Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2016, 01:01 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 12:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 12:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No, that is largely a result of Congress ratifying that decision. The law here requires Congressional ratification for any American military deplyoment lasting longer than 90 days. I doubt you guys would be suffering such an influx had Congress limited our deplyoment to 90 days by refusing to ratify any extension.

In other words, the Presidential election, while important, doesn't have the sway many non-Americans seem to think it does.
This part of your post made me look up the control of Congress over US history and I noticed something interesting while reading the statistics: The Democrats have had a majority in both houses of Congress since the late 1930s with only very few exceptions. That is, until the husband of a certain Democratic presidential candidate came into office. In the 60 years that preceded Bill Clinton's presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for a mere four years. In the eight years that Bill was president, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for six years. This makes me hopeful that Hillary at least won't have the backing from Congress to ratify any of her pointless wars and military interventions in the Middle East. Then again, if Congress is still controlled by the Republicans come 2017, they might impeach her for her illegal mishandling of highly classified information anyway.

Who's the clown ? You have been shown she said her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake.

Yesterday. Yet you continue to beat this dead horse.

Not only have you no comprehension, but your irrational hatred for this woman has affected your memory.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 01:41 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 01:01 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 12:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  This part of your post made me look up the control of Congress over US history and I noticed something interesting while reading the statistics: The Democrats have had a majority in both houses of Congress since the late 1930s with only very few exceptions. That is, until the husband of a certain Democratic presidential candidate came into office. In the 60 years that preceded Bill Clinton's presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for a mere four years. In the eight years that Bill was president, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for six years. This makes me hopeful that Hillary at least won't have the backing from Congress to ratify any of her pointless wars and military interventions in the Middle East. Then again, if Congress is still controlled by the Republicans come 2017, they might impeach her for her illegal mishandling of highly classified information anyway.

Who's the clown ? You have been shown she said her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake.

Yesterday. Yet you continue to beat this dead horse.

Not only have you no comprehension, but your irrational hatred for this woman has affected your memory.
You are. BnW already addressed that objection earlier in this thread (see here). You never responded to that part of his post. You simply removed it from your response the way you always do when someone proves you wrong. You've been doing it for years and you continue to do it even after being called out on it because you have no shame or integrity. Many people have proven you wrong about various issues in this thread, including GirlyMan, who confirmed that you were wrong with your hypothesis that Clinton may have put the e-mails on a private server to keep them more secure there, and BnW, who demonstrated that you were wrong about Bill Clinton's economic surplus, yet there is not a single instance of you admitting to being wrong to be found in this entire thread. Why is that?

Just a few hours ago, you called me a liar because I allegedly lied about you accusing Mitt Romney of flip-flopping. Are you going to apologize to me, now that I provided you with a quote where you did just that? No, of course you won't. You'll just remove that part of my post in your response like you always do and pretend like you never called me a liar. You're an absolute piece of shit, you know that? You've earned every single ounce of my contempt for you with your conduct.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
25-06-2016, 02:48 AM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2016 03:23 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 12:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 12:05 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No, that is largely a result of Congress ratifying that decision. The law here requires Congressional ratification for any American military deplyoment lasting longer than 90 days. I doubt you guys would be suffering such an influx had Congress limited our deplyoment to 90 days by refusing to ratify any extension.

In other words, the Presidential election, while important, doesn't have the sway many non-Americans seem to think it does.
This part of your post made me look up the control of Congress over US history and I noticed something interesting while reading the statistics: The Democrats have had a majority in both houses of Congress since the late 1930s with only very few exceptions. That is, until the husband of a certain Democratic presidential candidate came into office. In the 60 years that preceded Bill Clinton's presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for a mere four years. In the eight years that Bill was president, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for six years. This makes me hopeful that Hillary at least won't have the backing from Congress to ratify any of her pointless wars and military interventions in the Middle East. Then again, if Congress is still controlled by the Republicans come 2017, they might impeach her for her illegal mishandling of highly classified information anyway.

I think you're misreading the possibilities here. Because so many Democrats detest Trump, my opinion -- and it is only an opinion -- is that his candidacy will cause Democrat voters to turn out in droves. I think he will lose the election for this reason, and as a sideline, those same Democrats will also be in the voting booth to vote for Congressional elections, meaning that the Republicans stand to lose the Senate, and suffer losses in the House.

As matters stand, controlling the House gives the Republicans a lock on governance, because that is whence, Constitutionally, all appropriations bills must start. If the Republicans don't like this or that program, they can kill it by starving it of funding, and neither the Senate nor the President can say a damned thing because they will not see the bill at all.

Trump's nomination is a deadly danger to the Republicans for this reason, I believe. He cannot and does not carry majority support for his own candidacy, but is vitriolic enough to drive opposition turnout, which then means that the Republicans may well lose the ability to "guard the gate", so to speak, in the House.

The Republican grass-roots are in full-fledged revolt against the RNC, and have imposed Trump upon the party. The party has a few options.

1) They can fall in behind Trump, associating themselves with his obnoxious rhetoric, a decision which will haunt them for decades, I bet;

2) they can repudiate Trump in a contested convention, and present another more centrist candidate, in which case they will certainly alienate a large number of Republican voters who will feel disenfranchised;

3) they can let Trump have the nomination, but distance themselves from him in order to disavow him politically even as they let him carry some of their water -- but at that point, they have no leverage over a Trump Presidency, and may well work against his initiatives for that reason. But they will still have to answer for the onus of Trump having ® behind his name on the ballot.

There is no winning scenario for the Republicans in this setup. Trump's candidacy has highlighted the fractures in the party that have, to the astute observer, been plain for a couple of decades now: business, religious, and classist wings. Trump's candidacy only formalizes what the Tea Party movement gave notice of, that at the grass-roots level, Republican voters are deeply unhappy with the party's leadership and, more importantly, its direction. And their staying home will only reduce the party's power.

What we are witnessing now is a fork in the road of the Republican history. They probably will not go the way of the Whigs. I think they will pull back from rightist extremism in order to cull more centrist votes. But this will take, I suspect, a good twenty years to overcome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
25-06-2016, 03:01 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 02:48 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(25-06-2016 12:50 AM)Vosur Wrote:  This part of your post made me look up the control of Congress over US history and I noticed something interesting while reading the statistics: The Democrats have had a majority in both houses of Congress since the late 1930s with only very few exceptions. That is, until the husband of a certain Democratic presidential candidate came into office. In the 60 years that preceded Bill Clinton's presidency, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for a mere four years. In the eight years that Bill was president, the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress for six years. This makes me hopeful that Hillary at least won't have the backing from Congress to ratify any of her pointless wars and military interventions in the Middle East. Then again, if Congress is still controlled by the Republicans come 2017, they might impeach her for her illegal mishandling of highly classified information anyway.

I think you're misreading the possibilities here. Because so many Democrats detest Trump, my opinion -- and it is only an opinion -- is that his candidacy will cause Democrat voters to turn out in droves. I think he will lose the election for this reason, and as a sideline, those same Democrats will also be in the voting booth to vote for Congressional elections, meaning that the Republicans stand to lose the Senate, and suffer losses in the House.

As matters stand, controlling the House gives the Republicans a lock on governance, because that is whence, Constitutionally, all appropriations bills must start. If the Republicans don't like this or that program, they can kill it by starving it of funding, and neither the Senate nor the President can say a damned thing because they will not see the bill at all.

Trump's nomination is a deadly danger to the Republicans for this reason, I believe. He cannot and does not carry majority support for his own candidacy, but is vitriolic anough to drive opposition turnout, which then means that the Republicans may well lose the ability to "guard the gate", so to speak, in the House.

The Republican grass-roots are in full-fledged revolt against the RNC, and have imposed Trump upon the party. The party has a few options.

1) They can fall in behind Trump, associating themselves with his obnoxious rhetoric, a decision which will haunt them for decades, I bet;

2) they can repudiate Trump in a contested convention, and present another more centrist candidate, in which case they will certainly alienate a large number of Republican voters who will feel disenfranchised;

3) they can let Trump have the nomination, but distance themselves from him in order to disavow him politically even as they let him carry some of their water -- but at that point, they have no leverage over a Trump Presidency, and may well work against his initiatives for that reason. But they will still have to answer for the onus of Trump having ® behind his name on the ballot.

There is no winning scenario for the Republicans in this setup. Trunp's candidacy has highlighted the fractures in the party that have, to the astute observer, been plain for a couple of decades now: business, religious, and classist wings. Trump's candidacy only formalizes what the Tea Party movement gave notice of, that at the grass-roots level, Republican voters are deeply unhappy with the partys leadership and, more importantly, its direction.

What we are witnessing now is a fork in the road of the Republican history. They probably will not go the way of the Whigs. I think they will pull back from rightist extremism in order to cull more centrist votes. But this will take, I suspect, a good twenty years to overcome.
That was an excellent analysis of the situation, I find myself agreeing with almost everything you said. I suppose what I should be hoping for instead is that Congress will go back to the Republicans after the first two years of her presidency, when Democrat turnout will be back to regular levels due to Trump becoming a non-factor. Now that I look at the numbers again, that seems to be exactly what happened in Bill Clinton's case. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats during the first two years of his presidency and then turned red for the remaining six years.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 03:20 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
I think Trump's candidacy will have longer effects. Trump is a much more polarizing figure than Bill Clinton ever was. Trump need not even win the election for the tar to stick to the Republican brand. Banking on the short memory of the electorate doesn't strike me as a sound strategy for the party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
25-06-2016, 04:01 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
Here's what our beloved Christopher Hitchens had to say about Hillary:



"Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."
Source: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/324475-i...and-vulgar

Care to comment, Bucky? I remember you praising Hitchens for his intelligence several times. Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 05:24 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 04:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Here's what our beloved Christopher Hitchens had to say about Hillary:



"Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."
Source: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/324475-i...and-vulgar

Care to comment, Bucky? I remember you praising Hitchens for his intelligence several times. Consider


He was for the war in Iraq too. Hitchens was not perfect.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
25-06-2016, 05:35 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 01:01 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Who's the clown ? You have been shown she said her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake.

She keeps things she did was a mistake, but a dangerous mistake is still a bad thing. And if she keeps making such dangerous mistakes, how can she be trusted as president?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 08:48 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 05:24 AM)Banjo Wrote:  He was for the war in Iraq too. Hitchens was not perfect.
True, but that only makes his opposition to Clinton more interesting. My primary reason for opposing her is that she's a war hawk, Hitchens offers a different argument because he didn't share my opposition to the Iraq war.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2016, 09:00 AM
RE: Trump's speech on Hillary Clinton's record
(25-06-2016 04:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Here's what our beloved Christopher Hitchens had to say about Hillary:



"Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry."
Source: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/324475-i...and-vulgar

Care to comment, Bucky? I remember you praising Hitchens for his intelligence several times. Consider

Then yet again, you remember wrong, or are simply lying.

But what do I know. I am (according to you) "bad bad people" for supporting her.
How incredibly fucking stupid is that ?

Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation do more good for the world and humanity in one week, than you will ever do, or could do in ten lifetimes.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: