2016 Presidential Horse Race

[phgreek]

FBI steps up interviews in Hillary Clinton email probe - POLITICO

So here is how this is really going...the FBI is looking for a scapegoat. There is simply No way on *God's Green Earth, Hillary Clinton will get nailed for this.

She sure as hell deserves to be disqualified from Presidential consideration. 400 Freakin hundred instances of FAIL in email ALONE. No one tried to figure out if what Petreaus did caused any actual problems...they fried his ass for being an idiot and not following KNOWN, VERY WELL KNOWN procedures as relates to information, as well they should have. IMO, she will be ushered to the White House, and she will preside over the MOST divided United States since Lincoln.



*not a faith based or climate change statement

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Who said anything about left and right? Try reading some books from the other side ... meaning from the Muslim/Middle Eastern perspective. Guys who have spent their careers interrogating Muslim bad guys are going to have a certain world view. People from places that have been bombed, invaded and occupied may have another take on all this. The only thing you taught me is that you have a narrow perspective of the situation and what you think is gospel would just make things worse.

Aside from the book I read about a Muslim fighter who battled the Russians in the 80s and then became a huge asset to the US in Afghanistan, care to share any of these books from the "other side" that you've read and would bring me closer to your knowledge on this subject?

 

[MJ12666]

The short answer ... Yes.I believe that over time their aggression would fade. In addition, I believe that this action would remove one of their most effective recruiting tools -- destroying the great Satan that is the United States. This, in turn, would reduce the numbers of "radicalized" (I hate this term) individuals in our country and reduce the threat of violence.

This country seems unwilling or unable to understand the mindset and the built up frustrations that have led to the type of anger that leads them to these violent acts. We talk about their religion as if we understand it. We use terms like "fighting ... a defensive jihad" and "offensive jihad," but the word jihad does not mean "war". A jihad is not fought. It is an individual's striving for spiritual self-perfection -- to strive in the way of Allah. The Western world has hijacked the term to mean holy war. It even appears in most dictionaries that way, even though Muslim scholars regularly try to correct the flawed definition. While jihad holds a very important status in the doctrine of Islam, it has nothing to do with holy war. The term Sharia law as well is widely misused and corrupted and changed to fit the fear mongering narrative on the right to keep churning the cycle that I described in my previous post. These new definitions are used to scare people and to drum up support for the holy war that many on the right seem to want to happen.

The point is that we don't seek to understand anything about these people, what makes them tick, WHY they are so angry. Instead, we assign meaning to language in their sacred texts, paint them as evil, and impose ourselves on them in their own lands -- all because they have lots and lots of oil. Becauses let's face it ... if they didn't have oil we wouldn't give a shit about the Middle East. Hateful, brainless, misinformed rhetoric like Trump's and all of the people who repeat the same and other stupid things over and over again make the hatreds run deeper and more profound. We are taught from a young age that the best way to avoid being stung is to avoid the bee hive. We've ignored that sound advice of our youth and instead chose to whack it with a stick. Maybe its time to put the stick down and walk away.

We were discussing US security with regard to our dealings in the Middle East so I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. If you could be more specific I will try. Until then, there would likely be serious moral and ethical consequences if we pulled out of the Middle East and let them run their region as they see fit. There would probably be humanitarian disasters and untold cruelty. But from a US security standpoint we would have to avoid the temptation to inject ourselves in them. It is sad and disturbing, I know, but if they didn't have oil we most certainly would not care anyway. Remove our addiction to oil and our involvement in their affairs and we would be safer at home. Not saying that the world would suddenly hold hands and sing Cumbria, but the threat to our country would be diminished and that is what my post was addressing.

My question was concerning your theory that by the US simply withdrawing the area "their aggression would fade". I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion given how they have treated Christian in the ME not only currently but throughout history. Now personally I do not believe that we should be in the ME either but even if we leave now at some point in the future there would probably be some type of military confrontation.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

My question was concerning your theory that by the US simply withdrawing the area "their aggression would fade". I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion given how they have treated Christian in the ME not only currently but throughout history. Now personally I do not believe that we should be in the ME either but even if we leave now at some point in the future there would probably be some type of military confrontation.

Moreover, ask the Europeans what they did to cause the radical Islamists to attack them the way they have in the past 10 years.

 

[MJ12666]

I understand the Muslim talk but this is not a problem that will go away by bombing the hell out of them or by banning them from our country.

What I want to know is how republicans can say that abortion should be illegal but then they don't want anything to do to help those kids or mothers after they are born. They want to cut welfare and every other social service program that may help those kids have a little better life because they are born into a family that doesn't want them.

If you are pro life you should be pro life throughout the entire life not just while you are in the womb.

I can only speak for myself but I just do not believe that the Federal government should be involved with welfare or social services. I have no problem with states and private charities providing these services. I personally donate monthly to a private charity that provides services to unwed mothers and I would gladly give more if the federal government would cut all social service spending and my federal tax bill would drop accordingly. If it is argued that the Federal government simply collects the tax and returns it to the states as grants, I would say cut out the "middleman" to free up funds to be spent directly on actual services.

The amount of money that comes out of your check for social services is nothing compared to Corporate welfare. Here is an article talks about just that. Food Stamps Are Affordable; Corporate Welfare Is Not

Is the government did not help local no profits could not keep up with the demand. They are already having a hard enough time keeping up currently while it is still in place .

You only asked about welfare spending not all federal spending. I have no problem with cutting all federal subsidies to corporations same as I believe in cutting all federal spending on social welfare programs.

 

[GoIrish41]

My question was concerning your theory that by the US simply withdrawing the area "their aggression would fade". I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion given how they have treated Christian in the ME not only currently but throughout history. Now personally I do not believe that we should be in the ME either but even if we leave now at some point in the future there would probably be some type of military confrontation.

That is an ancient conflict that I don't have an answer for -- the Christians and Muslims of the Middle East need to work that out for themselves. As for our security at home though, I believe the fervor on both sides would quell a bit given some time and space. If they want to fight about the lineage of a guy who lived 1400 years ago, that really should not be our business, and I become more and more curious why we don't talk more about this instead of beating the war drums time after time. I seriously doubt that given a period of transition, they would begin to lose their will to fight against people who are uninvolved in their lives. Recruiting people willing to blow themselves up for the cause would almost have to be harder if the enemy isn't in ones face all the time. There may be a conflict some day. I don't think I could rule it out with any country if a eventually is the measuring stick. We could go to war with Canada some day ... Who knows? It's our first incling to separate two kids fighting on the play ground, but we never even consider the possibility of a discussion about it on the macro scale. Oil is the lubricant of conflict.

 

[pkt77242]

You only asked about welfare spending not all federal spending. I have no problem with cutting all federal subsidies to corporations same as I believe in cutting all federal spending on social welfare programs.

So what happens to poor people or the unemployed?

 

[GoIrish41]

So what happens to poor people or the unemployed?

Fuck'm

 

[MJ12666]

So what happens to poor people or the unemployed?

As I stated in a previous post I have no problem with states implementing welfare programs.

Fuck'm

Very mature post.

 

[GoIrish41]

Aside from the book I read about a Muslim fighter who battled the Russians in the 80s and then became a huge asset to the US in Afghanistan, care to share any of these books from the "other side" that you've read and would bring me closer to your knowledge on this subject?

Sorry, I missed this the other day when you posted it.

A good start would be ...

Forces of Fortune and The Shia Revival, both by Vali Nasr

and

No god but God and Beyond Fundamentalism, both by Reza Aslan

But there are many books on the Middle East from various perspectives. Exploring the subject from a Western/Christian viewpoint is limiting, IMO. Anyway, I hope you take some time to see it from other perspectives.

 

[ND NYC]

Are you guys aware of the Pentagons plan to set up a string of military bases throughout the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, etc?

 

[Cackalacky]

Are you guys aware of the Pentagons plan to set up a string of military bases throughout the Middle East, Africa, Afghanistan, etc?

You mean in addition to these?

Hmmm I wonder why IRAN feels threatened? I wonder why Russia is concerned about America's sphere of influence in addition to NATO?

 

[ND NYC]

not just airfield and naval bases (offshore)...talking forward bases (inland) with about 5-10k ground troops at all times, may use most of the current special ops bases and make them "normal" not "special ops" anymore.

this new plan is a whole new deal.

Ike was right....beware the MIC

 

[pkt77242]

not just airfield and naval bases (offshore)...talking forward bases (inland) with about 5-10k ground troops at all times, may use most of the current special ops bases and make them "normal" not "special ops" anymore.

this new plan is a whole new deal.

Ike was right....beware the MIC

Truth.

 

[wizards8507]

Truth.

https://www.facebook.com/Rand2016/posts/645077308940804

 

[wizards8507]

An establishment unhinged

Ted Cruz 2016: Iowa favorite - POLITICO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2574bc-9f73-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html

Rand Paul Likely to Miss Cut for Dec. 15 Primetime Republican Debate - Bloomberg Politics

2016 election: Ben Carson blasts RNC, threatens to leave Republican Party - POLITICO

 

[potownhero]

The amount of money that comes out of your check for social services is nothing compared to Corporate welfare. Here is an article talks about just that. Food Stamps Are Affordable; Corporate Welfare Is Not

Is the government did not help local no profits could not keep up with the demand. They are already having a hard enough time keeping up currently while it is still in place .

This is an area where many on the right and left can agree - Corporate welfare should be as small as possible - and only when necessary smart and productive for society or national defense.

This blog clarifies many of the numbers used in your report and points out a number of nuances that are interesting including that corporate welfare is on both sides of the aisle, states competing with each other harms taxpayers, and that our inefficient corporate tax structure also harms taxpayers.

Calculating the Real Cost of Corporate Welfare

 

[potownhero]

Can you imagine a normal candidate really doing what Trump does?

Rubio insinuating a debate moderator is on the rag?

Kasich calling a female candidate's face ugly?

Christie saying that he would ban all muslims?

Cruz saying that he would round up all mexicans?

Jeb saying that McCain isn't a war hero?

I could go on and on. If he is teaching them a "playbook", then it's a playbook on how to get yourself killed in an election. There aren't many people, especially politicians, that can get away with saying the crazy @ss stuff he does and get away with it. He's a rare bird in that respect, and I don't know how many people could thrive like him in that environment.

You lose credibility when you say things that are untrue - when did he say round up all Mexicans?

 

[woolybug25]

You lose credibility when you say things that are untrue - when did he say round up all Mexicans?

You lose credibility when you take people's comments and purposely ignore sarcasm. You know damn well what I meant by the comment (sending all undocumented immigrants back, forming an group to find them, etc) and you could completely pull that sentence out and it wouldn't effect my point whatsoever.

Furthermore, I think I have built enough credibility in this thread to post with sarcasm, without having that credibility questioned by someone that rarely even posts on this site. Why don't you actually add something to the conversation before blasting people's posts? Or maybe add something to the debate instead of just nitpicking?

 

[wizards8507]

Wooly be like...

 

[woolybug25]

Ha... Truff

I guess I just it funny when a guy with zero credibility himself tries to pop in and tell us IE royalty what's up. Amirite Wiz?

Ha

 

[Buster Bluth]

not just airfield and naval bases (offshore)...talking forward bases (inland) with about 5-10k ground troops at all times, may use most of the current special ops bases and make them "normal" not "special ops" anymore.

this new plan is a whole new deal.

Ike was right....beware the MIC

Ike was also the President who saw the clear national security/empire interests in being very involved in the Persian Gulf so we effectively have out foot on the throat of the world's oil supply should shit hit the fan. It's better that we have bases there than the Russians or Chinese. Now obviously specific policies need to be scrutinized here but the general idea of having a presence in the Middle East makes sense.

 

[wizards8507]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r3WNAiR1AHc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[woolybug25]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/r3WNAiR1AHc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think what we've all learned here is that ndgradstudent's political beliefs fall somewhere between Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump.

 

[gkIrish]

Ha... Truff

I guess I just it funny when a guy with zero credibility himself tries to pop in and tell us IE royalty what's up. Amirite Wiz?

Ha

Like when someone with <100 posts calls a mod a dipshit right????

 

[IrishinSyria]

You mean in addition to these?

Hmmm I wonder why IRAN feels threatened? I wonder why Russia is concerned about America's sphere of influence in addition to NATO?

Fairly certain those are old maps. At the very least, Manas is no longer a US air base (Russians out bid us).

 

[woolybug25]

Like when someone with <100 posts calls a mod a dipshit right????

You're right... Let's ban him!

 

[ND NYC]

what do you guys think the reaction would have been had Trump used "Middle Eastern Countries" rather than "Mulsims" for his ban?

about the same?
"better"?
"worse"?

 

[wizards8507]

what do you guys think the reaction would have been had Trump used "Middle Eastern Countries" rather than "Mulsims" for his ban?

about the same?
"better"?
"worse"?

It would have been better in reality. The reaction would have been the same. Think about his illegal immigration position. He talks about "Mexico," not "Hispanic people," and he's still called a racist.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ike was also the President who saw the clear national security/empire interests in being very involved in the Persian Gulf so we effectively have out foot on the throat of the world's oil supply should shit hit the fan. It's better that we have bases there than the Russians or Chinese. Now obviously specific policies need to be scrutinized here but the general idea of having a presence in the Middle East makes sense.

Until we don't need oil anymore.