US Presidential Election XII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see her being more Hawkish than Obama. She'll continue to drone, but don't see us invading anyone.

Uh, no. Did you not read the article posted in here the other day? She was always arguing for more involvement and ground troops when she worked for this administration. Of course she's going to be more hawkish than Obama, and for me, that's the problem that we can't really fix. The left may be able to persuade her to move in their direction enough that her administration functions as the third term of Obama, but we're likely to make no headway in changing her mind regarding foreign affairs and that's a shame.
 
In serious Republican candidate news:

Rick Perry will be on 'Dancing with the Stars'.

So after November we may have two Republican candidates on reality TV this fall.

How lovely :|

Yeah, that news did not make me happy :crack:.

I'm hoping the show can do a double elimination the first week and let both him and Ryan Lochte go at once :p..
 
What's really annoying is those little iPad looking credit card processing machines you see at a bunch of small businesses. Where they swipe your card and you sign and it prompts you for a tip... except you didn't receive a service that you traditionally tip on. Someone made you a coffee or something, and you feel awkwardly guilty for clicking the "No Tip" button instead of one of the suggested percentages.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. When you're getting a full wage, I don't think I need to tip you for taking my money. Sorry.
 
Wonder how the meeting between Trump and the President of Mexico goes down.

Assume the Wall Deal will be signed and sealed.
 
Yeah, because if this was a real scandal that was somehow outside the norm for arms deals, the Ted Cruz(s) of Congress would be keeping quiet?



Reality?


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...uz-clinton-foundation-should-return-donations

It's like we're not even gonna bother to do rudimentary google searches before rebutting. Not only can we find the Ted Cruz(s) of congress commenting, we can find Ted Cruz himself commenting. Over a year ago.

Additionally, by what mathematical logic can you say a more than 100% increase in the amount of arms deals is not outside of the norm for arms deals? That makes no sense whatsoever

Not going to discuss what other republican investigations have shown, because that's an obvious non sequitur.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
And thus sums up this election, and how utterly stupid the Republicans were to not rally around a single candidate early, allowing this mutant to highjack a nomination that was probably going to be there's to take.

Oh, and yea I'd still vote for Hillary over Saint Bernie any day of the week as well, before THAT while thing inevitably starts again.


Agree with every word of this. Though I'd only not vote Bernie because I probably couldn't afford to


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...uz-clinton-foundation-should-return-donations

It's like we're not even gonna bother to do rudimentary google searches before rebutting. Not only can we find the Ted Cruz(s) of congress commenting, we can find Ted Cruz himself commenting. Over a year ago.

Additionally, by what mathematical logic can you say a more than 100% increase in the amount of arms deals is not outside of the norm for arms deals? That makes no sense whatsoever

I'm sorry, where did he discuss the arms deal? That article just spoke of normal campaigning against a candidate.

I'm saying if this arms deal was a real issue then he would be speaking about this IN CONGRESS. I haven't heard one person in Congress speak to the arms deal in question, just of the foundation. And most of that is just typical politicking.
 
I'm sorry, where did he discuss the arms deal? That article just spoke of normal campaigning against a candidate.



I'm saying if this arms deal was a real issue then he would be speaking about this IN CONGRESS. I haven't heard one person in Congress speak to the arms deal in question, just of the foundation. And most of that is just typical politicking.


Did you read the original comment?

The original comment is pointing to a connection between foreign governments donating to the Clinton foundation and then receiving a vast increase in weapons deals approved by the state department.

Congress rejected the Bahrain deal. The administration went around congress.

The question here is corruption.

As for Cruz coming out against the arms deal...when has Ted Cruz become anyone's moral guide to arms deals?

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Last edited:
As for Cruz coming out against the arms deal...when has Ted Cruz become anyone's moral guide to arms deals?

Moral guide? That's not the point at all.

The issue is the arms deal. Would it have been any different if it weren't for the donation. Correct?!

I'm saying if you're a member of Congress and a questionable arms deal is happening, that's a political football that you would jump on and run into the ground. That would be HUGE. That would be Iran Contra political fodder. But no one in Congress is jumping on it. So if the arms deal alone isn't an issue, then making this connection with the foundation is indeed just another political goose chase.
 

Clinton emailed classified information after leaving State Dept. | New York Post

Hillary Clinton continued sending classified information even after leaving the State Department, The Post has exclusively learned.

On May 28, 2013, months after stepping down as secretary of state, Clinton sent an email to a group of diplomats and top aides about the “123 Deal” with the United Arab Emirates.

But the email, which was obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act request, was heavily redacted upon its release by the State Department because it contains classified information.

The markings on the email state it will be declassified on May 28, 2033, and that information in the note is being redacted because it contains “information regarding foreign governors” and because it contains “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

The email from Clinton was sent from the email account — hrod17@clintonemail.com — associated with her private email server.

The email’s recipients were Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, diplomat Jeffrey Feltman, policy aide Jake Sullivan, diplomat Kurt Campbell, State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

We're just as shocked as you, Caleb :slant:
 
Sixteen minutes is pretty good, BVS, but is well below the high standards you've set for the Clinton Response Team. I expected five.
 
"could have"?

the election's been over for a month. barring her plane crashing or something, the only question now is if she can get past 350 EV's.
 
CNN: Bernie Sanders has worse hair than Donald Trump

berniesanders.jpg
 
"could have"?

the election's been over for a month. barring her plane crashing or something, the only question now is if she can get past 350 EV's.

The better the performance of the nominee, the better the results down ballot.

I'm in agreement with your post as far as the Presidential election is concerned, but it would have been nicer to win by, say, ten points instead of five and it would have helped turn over some close Senate and House races along with important state and local ballot measures, etc.
 
I'm in agreement with your post as far as the Presidential election is concerned, but it would have been nicer to win by, say, ten points instead of five and it would have helped turn over some close Senate and House races along with important state and local ballot measures, etc.

If you want to turn over Senate and House races, that takes organizational competence and power, and it takes a history of making and maintaining connections at those levels. On both counts, Hillary is far superior to Bernie.
 
If you want to turn over Senate and House races, that takes organizational competence and power, and it takes a history of making and maintaining connections at those levels. On both counts, Hillary is far superior to Bernie.

The Clintons certainly have the connection$
:giggle:
 
The Clintons certainly have the connection$

:giggle:


There is a long history of politicians and Presidents who had active charity foundations while they were in office. Absolutely none of the foundations were as transparent as the Clinton Foundation with regards to donors, amounts, and organizational distribution of money. Perhaps it's a symptom of the instant-information age we live in, but none of the foundations received anywhere near the scrutiny (if any at all) of the Clinton Foundation, despite its transparency, and the transparency of 30+ years of the Clinton's tax records. If the claim is that the Clintons have gotten rich off their foundation, the facts simply don't back it up. If the claim is that the Clintons exchanged access and favors for donations, the link is murky (at best), despite the transparency involved in Foundation records.

Also, two things regarding the favors for donations thing - the claim is often made with a connotation that the Clintons personally benefitted from the donation, which again, is simply not backed up by the facts. And two, the claim (which again, has so far been unsubstantiated by the facts) is made as if in a vacuum from the entire history of politics, probably the most 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' profession out there.

If stating these kinds of common sense facts and conclusions makes me a member of Oregeropa's illustrious Clinton Praetorian Guard, then I guess I should ask for the fancy helmet and lance now.
 
There is a long history of politicians and Presidents who had active charity foundations while they were in office. Absolutely none of the foundations were as transparent as the Clinton Foundation with regards to donors, amounts, and organizational distribution of money. Perhaps it's a symptom of the instant-information age we live in, but none of the foundations received anywhere near the scrutiny (if any at all) of the Clinton Foundation, despite its transparency, and the transparency of 30+ years of the Clinton's tax records. If the claim is that the Clintons have gotten rich off their foundation, the facts simply don't back it up. If the claim is that the Clintons exchanged access and favors for donations, the link is murky (at best), despite the transparency involved in Foundation records.

Also, two things regarding the favors for donations thing - the claim is often made with a connotation that the Clintons personally benefitted from the donation, which again, is simply not backed up by the facts. And two, the claim (which again, has so far been unsubstantiated by the facts) is made as if in a vacuum from the entire history of politics, probably the most 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' profession out there.

If stating these kinds of common sense facts and conclusions makes me a member of Oregeropa's illustrious Clinton Praetorian Guard, then I guess I should ask for the fancy helmet and lance now.



This post would be more believable if you had remembered to mention how she isn't a perfect candidate, that you have problems with her and her record, and that you do understand (and agree) that there's something unlikeable about her.

But since you didn't, I can only assume that you are a black woman in the South unfamiliar with any candidates not named Clinton, or a 62-year old lesbian in Delaware who deeply wants a female president. Therefore, I am going to dismiss all this information
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom