 4 years ago, when she cried about debating Obama after she had become a non-factor.
Yet one more thing she'll never own-up to.
5/28/2016 10:43 AM
Obviously, the person behind in the race wants to debate. So what?
5/28/2016 11:03 AM
Do you think Clinton was right four years ago? Or is she right today?
5/28/2016 11:04 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Do you think Clinton was right four years ago? Or is she right today?
Don't you mean Crooked Hillary?
5/28/2016 11:32 AM
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told California voters Friday that he can solve their water crisis, declaring, "There is no drought."


Where does this fool get his information? Next thing he will tell you the sun comes up in the west and you morons will believe it
5/28/2016 11:44 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Posted by bad_luck on 5/28/2016 11:04:00 AM (view original):
Do you think Clinton was right four years ago? Or is she right today?
Even you can understand she was wrong one or the other, right?
Will she, or you, ever admit that?
Heell no, and there is the problem.
5/28/2016 1:09 PM
Herr Trump is a fascist psychopath who tends to display characteristics of narcissism and sadism. But hell, nobody is perfect.
5/28/2016 4:18 PM

Donald Trump supposedly told House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) he supports cutting Social Security but will not admit it publicly because it would hurt his election chances, according to a report in Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee reportedly made the comments during a May 12 meeting with Ryan aimed at mending ties between the two top Republican leaders, Bloomberg reported, citing an unnamed source who was in the room. (Ryan has yet to endorse Trump.)

“From a moral standpoint, I believe in it,” Trump said of cutting Social Security. “But you also have to get elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you more.’?”

Trump’s professed opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare has been both a hallmark of his campaign and one of his greatest departures from traditional conservative ideology. And Ryan, who repeatedly criticized Trump before the mogul effectively secured the GOP nomination, has made proposing dramatic reductions in the popular social insurance programs a defining feature of his congressional career.

Many conservative House Republicans told The Huffington Post shortly after the May 12 meeting that that they were unconcerned about Trump’s public posture on the programs. Several members interpreted him as wanting to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare solvency through some combination of the benefit cuts and other reforms that conservatives favor.

Trump policy advisor Sam Clovis had already appeared to reverse course on May 11, indicating that Trump would be willing to consider cuts as president.

Of course, what Trump reportedly said to Ryan is consistent with what he told Fox News host Sean Hannity back in 2011.

Things have to be done, but it has to be done with both parties together,” Trump said at the time. “You can’t have the Republicans get too far ahead of this issue.”

Trump may very well be running his campaign according to beliefs he espoused years ago: Social Security and Medicare must be cut, but telling people that should be avoided, because it is too politically unpopular.

“It is really clear: Donald Trump would 100 percent go along with the Republican donor class position of cutting Social Security,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, a group that promotes benefits expansion. “He openly says he will lie to the people about it because he knows that the people are against it.”

“In his eyes the ‘moral’ thing to do is to steal people’s hard-earned benefits and not talk about it,” Lawson added.

Social Security, the United States’ public retirement, disability and life insurance program, faces a funding gap beginning in 2034. Without congressional action to either raise the program’s revenues or scale back benefits there will be an across-the-board benefit cut of approximately 20 percent.

The Democratic party has adopted steadily more progressive positions on Social Security in recent years, arguing not only that the shortfall should be closed entirely through revenue increases — such as lifting the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes — but also that benefits should be expanded to address a growing retirement income deficit.

Both Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton and her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) support increasing benefits and have pledged that they will not cut the program.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.




YES DOUGIE, IT IS A CUT AND PASTE SO KISS MY ***

5/28/2016 7:14 PM
◂ Prev 1...344|345|346|347|348...575 Next ▸
2016 Presidential Race Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.