2016 Presidential Race

[Gunz]

="DA SWO, post: 420874, member: 108]...I still am waiting for an indictment just before the convention so Biden gets the nomination.

...We're heading down an authoritarian path with both Trump and Clinton...

No, we're not. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with that very fear in the forefront of their minds. They dreaded, more than anything else, a First Executive becoming a monarch. And so they crafted a document--one of the most amazing documents in human history--so that would not happen.

If it could happen, don't you think someone would've tried it by now?

Campaign rhetoric is not policy. It's not Law. It's feel-good bullshit to appeal to emotions and get votes. Both Clinton and Trump are in the process of marketing themselves as people who will get the job done when in fact whatever they manage to get done, with the approval of Congress, has to also be Constitutional.

 

[AWP]

No, we're not. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with that very fear in the forefront of their minds. They dreaded, more than anything else, a First Executive becoming a monarch. And so they crafted a document--one of the most amazing documents in human history--so that would not happen.

If it could happen, don't you think someone would've tried it by now?

Campaign rhetoric is not policy. It's not Law. It's feel-good bullshit to appeal to emotions and get votes. Both Clinton and Trump are in the process of marketing themselves as people who will get the job done when in fact whatever they manage to get done, with the approval of Congress, has to also be Constitutional.

Disagree. Two of this country's greatest presidents, one was a Founding Father, set aside the Constitution when it suited them (Adams and Lincoln). "Oh, well, they did it for good reasons." Right, because violating this country's most sacred document is okay for the right reasons or if we win. Garbage.

I'll tell you how the Cons. won't matter one day: people won't care. Sure, that may take generations and generations, but people will reach a point when they won't care about the Cons. which is one reason I'm vehemently opposed to anti-gun laws. It will open the door a crack and some salesman will jam his foot in the door. The Constitution's strength lies in the strength of its people and we're slowly running out of strong people.

 

[Brill]

Disagree. Two of this country's greatest presidents, one was a Founding Father, set aside the Constitution when it suited them (Adams and Lincoln). "Oh, well, they did it for good reasons." Right, because violating this country's most sacred document is okay for the right reasons or if we win. Garbage.

I'll tell you how the Cons. won't matter one day: people won't care. Sure, that may take generations and generations, but people will reach a point when they won't care about the Cons. which is one reason I'm vehemently opposed to anti-gun laws. It will open the door a crack and some salesman will jam his foot in the door. The Constitution's strength lies in the strength of its people and we're slowly running out of strong people.

I'm honestly shocked that "you know who" didn't reinstate the Sedition Act!

 

[Gunz]

Yeah, you're probably right, but neither Adams nor Lincoln came into office with the intention of becoming dictators. And you'd have to admit Lincoln's case was unique, with the Republic on the verge of self-destruction.

What I'm saying is that in normal times there are checks and balances, otherwise Obama would have outlawed guns and jailed all his political opponents.

 

[AWP]

I'm honestly shocked that "you know who" didn't reinstate the Sedition Act!

A good Constitutional lawyer could probably make it happen.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

Glad to see this Tweet again online -

Preach it Hillary - the nation is listening!

Most interesting to me, she has over 5 Million followers, yet after 4 months this Tweet has received only 3k "likes". Even her own base won't buy into this bullshit.

 

[AWP]

Serious yet crazy moment:

How many more Paris/ Brussels attacks will it take to put Trump in the White House? He's been a hard liner from the beginning and at some point, if not already, people will lose faith in Hillary's ability to deal with Muslim extremists. Fear is a powerful motivator, so how many on the fence or even Hillary supporters will take a look at Trump and think "This dude sucks in almost every category, but he's the only one with a plan to deal with ISIS and their ilk?" How many people will set aside their other beliefs because of the fear of terrorism?

 

[DA SWO]

Belgium is dealing with Muslim refugees now. Of course they're not all bad but until they police their own, we need to take a different tact.

Sometimes mass punishment is warranted, I think we have hit that wall.
No more refugees until the existing population stops this shit.
No aid, no food drops, no docs without borders, nothing until they cut this crap out.
Then bomb the crap out of ISIL, accept civilian casualties (they do, theirs and ours) and martyr as many as necessary.
Hearts and mind stuff won't work (for now) carrot and stick (and carrots are out of season).

Serious yet crazy moment:

How many more Paris/ Brussels attacks will it take to put Trump in the White House? He's been a hard liner from the beginning and at some point, if not already, people will lose faith in Hillary's ability to deal with Muslim extremists. Fear is a powerful motivator, so how many on the fence or even Hillary supporters will take a look at Trump and think "This dude sucks in almost every category, but he's the only one with a plan to deal with ISIS and their ilk?" How many people will set aside their other beliefs because of the fear of terrorism?

Trump (and Cruz) look stronger every day, but sometimes it takes a bully (Trump) to stand up to a bully.

 

[Stephen]

Just putting my libertarian two cents in here because I know I'm a minority on this, but I don't want to play into their game. Islamic extremists want an extreme response. They want to be able to put images of civilians dead from airstrikes online and on TV. I don't believe that they seriously think they could win an all out war with the world, and that's why we can't treat them like we did Germany or Japan in WWII. They want less discriminate airstrikes. They want conventional troops on the ground.

I think what we should be doing is continuing to conduct special operations missions. In fact, we should really bolster our special operations to become our main weapon in Syria.

You know what, I'd fuckin find some of our best and brightest with a serious vendetta against those savages, and just get them underground Al Raqqa, like in the drainage system. Then at night they could come up, murder a few ISIS guards, mutilate their bodies, leave a note on their bodies saying that it was a local resistance group that killed them, and then return underground to the drainage system. Do that once every few days, and I bet you eventually the people would start taking care of things themselves.

-Just a farfetched idea, but what I'm really getting at is that there has got to be better ways to do this than just bombing the shit out of them and going even further in debt.

 

[DA SWO]

Just putting my libertarian two cents in here because I know I'm a minority on this, but I don't want to play into their game. Islamic extremists want an extreme response. They want to be able to put images of civilians dead from airstrikes online and on TV. I don't believe that they seriously think they could win an all out war with the world, and that's why we can't treat them like we did Germany or Japan in WWII. They want less discriminate airstrikes. They want conventional troops on the ground.

I think what we should be doing is continuing to conduct special operations missions. In fact, we should really bolster our special operations to become our main weapon in Syria.

You know what, I'd fuckin find some of our best and brightest with a serious vendetta against those savages, and just get them underground Al Raqqa, like in the drainage system. Then at night they could come up, murder a few ISIS guards, mutilate their bodies, leave a note on their bodies saying that it was a local resistance group that killed them, and then return underground to the drainage system. Do that once every few days, and I bet you eventually the people would start taking care of things themselves.

-Just a farfetched idea, but what I'm really getting at is that there has got to be better ways to do this than just bombing the shit out of them and going even further in debt.

You have to have some sort of open response, or they use a lack of response as proof of their invincibility, and that becomes a recruiting tool.
The crux is no matter what our response is, they will try to use it as a recruiting tool, which is why getting killed has to go from an awesome martyrdom, to an oh shit event; but we don't have the spine required as we are "too civilised" for such violence.

 

[Stephen]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I think there isn't a simple answer. If there was, I'm sure we would have figured it out. I think nothing short of killing every last one of them and killing their families as well will completely root out islamic extremism.

However, am I morally okay with making families suffer for the sins of their relatives, no.

Gah, it's all so difficult and it frustrates me because I honestly hate how much people suffer at the hands of this plague.

 

[Brill]

Hillary has the answers! Look to the unclassified Internet for intelligence!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ls-for-intelligence-surge-to-fight-isis/?_r=0

 

[Gunz]

Hillary has the answers! Look to the unclassified Internet for intelligence!!!

She shouted, as she was dragged off in handcuffs by Federal Agents.

 

[Devildoc]

You have to have some sort of open response, or they use a lack of response as proof of their invincibility, and that becomes a recruiting tool.
The crux is no matter what our response is, they will try to use it as a recruiting tool, which is why getting killed has to go from an awesome martyrdom, to an oh shit event; but we don't have the spine required as we are "too civilised" for such violence.

Truth, Brother. It is truly a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. So, that said, I would opt for overt and covert war against those booger-eaters. I mean, if we are screwed either way, at least take the screwing of your choice.

I will say, I like the idea of hitting the individuals, and I won't lose sleep should collateral damage occur. I like how the Russians allegedly handled the terrorists in 1985. The story may not have been entirely accurate, but the fact that the story may have kept Russians safe for a while is telling.

 

[DA SWO]

Truth, Brother. It is truly a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. So, that said, I would opt for overt and covert war against those booger-eaters. I mean, if we are screwed either way, at least take the screwing of your choice.

I will say, I like the idea of hitting the individuals, and I won't lose sleep should collateral damage occur. I like how the Russians allegedly handled the terrorists in 1985. The story may not have been entirely accurate, but the fact that the story may have kept Russians safe for a while is telling.

My understanding is the story is fairly accurate; if it's not accurate, then it is understated.

 

[AWP]

Hillary has the answers! Look to the unclassified Internet for intelligence!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ls-for-intelligence-surge-to-fight-isis/?_r=0

Anyone who reads that article and doesn't see the flaws in her logic and hypocrisy is a damn fool.

 

[Devildoc]

I cannot find the CNN video, there is one of Sanders at a CNN Town Hall in which he was asked about Trump rallies and violent "supporters." He said Trump needs to take responsibility for his supporters, but when asked if he would do the same since it was pro-Sanders supporters inciting some of the violence, Sanders claimed he has millions of followers and cannot take responsibility for them. Oh, I wish I could find it. He used to amuse me. Now he bugs the hell out of me.

"Trump is responsible for every single one of his followers, but I'm not accountable for any of mine"

 

[Grunt]

I cannot find the CNN video, there is one of Sanders at a CNN Town Hall in which he was asked about Trump rallies and violent "supporters." He said Trump needs to take responsibility for his supporters, but when asked if he would do the same since it was pro-Sanders supporters inciting some of the violence, Sanders claimed he has millions of followers and cannot take responsibility for them. Oh, I wish I could find it. He used to amuse me. Now he bugs the hell out of me.

"Trump is responsible for every single one of his followers, but I'm not accountable for any of mine"

Yep...if that is the case...it's the good ole, "Do as I say, and not as I do."

Remember my brother, they ARE politicians...after all!

 

[Florida173]

I cannot find the CNN video, there is one of Sanders at a CNN Town Hall in which he was asked about Trump rallies and violent "supporters." He said Trump needs to take responsibility for his supporters, but when asked if he would do the same since it was pro-Sanders supporters inciting some of the violence, Sanders claimed he has millions of followers and cannot take responsibility for them. Oh, I wish I could find it. He used to amuse me. Now he bugs the hell out of me.

"Trump is responsible for every single one of his followers, but I'm not accountable for any of mine"

He is way overestimating his supporters, or they aren't voting for him.

 

[Brill]

Anyone who reads that article and doesn't see the flaws in her logic and hypocrisy is a damn fool.

I think you just called Iowa stupid.