American Politics the 2016 edition

Other good reasons to not want to vote for Hillary: She has recently said that Bill will be a part of her economic plan.

Smurph wrote: The T wrote: <span style="line-height: 18.2px;"> Smurph wrote: A Person wrote: </span><br style="line-height: 18.2px;"><span style="line-height: 18.2px;">She does not seem to care much for the children in Honduras who suffer because of the military coup she provided tacit support of.</span><br style="line-height: 18.2px;"><span style="line-height: 18.2px;"> </span><div style="line-height: 18.2px;"> <div style="line-height: 18.2px;">Yea, but neither them nor their parents can vote in the US election. <span style="line-height: 18.2px;"> With all my respect to the children in Honduras, I first want a president that doesn't roll back decades of social progress HERE. Foreign policy, important as it is, is not my first focus on this election. </span> Cool. So you're fine with us having such a large military? That's interesting. I never really took you for being a warhawk.

It´s not that I´m a warhawk. But, 1) Your post said nothing about US military´s size but about Hillary´s tacit support for a coup in Honduras; and, 2) Foreign policy comes second in my book anyway.

And to think that some people who talk about the whole "hawk" thing are ready to give the presidency to Trump if they don't get the candidate they want.

The other day I came across this CNN debate on the Middle East where Anderson Cooper, the host, told one of the guests that he had spent longer in the middle east than "your little life".  Seriously?  So do the left give themselves some special licence to be rude that somehow falls within the remit of their PC-regime (or allowed on ideological grounds to 'defeat' the 'enemy')?  Trump preys on anti-intellectualism and such condescension from the media may only serve his cause.  

rogerthat wrote: The other day I came across this CNN debate on the Middle East where Anderson Cooper, the host, told one of the guests that he had spent longer in the middle east than "your little life".  Seriously?  So do the left give themselves some special licence to be rude that somehow falls within the remit of their PC-regime (or allowed on ideological grounds to 'defeat' the 'enemy')?  Trump preys on anti-intellectualism and such condescension from the media may only serve his cause.

Indeed.  I've never liked Cooper.  He's arrogant.

micky wrote: LearsFool wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ Yes because the Clinton years were so impecunious. Other good reasons to want to vote for Hillary. Bill signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law, repealing the most important part of Glass-Steagall, ensuring that banks would become too big to fail, and so setting up one of the biggest dominoes that led to our current economic mess. Yes, a reason to want to vote for Hillary, alright. I'll call bullsh*t on that man... beware of historical revisionism.. especially in politics man.. where is done to grind political axes. You are smarter than that to fall for that sh*t.  The crisis was on the commerical side of banking.. not the investment side. In a NYT's interview..  Warren admitted to it. When pressed (she is pushing to have Glass-Stegall re implemented.. which is a good thing... but the lack of it can't be blamed for what happened) .. she admitted that Glass-Steagall would have likely not have prevented the fiscal crisis. good try though...

be that as it may.  So what is the point of throwing in Clinton's face. Like it was his fault... that was what was implied wasn't it. Governing isn't easy. Especially with faced with a hostile Congress... both houses.. he didn't create the bill. Compromise... you win some.. you lose some. God help us.. if we... ever forget that. Look at the state of Congress now.  Compromise is ... sh*t.. even talking compromise and responsible governing is enough to get you run out of D.C. So what gets done.. hardly a goddamn thing...

Smurph wrote: im saying our military is too large. I'll wait while you look at our budget compared to the rest of the worlds

micky wrote: Smurph wrote: im saying our military is too large. I'll wait while you look at our budget compared to the rest of the worlds I'll wait till I can check them against other countries who have voluntarily taken responsibility to help where others can not.. to stand up to.. to prevent... threats and bullies around the world. You need a strong military to do that.  The world is still a very dangerous place.

We should stop that now.

no we shouldn't.. This isn't the 1930's... isolationism doesn't work.. either you get proactive with threats.. or they will end up hurting us. We are fortunate to have the means to do so.. we have the responsibility to do so and you don't that with f**king militias and few divisions...

and no we won't....which pretty much closes that discussion off. Fun as it might be.

to keep it real and on topic however...

that kind of thinking is exactly what give Liberals bad names. Living in a fairy land. Reality is .. the world is a bad place and there are fights to be fought.. potential enemies which have to be shown strength to keep them.. potential.  Look at Putin...  do you think Europe scares him. Keeps him in relative check.  We have already slashed our military significantly from the early 90's.. any more would be dangerous.. and irresponsible.  Sure the money could be better spent.. but that isn't the question is it. The money still HAS to be spent. We need a strong military.. to think otherwise IMO is just pie in the sky.. acid incense and balloon hippy speak.

Im not some hippie, and im not even a liberal

And... Why do you think that not having a military is non interventionist?

Edited by Smurph - May 16 2016 at 21:46