or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Trump is #2 in GOP Field - Page 244

post #3646 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

So Bush actually invades two countries on his own initiative, but Hillary is the neocon warhawk on steroids. K.



Hillary's pretty far right on foreign policy hawkishness for a Democrat, but you guys take this shit to absurd levels.

You do understand that she largely supported bush ?

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-troubling-friendship-of-hillary-clinton-and-george-w-bush/

Here is her resume on policies:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/20/hillary-clintons-neocon-resume/
post #3647 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by satrorianogreco View Post

You do understand that she largely supported bush ?

The history behind the Iraq War vote has been hashed out ad nauseum. Hillary doesn't get a pass for it. But, Bush was the one that actually proposed the war, carefully parsed the evidence for it, and pressed for Congress to approve it. Hillary simply voted for it. I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but that is a remarkably dumb article.

Oh neat, Ukraine is Hillary's fault now. That's....novel.
post #3648 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The history behind the Iraq War vote has been hashed out ad nauseum. Hillary doesn't get a pass for it. But, Bush was the one that actually proposed the war, carefully parsed the evidence for it, and pressed for Congress to approve it. Hillary simply voted for it.
I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but that is a remarkably dumb article.

So she chose to back interventionalistic neocon policies again over and over in other countries in middle east after backing bush iraq policy, and now is follwing same policy on syria?
Makes sense she has no responsability on what policies she chose, to follow.

Oh neat, Ukraine is Hillary's fault now. That's....novel.



http://www.progressivepress.net/hillary-clintons-ukraine-problem-2/
post #3649 of 8748
Dude, learn to use the quote function. You're burying all your comments inside the quotes and it's impossible to follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by satrorianogreco View Post

So she chose to back interventionalistic neocon policies again in other countries, and now is pressung hard on syria?
Makes sense she has no responsability on what policies she chose to follow.
I'm making fun of your hysterical tone, which seems to be pretty common for the anti-Hillary types. Hillary is obviously pro-intervention, with all it's consequences. But it's a limited form of intervention. Acting like she's going to invade half the world is not doing any favors to your argument.


Huh, I don't see anything about "Putin invading Crimea" in there.



You anti-Hillary people really think snuggling up to Putin is a winning strategy?
post #3650 of 8748
Quote:

This doesn't prove anything he said is incorrect.
post #3651 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Apparently Hillary was behind it all, controlling the whole government on her own. Hillary's wars, you know.

Now people are blaming Hillary for stuff Bill did too.


Hillary is demonstrating the problem in the modern political climate with actually having a substantial political record. You have actual decisions that you need to defend. Anything short of a full fullback from international involvement is going to result in some ugly decisions. Either you intervene and deal with those consequences, or you watch people die and regions get destabilized. Hillary might (almost certainly does) leans too heavily on the "intervention" button, but we can see what happens if you pull back too much.
post #3652 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Dude, learn to use the quote function. You're burying all your comments inside the quotes and it's impossible to follow.
I'm making fun of your hysterical tone, which seems to be pretty common for the anti-Hillary types. Hillary is obviously pro-intervention, with all it's consequences. But it's a limited form of intervention. Acting like she's going to invade half the world is not doing any favors to your argument.
Huh, I don't see anything about "Putin invading Crimea" in there.



You anti-Hillary people really think snuggling up to Putin is a winning strategy?

Actually im not saying anything she has lead that tone you seem to criticize me, in her email over and over.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

And this are her own word else where at abc interview and aipac convension"I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN2224332720080422


I post facts you have not posted anything so far beside relying on logical fallacies to justify her policies and possition.
Edited by satrorianogreco - 6/15/16 at 12:00pm
post #3653 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by satrorianogreco View Post

Actually im not saying anything she has lead that tone you seem to criticize me, in her email over and over.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

Not clicking on that link because it seems to have malware.
Quote:
And this are her own word else where at abc interview and aipac convension"I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSN2224332720080422
Are you just ignoring the "if Iran attacks Israel" part of that statement?

What a warmonger, claiming the US will protect our allies if they're subject to an unprovoked attack. Obviously that's exactly the same as wanting to attack Iran just for funsies.
post #3654 of 8748
That isn't what she said at all.

She said if Iran attacks Israel, that they will attack Iran.
That's totally different from what you said.


Ahh Gibonius beat me to it
post #3655 of 8748
To be fair, all the talk of a "joint" presidency with Bill and Hill, readily leaves itself open to pinning some onus on the Hill portion from the 1990s. I'm not saying it's right to do that but pointing out their own comments create the framework for it.
post #3656 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by satrorianogreco View Post

I post facts you have not posted anything so far beside relying on logical fallacies to justify her policies and possition.

Isn't this a perfect case of 'projection'?
post #3657 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

To be fair, all the talk of a "joint" presidency with Bill and Hill, readily leaves itself open to pinning some onus on the Hill portion from the 1990s. I'm not saying it's right to do that but pointing out their own comments create the framework for it.

I am learning that this is a hallmark of the Piobaire style.  Talk passively of "the talk", indicate that it "readily leaves itself open" to some damning indictment, disclaim any personal view on it, and then reassert that, nevertheless, there might just be something to it.

 

It's ok though - it's a rhetorical style that could get you nominated for the Presidency if you keep it up.

post #3658 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by budapest12 View Post

I am learning that this is a hallmark of the Piobaire style.  Talk passively of "the talk", indicate that it "readily leaves itself open" to some damning indictment, disclaim any personal view on it, and then reassert that, nevertheless, there might just be something to it.

It's ok though - it's a rhetorical style that could get you nominated for the Presidency if you keep it up.

And the budapest style would be to post anyone that he feels is not in alignment with him is wrong yet never indicate in what manner they are wrong.


For instance, why not just state I'm incorrect and that no Clinton or Clinton inner circle member said what I have asserted was said?
post #3659 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

That isn't what she said at all.

She said if Iran attacks Israel, that they will attack Iran.


That's totally different from what you said.

Ahh Gibonius beat me to it

The sad thing about this is that there are plenty of real grownup critiques of the US default interventionist foreign policy, of which Hillary is a strong advocate. But the "which of your children are you willing to sacrifice!" or hysterically inflating the list of HRC's policy failures isn't a grownup discussion.
post #3660 of 8748

This isn't  a  discussion . Its a witch burning .In a thread with this title I would at least expect some counters vis a vis how  exactly The Donald has promised to relieve us of these policies of Hillary the Horrible 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Trump is #2 in GOP Field