|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 18, 2016 11:38:00 GMT -5
He definitely wouldn't.. he's a nuke the bad guys sort of guy, rather than paying a ransom (which is what this was, no matter how it gets spun). Yes, it was a terrible idea, but I can certainly imagine Trump handling it alot worse. I think this is exactly why Trump has so much support, despite being an unqualified, narcissistic lunatic. The other side is barely better. They are better, though, IMO.. at least they'll be bad in a predictible way. It is worth mentioning that the money was, technically, Iran's... So while I can fully agree that the US had no intention of even reimbursing Iran and was forced to do so (with interests) to recover hostages, there is still a way for the government to save face by pretending it is just honouring its side of a long-ago deal. Meanwhile it's writing a memo to its citizens: "please don't get taken prisoner in Iran".
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 11:42:25 GMT -5
I'm convinced many Republicans are preparing for the after-Trump era. There'll be a party to rebuild, and having shown some common sense before November 8th will probably count for something. Hey, maybe something good will finally come out of all this! The question is...why did some 14 million Republican vote for Trump in the primaries instead of one of their 'established' candidates? I believe there was a poll among Republians that showed many of them being dissatisfied with the status quo. They're not going back to people like Jeb Bush. By the way, how did you feel when the wikileaks emails showed that Bernie never really had a chance? When the democrats hierarchy seemed to stack the odds against him and mock him? I know the right loves this particular "divide and conquer" talking point, but: Here’s Proof the Democratic Primary Wasn’t Rigged Against Bernie Sanders.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 11:43:01 GMT -5
I would love to see the faces of Trump's advisors like Kellyanne Conway when he does things like try to kiss a little girl on her lips. To suggest that he was going for her lips is downright ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 18, 2016 11:45:07 GMT -5
Well Saudi is definitely is a Clinton Foundation donor. Gays are executed over there for...being gay and women are treated worse than dogs but Clinton turns a blind eye to these irrelevant facts, even though she's such a champion of both. True, and I'd be all for a quick estrangement between the US and Saudi Arabia, a country that is guilty of human rights abuses far worse than those of Cuba, China or Russia put together. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander: while criticizing the Clinton foundation from accepting Saudi money, Trump doesn't mention his own business ventures in Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Qatar and others. He's apparently fine with taking Saudi money when it suits him. As for the Republican party as a whole, it has never distinguished itself by its hostile position toward Saudi Arabia, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 11:46:29 GMT -5
The question is...why did some 14 million Republican vote for Trump in the primaries instead of one of their 'established' candidates? Because they have really terrible judgment. I hope you didn't think this was a "gotcha" question. Also: The GOP and their donors brought this on themselves when they propped up the Tea Party movement and their message of "all government is bad" and "all insiders are corrupt." Feeding that to their bases via FoxNews, and proving the premise partly write by being so obstructive in Congress, sooner or later had to lead to a figure like Trump.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 18, 2016 11:50:21 GMT -5
Donald Trump is currently facing a civil suit from a woman who claims he tied her up and raped her when she was 13. And as for Hillary's accomplishments, anyone who is sincerely interested (instead of just being a shill for a serial groper) can use this newfangled device called the Internet to find out things like that. Here's a link to a list of Hillary's accomplishments. Anybody who is not sincerely interested can just keep on ignoring them. I took a look at that list, and to be honest, it's a little on the specious side. First off, it's from a site that touts itself as "a resource to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads", so it's not exactly an unbiased source. Secondly, some of the "accomplishments" are a bit of a reach, such as: 1. She played a leading role in the development of State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). That program was actually created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and while she, as first lady, "aggressively pushed Congress to approve the program", saying she had a leading role in its development is a stretch. FactCheck did some research into the subject, and while they are a bit more forgiving to her, showing quotes from folks such as Senator Ted Kennedy that pointed to her critical involvement from the White House side, the fact remains that she had nothing to do with crafting the legislation itself and was merely a strong advocate for the program with her husband in the aftermath of her signature legislative attempt failing. 2. Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH). That line is copied almost verbatim from her biography from the First Ladies' website (www.firstladies.org) and has been repeated on other sites such as DailyKos, but despite searching high and low, I could find no actual details as to how she did this, what level of increase she achieved, etc. Saying something happened and actually providing facts to support that are two different things, and I have been unable to locate any of the facts around this. 3. She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment. The link provided on your site leads to a speech given by the comptroller of New York City in which he specifically thanks Senator Clinton, along with Senator Schumer and Representative Rangel, for securing $2.7B in funds (most of which, $2.3B, came from FEMA). The sentence after that one in which he gave thanks references that the $2.7B is just "a down payment on the $21.4B in Federal economic assistance pledged to New York City, assistance that we need and deserve." Taking one person's comments from a speech in front of a favorable audience and not actually using the figure he attributed to Senator Clinton's efforts but extending them out to inflate the significance of the accomplishment is a bit disingenuous, don't you think? 4. Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act. The link provided in this "accomplishment" is to a statement that Senator Clinton made on December 16, 2005 in which she discusses this matter, but again, there is no supporting documentation that shows how she was "instrumental" in this, just the transcript of her remarks. 5. Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date. That's not an accomplishment, that's the answer to a trivia question. Just because she got on a plane and went somewhere doesn't mean that she actually did anything important while she was there. If folks want to credit her because she racked up a lot of Frequent Flyer miles, that's their prerogative, but that's a hollow victory to be sure. While Hillary Clinton's list of actual accomplishments is more numerous than Donald Trump's, that's not too hard to do against a man with zero of them, and some of the ones that you have brought up here are only really accomplishments if one is either completely in the tank for her or squints really hard so as to avoid the flaws surrounding their inclusion.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 11:56:12 GMT -5
I would love to see the faces of Trump's advisors like Kellyanne Conway when he does things like try to kiss a little girl on her lips. To suggest that he was going for her lips is downright ridiculous. I suggest that he is too clumsy and lacks self awareness to a degree that he is incapable to avoid images like this: Knowing that the media is reporting on the allegations he raped a 13 year old and the other icky things he did around and said about minors, all it would have taken was tilting his head, or gently pushing hers to the side. Instead, he just moved his lip vaguely in the direction of her terrified face, and we get pictures like that.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 12:01:17 GMT -5
Because they have really terrible judgment. I hope you didn't think this was a "gotcha" question. Terrible judgement is a 2 way street, or rather a 2 party street I don't buy into the Trump whining about a rigged election but there certainly was a Democratic Party nomination rigging . It looks so obvious that there was a "gentleman's agreement" even with females involved, that this election it would be Hillary's turn. it's pretty crazy with no incumbent running, there was only one serious candidate, Hillary, and the only one to oppose her in the Party was an outsider like Bernie Sanders. And now we see, via wiki-links, that was even rigged. So now what do we have to choose from. A dis-satisfied Republican base nominate a Mussolini type strongman (this type of behavior is repeated in history ad infinitum) and the Democratic Party Machine throws us a candidate like New York's infamous Tammany Hall used to do. Corrupted and compromised from the beginning poor, poor us. Think of the children It was actually Hillary's turn in 2008. She was much more popular then in the polls and had the perfect age to crown her political life with two presidential terms. But it turned out the big bad party machine with all its money and Superdelegates could not prevent primary voters from picking the candidate they liked best.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 12:05:12 GMT -5
I suggest that he is too clumsy and lacks self awareness to a degree that he is incapable to avoid images like this: Knowing that the media is reporting on the allegations he raped a 13 year old and the other icky things he did around and said about minors, all it would have taken was tilting his head, or gently pushing hers to the side. Instead, he just moved his lip vaguely in the direction of her terrified face, and we get pictures like that. Witness statements have been filed under Joan Doe and Tiffany Doe in support of claims made my Jane Doe. Let's see how it plays out. More fodder for you if there's any merit to it. Unlike Bill Clinton, who paid Paula Jones US$850,000 to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against him. I don't see Trump writing any cheques yet. And for those who say he's not running for Pres, he's still a central figure in THIS election as he campaigns for his wife and will be moving into the White House if she wins.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 12:05:34 GMT -5
How can there really be people in the U.S. who think Donald Trump will be able to face Kim Jong Un, the leaders of Iran and his master Putin when Billy Bush can just giggle and make him admit that he's a serial groper? Doubt Trump would be handing over $1.7billion to a country that's touted as being the #1 sponsor of terrorism. I don't know if it's even worth beginning to unpack this question. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the comment you quoted. The Obama administration returned frozen assets to Iran as part of a deal to stop Iran from going nuclear. I really have no idea what that has to do with Donald Trump giving in to peer pressure from Billy Bush and confessing to being a serial groper. You'll have to explain that in a little more detail for those of us who prefer different sources from yours. You clearly know very little about this issue if you think it's such a "gotcha" question. You could have begun by reading the article. Then you would know that John Kerry was secretary of state, not Hellary. If you had read the article from the New York Times (you know, that paper that you earlier said was so pro-Hillary, which was a bit of a giveaway that you've never read the New York Times), you would know that the $1.7 billion was reimbursement for military equipment that was purchased by Iran but was never delivered because of the Revolution in the 1970s. (I will add that the Iranian Revolution was very much a product of Western foreign policy towards Iran, overthrowing Mossadegh in favor of the Shah.) The Iran deal is an effort by the Obama Administration to have better relations with Iran, a country that is much more than its awful awful government. Americans are woefully ignorant about Iran because of a lot of gibberish in the so-called liberal media. There is a reform movement in Iran, millions of people who don't want that government. But when the populace is frightened by the rhetoric of the West (especially from conservatives), it's hard to make any headway at reform. Many people who would like to see a more democratic Iran are afraid of the U.S. and feel more secure with keeping a hardline government in the face of tough talk from American wankers like Donald Trump. The Iranian nuclear program has been put on hold. American prisoners of Iran have been released. American military personnel that ended up in Iranian waters were released within hours of being captured (and one of the Republican primary debates took place just hours after the release and all those GOP candidates attacked the Iran deal and failed to mention that the U.S. personnel had been released, failed to congratulate the president or to say they were glad they got home safely). The Iran deal is a hugely positive step. Iran should be a reformed country and one of our best allies in the Middle East because of the Shia/Sunni divide. The Obama Administration is trying to reverse decades of terrible foreign policy towards Iran. I've had some friends from Iran and I read up on Iran on Internet sources a lot. There's a lot to Iran (and the Iran deal) that differs from the GOP talking points. In order to talk intelligently about Iran, you have to know a little more about it than you can get from the angry shouty men on the TV box. I have absolutely no confidence that Mr. Trump or anybody he's likely to appoint will be able to make any headway into helping the reformers in Iran. I am very confident he will make things a lot worse.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 12:10:03 GMT -5
I don't know if it's even worth beginning to unpack this question. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the comment you quoted. The Obama administration returned frozen assets to Iran as part of a deal to stop Iran from going nuclear. I really have no idea what that has to do with Donald Trump giving in to peer pressure from Billy Bush and confessing to being a serial groper. You'll have to explain that in a little more detail for those of us who prefer different sources from yours. You clearly know very little about this issue if you think it's such a "gotcha" question. You could have begun by reading the article. Then you would know that John Kerry was secretary of state, not Hellary. Any democrat decision is fair game, not just Clinton's. If you feel good about your party giving $1.7billion to Iran, that is your dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 12:21:19 GMT -5
PS More after the debate tomorrow, got other matters to attend to.
Feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Oct 18, 2016 12:23:47 GMT -5
I don't know if it's even worth beginning to unpack this question. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the comment you quoted. The Obama administration returned frozen assets to Iran as part of a deal to stop Iran from going nuclear. I really have no idea what that has to do with Donald Trump giving in to peer pressure from Billy Bush and confessing to being a serial groper. You'll have to explain that in a little more detail for those of us who prefer different sources from yours. You clearly know very little about this issue if you think it's such a "gotcha" question. You could have begun by reading the article. Then you would know that John Kerry was secretary of state, not Hellary. Any democrat decision is fair game, not just Clinton's. If you feel good about your party giving $1.7billion to Iran, that is your dilemma. 1. It always was Iran's money. 2. Beats them having nukes.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 12:25:20 GMT -5
I don't know if it's even worth beginning to unpack this question. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the comment you quoted. The Obama administration returned frozen assets to Iran as part of a deal to stop Iran from going nuclear. I really have no idea what that has to do with Donald Trump giving in to peer pressure from Billy Bush and confessing to being a serial groper. You'll have to explain that in a little more detail for those of us who prefer different sources from yours. You clearly know very little about this issue if you think it's such a "gotcha" question. You could have begun by reading the article. Then you would know that John Kerry was secretary of state, not Hellary. Any democrat decision is fair game, not just Clinton's. If you feel good about your party giving $1.7billion to Iran, that is your dilemma. I like the idea of my country returning money for goods and services that were never delivered, especially in an effort to have better relations with a country that should be one of our best allies.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 12:35:24 GMT -5
I know a lot about Iran. That's why one-liners about Iran from the Big Golden Book of GOP Talking Points don't impress me too much.
|
|