2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Rudy Giuliani, mayor of NYC on 9/11: "Before Obama, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic attacks in the US" <a href="https://t.co/YcSNOVeZaP">pic.twitter.com/YcSNOVeZaP</a></p>— Mashable News (@MashableNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/MashableNews/status/765256983603650561">August 15, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Rudy has really become embarrassing. Trump is his only shot at becoming politically relevant again and he seems to be among a very small number who does not recognize how pathetic a position that is.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,957
Reaction score
11,239
Lol... First I heard the full comment,... But I've seen it everywhere... People are flipping a shit over it all over the place.... The "Since the Patriot Act" portion is maybe a slightly important missing piece of context with the way it's being represented...
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Lol... First I heard the full comment,... But I've seen it everywhere... People are flipping a shit over it all over the place.... The "Since the Patriot Act" portion is maybe a slightly important missing piece of context with the way it's being represented...

...then why would he bring up Clinton? Oh that's right, there's an election.

Last I checked there is still a Patriot Act, so what the hell is his point? Obama has caught plenty of flack for going above and beyond the Patriot Act with mass surveillance programs. He's shamelessly going around saying 9/11 doesn't count because there was no Patriot Act and then bashing Obama. That is ridiculous regardless of what context the internet is presenting with it.

There is nothing George Bush could have done, or Obama for that matter, to prevent under-the-radar attacks that we've seen in the US. The government can stop orchestrated major attacks, not solo psychos.
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,957
Reaction score
11,239
...then why would he bring up Clinton?

I mean, because it's an election cycle??? I won't waste my time on Giuliani,... Like most politicians , I like some, dislike more... But the overall narrative, just about everywhere is he said, "We were never attacked until Obama came along." (Including the headline you posted)... That's lazy and laughable partisan bs.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,957
Reaction score
11,239
Just saw your edit... We actually don't disagree much... I just think it's weak how it's being sold basically everywhere... He didn't say what all the headlines and blogs say or imply he did...

If you think the comment is off base, attack it,.... No issue.... Just don't completely misrepresent it.
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Just saw your edit... We actually don't disagree much... I just think it's weak how it's being sold basically everywhere... He didn't say what all the headlines and blogs say or imply he did...

If you think the comment is off base, attack it,.... No issue.... Just don't completely misrepresent it.

I am sure everyone can agree that he was calling for a 2nd amendment solution. I mean it is so obvious.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2026!
Messages
31,532
Reaction score
17,436
Just saw your edit... We actually don't disagree much... I just think it's weak how it's being sold basically everywhere... He didn't say what all the headlines and blogs say or imply he did...

If you think the comment is off base, attack it,.... No issue.... Just don't completely misrepresent it.

I saw it first in my Facebook "Trending" section, so I immediately dissuaded it as a misrepresentation and/or bullshit. Facebook is really getting bad with the way they're pushing one agenda.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Rudy Giuliani, mayor of NYC on 9/11: "Before Obama, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic attacks in the US" <a href="https://t.co/YcSNOVeZaP">pic.twitter.com/YcSNOVeZaP</a></p>— Mashable News (@MashableNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/MashableNews/status/765256983603650561">August 15, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

...thats weird...I just read where folks were gullible rubes after missing part of the story...that apply here?
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/15/250850/

Yes it is the Washington Post but it reminded me of one of Biden's best zingers made about Giuliani:

Using Rudy Giuliani's own logic, you can only draw one conclusion: Giuliani and Bush are responsible for the 9-11 attacks. If Hillary is responsible for the attacks on Benghazi because she was the Secretary of State at the time and Obama is responsible for all the terrorist attacks since Jan. 2009 because he was the President during those years, then Giuliani and Bush are responsible for the 9-11 attacks because Giuliani was the mayor of New York at the time and Bush was the President at the time.

The only problem is that Giuliani's logic is not valid and, therefore, all those conclusions are false. All of those acts were attacks on our country and committed by terrorists. Giuliani, Bush, Clinton, and Obama were no more responsible for those attacks than you or I. It is a sad state of affairs, that our country is not united against the attackers. Instead, we choose to use those attacks as fuel to fire up the political divisions in our country. We can disagree on what needs to be done to stop would be terrorists, but we should not be blaming each other for those attacks. We should be united on who the enemy is, and it's not the Democrats, the Republicans or any other political party.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,497
There's ample evidence that she cheated in the Primary......... Not necessarily voter fraud, but certainly colluding with the media to make an opponent look bad should be considered cheating.

There's evidence to support cases of voter fraud too. HRC, DSW, the DNC, and the mainstream media were all in on Hillz for Prez. They left very few stones unturned to make sure it happened.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,628
Reaction score
2,732
I think the larger point (completely obscured by partisanship) is that 9/11 was the wakeup call and we had no attacks after that on US soil under Bush after that and it feels like a shitstorm has since taken hold. Seven years of nothing and then Obama. Not saying it is a fair comparison but it is an obvious one that they would be McCain level inept to ignore.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Using Rudy Giuliani's own logic, you can only draw one conclusion: Giuliani and Bush are responsible for the 9-11 attacks. If Hillary is responsible for the attacks on Benghazi because she was the Secretary of State at the time and Obama is responsible for all the terrorist attacks since Jan. 2009 because he was the President during those years, then Giuliani and Bush are responsible for the 9-11 attacks because Giuliani was the mayor of New York at the time and Bush was the President at the time.

The only problem is that Giuliani's logic is not valid and, therefore, all those conclusions are false. All of those acts were attacks on our country and committed by terrorists. Giuliani, Bush, Clinton, and Obama were no more responsible for those attacks than you or I. It is a sad state of affairs, that our country is not united against the attackers. Instead, we choose to use those attacks as fuel to fire up the political divisions in our country. We can disagree on what needs to be done to stop would be terrorists, but we should not be blaming each other for those attacks. We should be united on who the enemy is, and it's not the Democrats, the Republicans or any other political party.

I liked your first paragraph. See, you actually are responsible when you take the position. The moment you are sworn in, thats your watch. Are there discussions of mitigating circumstances which make failures more or less understandable/plausible...Sure.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU5-OoU8H6s

Probably a little low brow for some of the heavy thinkers out here.

...must be why I liked it...

I just like the interviewer's style...ask a question and generally STFU. Engage when there is an ambiguity, or an obvious followup. He seems actually curious, and doesn't carry a lot of baggage that compels him to go into combat with his guests when you can deduce he disagrees. Its like it is OK for someone to get their opinion out, or make a point that is counter to his...I know crazy. Ya know all the stuff a journalist student might aspire to be before they actually enter the media business....thats this guy.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
I think the larger point (completely obscured by partisanship) is that 9/11 was the wakeup call and we had no attacks after that on US soil under Bush after that and it feels like a shitstorm has since taken hold. Seven years of nothing and then Obama. Not saying it is a fair comparison but it is an obvious one that they would be McCain level inept to ignore.

There have been no more 9/11 sized coordinated attacks on multiple targets under Bush or Obama. The more terrorists there are involved in the planned attack, the more chance there is that word will get out that security forces can act on. When the attack is a lone terrorist or even two or three working together, it is more difficult to get pre-knowledge of the attack and stop it before it happens. It's hard to blame Obama, Clinton, or anyone else when they have no specific knowledge of the attack prior to it taking place.

These "lone wolf" attacks have been on soft targets. Unfortunately, every business or gathering place presents a soft target for terrorists. If someone wants to blow up a building or shoot hundreds of unarmed people, it is nearly impossible to prevent that attack unless someone on the inside reveals the plan. The terrorists only have to succeed once. The authorities have to succeed every time.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
...must be why I liked it...

I just like the interviewer's style...ask a question and generally STFU. Engage when there is an ambiguity, or an obvious followup. He seems actually curious, and doesn't carry a lot of baggage that compels him to go into combat with his guests when you can deduce he disagrees. Its like it is OK for someone to get their opinion out, or make a point that is counter to his...I know crazy. Ya know all the stuff a journalist student might aspire to be before they actually enter the media business....thats this guy.

As a journalist his job is to probe for information. It is not to provide free media time for one side or the other to get out its talking points. How many times do you see the guest avoid the question that was asked and instead recite prepared talking points? A good journalist will re-direct the guest to the question and attempt to get an answer, not sit back and let the guest ramble on trying to sell us a bag of goods. Why do you think politicians do not want to be interviewed by certain journalists? It's because they fear difficult or awkward questions.

Trump just bad-mouths and then bans journalists that question what he says. His philosophy is that he won't do an interview with anyone who won't help him promote his candidacy. Clinton has learned to avoid all but one-on-one interviews, preferring to be interviewed by someone more favorable to her positions. They both fear the media, which is as it should be. A free press is the watchdog for the public.
 

potownhero

New member
Messages
164
Reaction score
34
Reading Milo is like reading something your angry drunk uncle wrote. Very low brow.

Low brow - maybe; but that doesn't take away from the quality of the argument.

Testing ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism is a good idea.

Nothing outrageous about that. If those coming here share our values (or at least aren't extremists) as the left indicates, then they shouldn't have an issue with this policy.

Again, Trump trumps Hillary on national security.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
As a journalist his job is to probe for information. It is not to provide free media time for one side or the other to get out its talking points. How many times do you see the guest avoid the question that was asked and instead recite prepared talking points? A good journalist will re-direct the guest to the question and attempt to get an answer, not sit back and let the guest ramble on trying to sell us a bag of goods. Why do you think politicians do not want to be interviewed by certain journalists? It's because they fear difficult or awkward questions.

Trump just bad-mouths and then bans journalists that question what he says. His philosophy is that he won't do an interview with anyone who won't help him promote his candidacy. Clinton has learned to avoid all but one-on-one interviews, preferring to be interviewed by someone more favorable to her positions. They both fear the media, which is as it should be. A free press is the watchdog for the public.

By your definition of journalist there are almost none if any out there.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Low brow - maybe; but that doesn't take away from the quality of the argument.

Testing ideological commitment to western values like women’s rights, gay rights, and religious pluralism is a good idea.

Nothing outrageous about that. If those coming here share our values (or at least aren't extremists) as the left indicates, then they shouldn't have an issue with this policy.

Again, Trump trumps Hillary on national security.

Should we give the same test to everyone who lives here already? I suspect the "values" that we might uncover would be all over the map. In multiple states last year, legislatures attempted to or succeeded in allowing its citizens to discriminate against LGBT people or religious grounds. Women make less than men across the board on average in this country. Will they be told to find another place to settle if they agree with the concept of equal pay for women, something that a majority of people in this country view as a women's' right? Speaking of women's rights, abortion is legal in this country. If they say it should not be should they be tossed out on their ears? This is an insanely impractical policy proposal that would require a set of "right" answers on a test that huge portions of the population would vehemently disagree with. It would require the government to choose sides on any number of contentious issues packaged as "Western values." I want to hear precisely the questions he would have immigrants asked, and precisely what he would expect the right answers to be. Until then, I think this, like most of his proposals is less than thoughtful and stupid. Who decides if they have the correct answers that would make them acceptable? ... Trump himself? No thanks.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
As a journalist his job is to probe for information. It is not to provide free media time for one side or the other to get out its talking points. How many times do you see the guest avoid the question that was asked and instead recite prepared talking points? A good journalist will re-direct the guest to the question and attempt to get an answer, not sit back and let the guest ramble on trying to sell us a bag of goods. Why do you think politicians do not want to be interviewed by certain journalists? It's because they fear difficult or awkward questions.

Trump just bad-mouths and then bans journalists that question what he says. His philosophy is that he won't do an interview with anyone who won't help him promote his candidacy. Clinton has learned to avoid all but one-on-one interviews, preferring to be interviewed by someone more favorable to her positions. They both fear the media, which is as it should be. A free press is the watchdog for the public.

I think the guy asks the questions relevant to what put the person in the chair in front of him. ie. No one wants to hear about Corolla except that he has a political view. He led Corolla to flesh it out, and talk about why he sees things as he does...w/o endorsing or disparaging him. I liked it...I like most of the interviews this guy does...If you were looking for Corolla to have a Phd level discussion on policy, you might be looking in the wrong place. If you were looking to hear a point of view...then you got that. Shrug.

Not sure what any of this had to do with Trump...I don't think this interviewer ever talked to Trump, nor was much time spent on Trump.
 

Bubbles

Turn down your lights
Messages
661
Reaction score
76
Let me just save everyone the trouble of continuing to read this thread:

Everyone else, just copy and paste per your political leaning - Definitely don't ever introspect, use reason or challenge your bias.

[Pro Hillary]
Yeah but Trump (did/said) (insert unrelated event to deflect), and that was so much worse than what Hillary did. In fact, I don't think what she (did/said) was really that bad. It's really just (insert poorly rationalized/justified reasoning).

[Pro Trump]
Yeah but Hillary (did/said) (insert unrelated event to deflect), and that was so much worse than what Trump did. In fact, I don't think what he (did/said) was really that bad. It's really just (insert poorly rationalized/justified reasoning).
 
Top