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 245

post #3661 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

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 

Most of these people don't even appear to be Donald supporters, they're just bashing Hillary. You could say the same about those of us who are here to bash Trump, but you know, it's a thread about Trump.


I don't think we really have any big time pro-HRC people in here, just people who really hate Trump and aren't hysterically anti-Hillary.
post #3662 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

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 

I can agree that she's a witch



pivot to position of background checks incoming
post #3663 of 8748
If they actually enact either of those positions, there really needs to be an actual judicial process to have yourself removed from the list. Not really acceptable to have a non-judicial process remove a Constitutional right.
post #3664 of 8748
^ Let's see how quickly Trump backs off that concept.

Although I might be perceived as pro-HRC I also fall into the camp of being very tepid on her. 5/10 and maybe 6/10 on a good day. I am as anti-Trump as you can get though. I don't view their flaws as remotely comparable.
post #3665 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

If they actually enact either of those positions, there really needs to be an actual judicial process to have yourself removed from the list. Not really acceptable to have a non-judicial process remove a Constitutional right.

 

What's scary about this is how many people are in favor it.  The anti-gun crowd is blinded by their hatred of guns.  This isn't about the 2nd Amendment.  It is about the 4th Amendment.  The right to due process should be dear to their hearts.

post #3666 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

What's scary about this is how many people are in favor it.  The anti-gun crowd is blinded by their hatred of guns.  This isn't about the 2nd Amendment.  It is about the 4th Amendment.  The right to due process should be dear to their hearts.
Brace yourself but I agree. I am in favor of certain controls but you can't just have the Gov. apply it at will.
post #3667 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numbernine View Post

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 

I can agree that she's a witch



pivot to position of background checks incoming


This is what bothers me about Trumps followers . They don't even see how wrong this is on so many levels 

post #3668 of 8748

Does Mr. Trump actually have comprehensive written out plank positions somewhere? Or at least something resembling his overall views?

post #3669 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

Does Mr. Trump actually have comprehensive written out plank positions somewhere? Or at least something resembling his overall views?

Busiest man in America: the guy that has to update Trump's website for his positions.
post #3670 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

What's scary about this is how many people are in favor it.  The anti-gun crowd is blinded by their hatred of guns.  This isn't about the 2nd Amendment.  It is about the 4th Amendment.  The right to due process should be dear to their hearts.

Folks only want right minded people to get their due process.
post #3671 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

What's scary about this is how many people are in favor it.  The anti-gun crowd is blinded by their hatred of guns.  This isn't about the 2nd Amendment.  It is about the 4th Amendment.  The right to due process should be dear to their hearts.

I think they just haven't thought it through very much. It sounds reasonable on the surface, like "terrorists shouldn't be able to buy guns duh", but they're really not thinking much about what those lists really mean and where they come from.

It's a watchlist, so that law enforcement can focus energy on people who may warrant extra scrutiny. It's not a judicial ruling. If you said "people on the terror watchlist should trigger a more thorough background check when they buy a gun," well, fine. Triggering an alert to the FBI when terror suspects attempt to buy guns would also make sense.

But a blanket ban on gun purchases is an extrajudicial punishment, without recourse. That's bad news.
post #3672 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Busiest man in America: the guy that has to update Trump's website for his positions.

We've always been at war with Eurasia.
post #3673 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

With Alexander Dugin advising the Kremlin you might soon be.
post #3674 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

With Alexander Dugin advising the Kremlin you might soon be.

That was a fascinating, if terrifying, Wikipedia entry.
post #3675 of 8748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


Not clicking on that link because it seems to have malware.
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.

 

 

There is no malware it is wikileaks if you chose not to open, is by choice. You can can check on any reputable security code. No body is saying she will attack so relax. But when she said when "If I'm president we will attack Iran"  point she stopped. That is very aggressive opening and very hawkish or  lets say what is is policy wise neoconservative and makes even the  far right as bush in same category.Is not normal a diplomat talk is lunatic.
Not only  she understand emphasizes that she is asperger : and I want them to understand that because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons

Iran as fact is not inquiring anything out of contnext
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/debunked-why-5-criticisms-the-iran-deal-are-wrong-13559

program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps would deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.

 

This is lunatic nutjob talk,  not  some one that will become president.  In the  eye of the rest world this talk is not normal. Her hawkishness is dangerous.

Lets not talk about the fact that she had Haim Saban contributing  among some of the top donors:

http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/24182/media-mogul-haim-saban-bomb-living-daylights-iran/

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/13/top-hillary-clinton-donor-clarifies-stance-on-iran-nuclear-deal/?_r=0

 

and the facts that  she is choosing in the international arena policy makers as necons  hard liners as victoria nuland among many others

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-hawk-in-waiting/

 

 

 

The second let me post the email of policy oin syria

 

 

 

he best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war. Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria. The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015 The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes. Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.
 
The polices she  advocate, backed up and following have largely destabilized middle east in name of her allies.
 
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