US Election: 2016

[Kirkhill]

I hope you aren't saying that Hillary is attractive.    [

In a unique, fetishist, sort of way?

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I hope you aren't saying that Hillary is attractive.    [

Not unattractive for an old broad other than the hyperthyroid eyes. (Apparently she has hypothyroidism - not sure what the eyes are about)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm on the record as not liking either candidate.

But, I sort of like this plan. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/politics/donald-trump-isis-fight/index.html

Yes CNN is an impeccable source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4&feature=player_embedded

Or you can try MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4&feature=player_embedded

 

[The Bread Guy]

Not unattractive for an old broad other than the hyperthyroid eyes. (Apparently she has hypothyroidism - not sure what the eyes are about)

I know whose hair is better, though ...  >

 

[cupper]

Trump shill Rudy Giuliani should have himself screened for Alzheimers Disease.

Giuliani Claims There Were No Terror Attacks On US Soil Before Obama

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rudy-giuliani-forgets-sept-11-donald-trump

Speaking in Youngstown, Ohio ahead of Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, who was the mayor of New York City on 9/11, declared that Islamic extremists hadn't carried out any terror attacks on American soil before Barack Obama's presidency.

"Under those 8 years, before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the US," Giuliani told the crowd. "They all started when Clinton and Obama came into office."

It's not the first time Giuliani has made remarks that seemed to gloss over the terror attacks that left nearly 3,000 dead and that defined him in the eyes of many Americans. While suggesting in 2010 that Obama could stand to take some cues from George W. Bush, the former mayor claimed, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush."

Video at link

 

[cupper]

Primary - black/woman

Secondary - worse than poor speaker/not attractive

So you are saying that 45% of the voters in the Republican Primaries are either racist, sexist or both. I know that can't be the case, regardless of what the European American Rights groups say.

And Trump fails your secondary criterion. Worst speaker I've heard this cycle, with or without the teleprompter. And frankly I'd say Fiorina beats Trump in the looks department, even with the less than stellar work she's had done.

 

[Remius]

Yes CNN is an impeccable source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4&feature=player_embedded

Or you can try MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4&feature=player_embedded

Ugh.  The story under that link was changed. Initially it was about Trump's Isis strategy.  It clearly has been changed. 

My point was that I like more or less his plan.

 

[FJAG]

Trump shill Rudy Giuliani should have himself screened for Alzheimers Disease.

Giuliani Claims There Were No Terror Attacks On US Soil Before Obama

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rudy-giuliani-forgets-sept-11-donald-trump

Video at link

Much as his actual words make it look like he has a very selective memory, in fairness he did mention a few minutes before this excerpt that "Remember: We didn't start this war; they did. We don't want this war; they do. And they didn't start it even in 2001. They attacked the World Trade Center in 1993," The 1993 attack came just a month or so just after Clinton took over from Bush 1.

The trouble with all this blaming Obama for Daesh and every other Islamic problem in the Middle East is that everyone with half a brain knows that the deterioration of the situation there came about because of Bush 2's attack of Iraq and his administration's failure to have any plan in place for what to do with Iraq after the war. He created the power vacuum which allowed the growth of the AQI, the ISI and subsequently Daesh. All this was firmly established and underway under the noses of and as a result of the incompetence of the Bush Republicans.

Obama took the best advice from his generals and surged in Iraq and later Afghanistan but, regardless, his failure simply was not being able to resolve the Bush mess. It's not that Obama shouldn't get some of the blame for the wider problems beyond Iraq but it seems that the Republicans are becoming quite blind to their own complicity in what is a long standing, complex problem and are being quite disingenuous a**holes in shoving all the blame onto Obama.

:soapbox:

The trouble is that the longer they keep telling the lies, the more of the electorate will actually start believing this BS.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

15 Aug 2016

IAFF refuses to endorse either candidate. 
Starts 43:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUr2DYoNBIg

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Much as his actual words make it look like he has a very selective memory, in fairness he did mention a few minutes before this excerpt that "Remember: We didn't start this war; they did. We don't want this war; they do. And they didn't start it even in 2001. They attacked the World Trade Center in 1993," The 1993 attack came just a month or so just after Clinton took over from Bush 1.

The trouble with all this blaming Obama for Daesh and every other Islamic problem in the Middle East is that everyone with half a brain knows that the deterioration of the situation there came about because of Bush 2's attack of Iraq and his administration's failure to have any plan in place for what to do with Iraq after the war. He created the power vacuum which allowed the growth of the AQI, the ISI and subsequently Daesh. All this was firmly established and underway under the noses of and as a result of the incompetence of the Bush Republicans.

Obama took the best advice from his generals and surged in Iraq and later Afghanistan but, regardless, his failure simply was not being able to resolve the Bush mess. It's not that Obama shouldn't get some of the blame for the wider problems beyond Iraq but it seems that the Republicans are becoming quite blind to their own complicity in what is a long standing, complex problem and are being quite disingenuous a**holes in shoving all the blame onto Obama.

:soapbox:

The trouble is that the longer they keep telling the lies, the more of the electorate will actually start believing this BS.

:cheers:

The Democrats and Clintons do the same thing.

They all throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. If it appears to stick, they keep picking at it until they find the next thing to lie about their opponents.

Clinton can be blamed for the same thing, revisionist truth, like landing in Bosnia under sniper fire and her mother naming her after Sir Edmund Hillary. She's lied all her life, she's still doing it and will continue to do so.

Like I said earlier. Trump is pilloried because of words. Words for fuck sake. Sticks and stones and all that.

However, Clinton has so many scandals happening, that it's obvious she's a criminal. The FBI has been interfered with 3 times by Obama and at least one by Lynch, when they tried investigating the Clinton Foundation. Shillary and Slick Willie are being protected. By the White House, by Lynch, by Soros and Goldman Sachs.

The Rothchilds own the Central Bank in every country except Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Guess what Obama's been doing? Opening relations with Cuba and Iran.

The open border globalizers, including millionaire and billionaire Republicans and Democrats, are part of the New World Order. That used to be tinfoil hat talk, but people are waking up to the truth. Soros has been behind nearly every civil war in recent history, in order to install the people the NWO needs to tow the line. He has admitted to engineering the mass migration of Muslims from the ME in order to destabilize Europe. Black Lives Matter is another group, with Islamist ties, that Soros created and pays for.

These are the people behind and backing Clinton.

But it's Trump's words that have everyone all upset because of what he says.

P.S. - You can draw your own conclusions on how this parallels what's happening in Canada at the moment.

 

[cupper]

15 Aug 2016

IAFF refuses to endorse either candidate. 
Starts 43:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUr2DYoNBIg

It's a good thing, because we're going to need them when the results come in and things start burning down. ;D

 

[FJAG]

The Democrats and Clintons do the same thing.

. . .

Like I said earlier. Trump is pilloried because of words. Words for frig sake. Sticks and stones and all that.

. . .

But it's Trump's words that have everyone all upset because of what he says.

. . .

RG. You don't need to do a tit for tat re Clinton with me. I don't like her or her husband very much and I've never been a Democrat (although I was briefly a Liberal as a protest move) and I'm not about to defend her or the Democrats (or the Liberals for that matter).

My only point in this whole thread is that the Republicans have during my lifetime (which is damn lengthy) gone from a party that I had respected to a dysfunctional organism that has given up even a pretence of being there for the people and America in general; one that caters to extreme special interest groups and uses pure obstructionist tactics. This is currently made most obvious by the fact that they have nominated the most useless piece of s**t in America as their presidential candidate.

Words do matter. Trump's words (and also his actions) are a window on his mind and show that he has such a high level of contempt for the truth and general decency that it should make every right-thinking person immediately dismiss him as the buffoon that he is. He's not a good businessman unless you believe that borrowing to the hilt and then leaving bankers and investors and contractors stranded when he pulls out is good business practice. He thinks it's terrific because he does it over and over again. Half of his so-called net worth is based on his own "valuation" of his "brand" rather than tangible assets.

I'm sorry RG. I know that there are millions of people out there who have drunk deeply of the Trump Kool-Aid but his words are not being misrepresented by the main stream media and there will come a time when even those millions will see that he is a shallow man, with a shallow staff and a shallow platform that merely caters to the public's basest fears and insecurities. The longer he uses his words (even the best words that he says he has) the more the core Republican base will slip away just as a number of the Republican "elites" are already starting to do.

I doubt if any of us will ever convince you or any of the other Trump supporters in this thread that Hillary is a better choice.  I wouldn't even try to. :deadhorse: All I ask is that, for a little while, you ignore the BS rhetoric about the Democrats so that you can instead really focus critically and logically on what Trump is actually saying and doing and then maybe, just maybe, you might lessen your defence of him. Frankly I pity the real Republicans; they are caught between a rock and a stupid place for this election.

Anyway, in the meantime I'm going to sit back and op:

:cheers:

 

[cupper]

SQUIRREL!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

RG. You don't need to do a tit for tat re Clinton with me. I don't like her or her husband very much and I've never been a Democrat (although I was briefly a Liberal as a protest move) and I'm not about to defend her or the Democrats (or the Liberals for that matter
...................


Anyway, in the meantime I'm going to sit back and op:

:cheers:

FJAG,
I think we're not quite on the same page, but I think, at least the same chapter.  I'm not a Trump fanboy and haven't looked into the crystal ball to see if he does or doesn't do a good job. I am willing to give him a try though. I don't  know what kind of politician he is, if he gets impeached, so what.

I already know what kind of politician Clinton is. I wouldn't trust her if she was in a locked trunk in front of me. She's playing a dangerous game with voters because if she crashes, she will likely be the final nail in the coffin of the career politicians  and lobbyists. The  same thing Trump  may hopefully  accomplish.

Ànd man, heaven knows,The Donald needs a devils advocate here,for sure  8)

 

[tomahawk6]

An FOIA request from 2015 seems to show that Trump was right in his assertion that the actions of the administration created ISIS.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/trump-right-foia-document-shows-obama-hillary-knew-actions-create-isis/

 

[FJAG]

An FOIA request from 2015 seems to show that Trump was right in his assertion that the actions of the administration created ISIS.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/trump-right-foia-document-shows-obama-hillary-knew-actions-create-isis/

I think that all that this DoD message discloses is an understanding that the Syrian situation created "the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets . . . under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria."

The fact is that the organisation which would take on the name ISIL already existed before Obama took office. This excerpt from Wikipedia gives you a good thumbnail sketch the actual genesis of the organization:

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian Salafi jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his militant group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, founded in 1999, achieved notoriety in the early stages of the Iraqi insurgency for their suicide attacks on Shia Islamic mosques, civilians, Iraqi government institutions and Italian soldiers partaking in the US-led 'Multi-National Force'. Al-Zarqawi's group officially pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004, changing its name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الرافدين, "Organisation of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia"), also known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).[2][84][85] Attacks by the group on civilians, Iraqi government and security forces, foreign diplomats and soldiers, and American convoys continued with roughly the same intensity. In a letter to al-Zarqawi in July 2005, al-Qaeda's then deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War. The plan included expelling US forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic authority as a caliphate, spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbours, and clashing with Israel, which the letter says "was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity".[86]

In January 2006, AQI joined with several smaller Iraqi insurgent groups under an umbrella organisation called the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC). According to Brian Fishman, this was little more than a media exercise and an attempt to give the group a more Iraqi flavour, and perhaps to distance al-Qaeda from some of al-Zarqawi's tactical errors, more notably the 2005 bombings by AQI of three hotels in Amman.[87] On 7 June 2006, a US airstrike killed al-Zarqawi, who was succeeded as leader of the group by the Egyptian militant Abu Ayyub al-Masri.[88][89]

On 12 October 2006, the MSC united with three smaller groups and six Sunni Islamic tribes to form the "Mutayibeen Coalition". It swore by Allah "to rid Sunnis from the oppression of the rejectionists (Shi'ite Muslims) and the crusader occupiers ... to restore rights even at the price of our own lives ... to make Allah's word supreme in the world, and to restore the glory of Islam".[90][91] A day later, the MSC declared the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), comprising Iraq's six mostly Sunni Arab governorates.[92] Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was announced as its emir,[62][93] and al-Masri was given the title of Minister of War within the ISI's ten-member cabinet.[94]

and:

After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi helped found the militant group Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaah (JJASJ), in which he served as head of the sharia committee.[26] Al-Baghdadi and his group joined the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC) in 2006, in which he served as a member of the MSC's sharia committee. Following the renaming of the MSC as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in 2006, al-Baghdadi became the general supervisor of the ISI's sharia committee and a member of the group's senior consultative council.[26][31]
. . .
[Abu Bakr] Al-Baghdadi was announced as leader of the ISI on 16 May 2010, following the death of his predecessor Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.[39]

It was the Arab Spring and particularly the Syrian protest movement in 2011 that gave the ISI the opportunity to push the Sunni jihad agenda across the border (and therefore expand its operations and its name to include the Levant).

At the heart of the creation of ISIL are three situations: the historical split between Sunnis and Shias; the existence of several non-Sunni regimes that suppressed Sunnis creating an environment of revolt; and the Bush invasion of Iraq that destabilized the region and resulted in the creation/strengthening of numerous Sunni/Islamist movements (including AQI/MSC/ISI etc)

To allege that Obama's administration "created ISIS/ISIL" is sheer sophistry. The genesis of the situation goes back far beyond Obama and is significantly more complex than the simplistic rhetoric that Trump espouses. I think the fact that Trump has walked back on his at-the-time support of Bush's Iraq invasion to his current lie that he opposed it is ample proof of the fact that he knows that the major US created triggering event in the region (including the rise of ISIL) came years before under the Bush administration.

Have a good one.

:cheers:

 

[cupper]

At the heart of the creation of ISIL are three situations: the historical split between Sunnis and Shias; the existence of several non-Sunni regimes that suppressed Sunnis creating an environment of revolt; and the Bush invasion of Iraq that destabilized the region and resulted in the creation/strengthening of numerous Sunni/Islamist movements (including AQI/MSC/ISI etc.)

The one thing that gets overlooked in the statement is that in the case of Iraq, it was supression of the Shia majority by the Sunni minority under Sadam Hussain that was at issue, and when the regime was overthrown, the Sunnis now became the oppressed minority, reaping what was sown over several decades. Had the Bush administration had a decent post hostility plan in place for a transition from minority to majority rule, I don't think things would have deteriorated to the same degree that it ultimately did.

So the Trumpets can spin it all they want, but the revisionist history just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Lumber]

a decent post hostility plan...

Was such a thing even possible in the middle east? I mean, it's possible in some places; Germany, Japan, even Vietnam, why has the middle turned into such a s*** hurricane?

 

[tomahawk6]

Before Obama Libya,Syria and Iraq were relatively stable.After Obama engineered the so called arab spring there remains two stable countries SA and Israel.The jury is out on Turkey.

 

[Lumber]

Ok now I'm confused. First the tin-hats are saying it was caused by Bush's lack of a decent post hostilities plan, now the tin-hats are saying it was a plan engineered by Obama, Geroge Soros, and the pro-Israel lobby. Which is it? Wait! I know!