• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

On China...

Strengthen the U.S. military and deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas. These actions will discourage Chinese adventurism that imperils American interests in Asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with China. A strong military presence will be a clear signal to China and other nations in Asia and around the world that America is back in the global leadership business.

On Iran...

“If I win the Presidency, I guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in our country before I ever take office,” he said at the rally. “They will be back before I ever take office, because they”—the Iranians—“know that’s what has to happen, O.K.? They know it. And if they don’t know it, I’m telling them right now.”

On North Korea

Trump further warned that North Korea is trying to develop the technology to hit the US with one of its nuclear weapons. He said this possibility should demand US action.

We got to close it down, because he’s getting too close to doing something,” Trump said. “Right now, he’s probably got the weapons, but he doesn’t have the transportation system. Once he has the transportation system, he’s sick enough to use it. So we better get involved.

On ISIS

Mr Trump said under his presidency Isis would disappear “very, very quickly” through his long-term plan to prevent the spread of radical Islam. The billionaire failed to outline his anti-Isis strategy in detail, but said the extremist group's "days are numbered". "I won’t tell them where and I won’t tell them how. We must as a nation be more unpredictable. Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States and indeed the world."

“We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. Our military dominance must be unquestioned,” he said.

He has also declared that he would "Bomb the hell out of ISIS"

yeah.... couldn't give a **** about military intervention
 
Well, that makes it all right then. Nevermind there were 21 Democratic Senators who voted against it.

Oh, so that 21 voted against it makes Iraq Hillary's fault.... gotcha.

My point is not that "brown people" wouldn't suffer under Trump, but that Hillary is somehow an obviously better alternative. She's not. Trump talks out of his ass. Hillary is serious about supporting regime changes, and has done so in the past, with disastrous results.

Hillary voted that if UN Inspectors weren't allowed back in, that based on the information presented, the US should be allowed to use force to achieve the goals of disarming Iraq, how was that regime change?

And how is changing the regime automatically a bad thing when the regime is murdering hundreds of its own people almost daily? Why is trying to intervene and save people so evil when it goes wrong compared to standing aside and watching people get slaughtered. Isn't trying to do something better than just letting people die?

Again, I don't know if she's a bigger threat, but she certainly isn't an ally of "brown people", who are the people under question.

So trying to save their lives from a government intent on slaughtering them wasn't a thing an ally would do? You are judging her actions with 20/20 hindsight here.

Good. And supports my belief that Trump wouldn't get us bogged down in yet another ME war.

Really? Trump is talking up forcing Iran to release American Prisoners, Or Else! And has stated that under his Presidency ISIS would be a major target. How would these things not get the US into another ME war?

Contrary to that, exactly what ME war do you think Hillary would get the US involved in?
 
Oh, so that 21 voted against it makes Iraq Hillary's fault.... gotcha.

No, it makes me not want to vote for her because she's incompetent.



Hillary voted that if UN Inspectors weren't allowed back in, that based on the information presented, the US should be allowed to use force to achieve the goals of disarming Iraq, how was that regime change?

Do Hillary supporters have no shame? Is Hillary ever responsible for anything? Giving an idiot like Bush authority to invade Iraq was a monumentally bad idea, like giving a toddler a loaded gun. I didn't know he would shoot himself! 20 other parents did it too! I lived through that. We all knew full well that Bush was going to invade Iraq, if he got the authority, which he did, thanks to our spineless Congress.

And how is changing the regime automatically a bad thing when the regime is murdering hundreds of its own people almost daily? Why is trying to intervene and save people so evil when it goes wrong compared to standing aside and watching people get slaughtered. Isn't trying to do something better than just letting people die?

And here we can see why I changed my registration to "independent". We already have one Neocon party. We don't need another. It's OK to admit that Hillary is incompetent on foreign affairs. You won't get audited over it. Not everything she does is defensible.


So trying to save their lives from a government intent on slaughtering them wasn't a thing an ally would do? You are judging her actions with 20/20 hindsight here.

No, I knew Iraq was a bad idea from the start, and I cringed when we got involved with Libya. When has getting involved in the Middle East EVER BEEN A GOOD IDEA?



Really? Trump is talking up forcing Iran to release American Prisoners, Or Else! And has stated that under his Presidency ISIS would be a major target. How would these things not get the US into another ME war?

Again, I'm not saying Trump would be any better. I'm saying I don't think he could be much worse. "Brown people" should be quaking with terror no matter who wins.

Contrary to that, exactly what ME war do you think Hillary would get the US involved in?

Iraq, again. Syria. Lebanon. Iran. The possibilities are endless.
 
No, it makes me not want to vote for her because she's incompetent.

Like all the other people that believed that the Elected President would do what he said and wasn't using made up evidence, including other world leaders?

Do Hillary supporters have no shame? Is Hillary ever responsible for anything? Giving an idiot like Bush authority to invade Iraq was a monumentally bad idea, like giving a toddler a loaded gun. I didn't know he would shoot himself! 20 other parents did it too! I lived through that. We all knew full well that Bush was going to invade Iraq, if he got the authority, which he did, thanks to our spineless Congress.

Yet the US people voted that "idiot" and "toddler" into power, twice.

And here we can see why I changed my registration to "independent". We already have one Neocon party. We don't need another. It's OK to admit that Hillary is incompetent on foreign affairs. You won't get audited over it. Not everything she does is defensible.

I take it that you really believe that it is better to let people be massacred then to help them then. Good to know.

No, I knew Iraq was a bad idea from the start, and I cringed when we got involved with Libya. When has getting involved in the Middle East EVER BEEN A GOOD IDEA?

The Lawrence of Arabia campaigns? Desert Storm?

Again, I'm not saying Trump would be any better. I'm saying I don't think he could be much worse. "Brown people" should be quaking with terror no matter who wins.

The trouble is that you have set up a strawman Hillary and then then match Trump's claims to it. Trump is talking forcing Iran to do what he tells them and going full scale against ISIS. You want to believe that Hillary will do it based on your biased evidence while Trump is actually talking about doing it and getting cheered.

Iraq, again.

What evidence is there that Hillary would do anything more than what is being done now?


Considering that Hillary had a chance to send in troops when she was DoS and didn't, why should we believe she would now?


What reason would the US have to go into Lebanon?


Considering that Obama just reached a historic deal with Iran and the current Democratic move is to bring them back onto the fold, what reason would cause Hillary to invade them?

The possibilities are endless.

Maybe in a world of delusion and strawmen, but we're supposed to be talking reality.
 
This whole "I will support anybody who is Anti Establishment" mentality is scary...and very,very,stupid.
 
MSNBC is projecting both Sanders and Trump winners while CNN, the NYT and the WA Po are only projecting Trump.

CNN is calling Sanders the early leader.
 
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-voters-boost-sanders-west-virginia

A third of those who voted in West Virginia’s Democratic primary say they plan to back Trump in November, according to NBC News exit polls. Sanders won those voters by a wide margin.

RELATED: Bernie Sanders is in for a good month of May

In fact, 39 percent of Sanders voters said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the fall. For Clinton, nine percent of her voters say they plan to come out for Trump in the general election.

West Virginia has an open primary, meaning independents can vote in the Democratic contest. With the GOP nomination wrapped up, it’s possible mischievous Trump supporters sought to damage Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, by voting for Sanders.

There was also a competitive Democratic gubernatorial primary Tuesday – and no Republican one – so Trump voters might have turned out for that and then weighed in on the presidential ballot line while they were at it.

Either way, Sanders’ coalition in West Virginia doesn’t fit with many of the patterns we’ve come to expect of Sanders voters after more than 40 primaries and caucuses.

For instance, Sanders, the Vermont Democratic Socialist, won self-described conservative voters. He also won 62 percent of voters who said they want less liberal policies than Obama’s.

That suggests some of Sanders’ voters may have been motivated more by a desire to vote against Clinton, rather than to support Sanders’ policy ideas.
 
This is something I don't get. Bill was the most popular US President since Truman with an approval high of 73% and ending his presidency with a 65% approval rating. Internationally Bill is still the most loved, living US President.

Considering all of that, if Hillary is even half the president that Bill was, the likelihood is she'll still be the best President since him, and likely the second best since JFK..

Yeah, no ****.

We'd be LUCKY to get another president like Bill Clinton.

Let's get back to when our country was great...like in the 90s.
 
This is something I don't get. Bill was the most popular US President since Truman with an approval high of 73% and ending his presidency with a 65% approval rating. Internationally Bill is still the most loved, living US President.
Those are the facts, the reality.

Thus, I really don't get where this sort of hate comes from. It seems that people have short memories or are just willing to believe whatever crazy is made up and thrown at them.
Consider the source, Republicans. I guarantee you, Republicans will not spend much time attacking HRC by attacking Bill's policies or the positive impact of his presidency. Republicans will do what they do best, personalize the attack, sling mud, attack character. Republicans don't have the policies so they do they only thing they can, attack the opponent.
 
Looking at the Democratic Party candidates it seems that the more you are disliked then the more likely you are to be elected.........

On the whole it shows that the candidate with the highest net approval rating wins with the exception of Bush I v. Dukakis.
 
O'Malley points to fewer questions in presidential debates
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...vestigates-omalley-debate-20160521-story.html

"The public never was told this, but they would tell us, 'Look, Secretary Clinton's going to get 50 percent of the questions, Senator Sanders is going to get 40 percent and you're going to get 10 percent of the questions,'" he said. "And they said, 'If you want to be heard, you're going to have to jump in on one of their questions.'"


Grumble, grumble, grumble...

ETA - O'Malley was my first choice.
 
Last edited:
Now that's cool to know. Has anyone else confirmed it? I'm not doubting it but I would like it exposed. "Oh, see, we give fair treatment to the other qualified candidates - snicker, snicker."

Sounds like "fair treatment" in this case is "proportionally fair treatment". Utterly ridiculous. Every candidate in a debate should get equal time and an equal amount of questions. Anything else is anti-democratic.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom