Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[BornaSkinsFan83]

33 minutes ago, AJ* said:

 

Yeah, that war was already being fought genius, in Afghanistan. Bush's administration pushed hard for war with Iraq going as far as having surrogates on every Sunday cable news show talking about mushroom clouds scaring the American people to death into supporting another war. Bernie "Nostradamus" Sanders gave every consequence in fire and brimstone why going into Iraq was really a dumb idea....reasons 1, 3, 4, and especially #5 came to pass.  Barely any thought was given to any of this before "shock and awe". The result? A dumb cowboy President throws our young troops into foreign territory and from the comfort of the White House tells the enemy to "bring it on". Insurgents come out of the woodwork and our military is caught in the middle of a civil war sending 4500+ young American troops home in coffins. Sectarian violence is widespread and hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed or displaced. Trillions of dollars are spent trying to fix something we stupidly caused. The consequences of those actions are still being felt today. 

 

 

Can't believe we need to rehash the entire Iraq debate. And really can't believe some Republicans/conservatives are trying to pin it on Democrats. Are they that ****ing stupid or do they just think everyone else is?

 

Anyway, here's State Senator Obama's speech on Iraq, pre war, in 2002. Basically won him the White House

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

[clskinsfan]

20 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah, bullcrap.

 

12 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

He truly believes that he is.  But I can see how if you're one of the few guys on Breitbart not saying offensive stuff about Jews and minorities then you could think you were a moderate.

And again, Blinded by politics. I have made my point I will let you guys ramble on about how anyone who disagrees with you is whatever you decide to label them.

[twa]

1 hour ago, BornaSkinsFan83 said:

 

Can't believe we need to rehash the entire Iraq debate. And really can't believe some Republicans/conservatives are trying to pin it on Democrats. Are they that ****ing stupid or do they just think everyone else is?

 

Anyway, here's State Senator Obama's speech on Iraq, pre war, in 2002. Basically won him the White House

 

 

Is Obama running for election again? 

here is what your candidate said recently

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/clinton-defends-her-iraq-war-vote-644430403940

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[aREDSKIN]

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Do you still support Trump now that he's given up on being Birther in Chief?

Never have never will. You're projecting.

[Going Commando]

I like how right wing pundits and politicians are trying to brand fact check like it's a dirty word, or that it's a form of Democrat cheating.  They couldn't possibly be more blatantly anti-intellectual, anti-truth, anti-reality.

[visionary]

 

 

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

My biggest question here is whether or not the researchers were able to come away from such an experience unscathed. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, aREDSKIN said:

Never have never will. You're projecting.

That's not what projecting is.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan T.]

5 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

lol that clskinsfan thinks he's right up the middle politically and he's sitting here trying to justify the Iraq war.  Go back to ****ing Breitbart where you belong.

 

Remember the good old days when it was Fox News that was the comfort zone for a certain demographic who wanted a different reality?

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I like how right wing pundits and politicians are trying to brand fact check like it's a dirty word, or that it's a form of Democrat cheating.  They couldn't possibly be more blatantly anti-intellectual, anti-truth, anti-reality.

 

Thats Newts job. He pushed intellectual ideas from conservative think tanks as a congressman while pushing anti-intellectualism to poor undereducated right wing voters.

[visionary]

 

 

[Dan T.]

That last tweet... what a despicable human being Trump is.

[TradeTheBeal!]

That can't be a real tweet.

[hail2skins]

It is a real tweet.

In the WaPo poll released today Trump is up by 59 points among non-college white men. Folks, all he has to do is not throw up on himself tomorrow and the two other debates. He is winning this election.

[LadySkinsFan]

Clinton should say, "Now, Donald, you know that's not true." And then go on with her points. Kinda like "Here you go again" by Reagan.

[Corcaigh]

He is channeling Goebbels.

"Crisis is the path to happiness. Decay and disintegration do not spell doom, but ascent and beginning. The powerful forces of a new creation operate in the hush beyond the noise of the day."

 

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

It is a real tweet.

In the WaPo poll released today Trump is up by 59 points among non-college white men. Folks, all he has to do is not throw up on himself tomorrow and the two other debates. He is winning this election.

That sounds good, but neglects the state polling specific to the electoral college

And he probably will throw up all over himself.

[TheGoodBits]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

That sounds good, but neglects the state polling specific to the electoral college

And he probably will throw up all over himself.

I anticipate a crap load of whining about the moderator and unfair treatment, if Holt does his job. If Hillary's smart she tries to preemptively call him out on it at the beginning of the debate so he looks more foolish if he tries to whine his way out of the subsequent debates.

[LadySkinsFan]

No he's not winning the election. Clinton has the majority of females and females make up over 50% of the electorate, almost all blacks, majority of Latins/Hispanics, Asians. Trump's numbers haven't changed much, consistently around 40%. There's not that many non-college white males anymore, that's why they are being so xenophobic, racist, and misogynistic. They are now faced with their dwindling power to those they consider "other" and "less than" when we are all human beings.

[twa]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

And he probably will throw up all over himself.

 

He looks to be enjoying himself, and certainly doesn't mind a national audience

[LadySkinsFan]

Granholm just said that some people call Trump a "chisler". Apt.

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

I anticipate a crap load of whining about the moderator and unfair treatment, if Holt does his job. If Hillary's smart she tries to preemptively call him out on it at the beginning of the debate so he looks more foolish if he tries to whine his way out of the subsequent debates.

Hillary has an appeal problem with moderates. For whatever reason she's not likeable.

All she needs to do is present herself as smart, informed, and having a plan for the various topics.

Trump is going to try to bait her into a trolling/bullying contest. That's the only way he stays relevant. She could just ignore him and win with anyone genuinely undecided still.

If she gets into a pissing match I don't know if it will go well. Being a bully is his specialty, and Clinton is going to have a hard time playing the victim, it doesn't suit her.

[LadySkinsFan]

Clinton is anything other than a victim.