BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 01:54 PM

Not much of a comeback....sorta like a capitulation, with a pout for an accompanying attitude....but no fantasy, Sillymore. Frankly, I'm astonished how much bullshit the 'two sides' of the same political coin, can ingest and spew forth, with out them getting yourselves tired!
It's far more satisfying, and beneficial to take that same angst, and interpret it into music!!...instead of delusional 'wings'.....left wing?...right wing??...I guess that's what it takes to make political bullshit fly!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 06:29 AM

Enjoy your fantasy, boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 06:16 AM

Yes that's a good point Sanity......logging off for the day ..keep well .... A

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 05:22 AM

You'd THINK that people would want to know the character of the person asking for their vote.....but it doesn't matter...she's running as the first woman for president and that, to them, is a qualifier, just like Obama was the first black....and then those same morons accuse others of being racist and misogynists if you point out to them that these aren't exactly 'honest' people who they should trust!!....and then top it off with "Dream on"!!

Just step back...just a moment, check it out..and take a picture.

Hey nice to see you, Ake...I was booted off for a while for telling them the truth....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 04:28 AM

The sad fact Sanity, is that if Clinton had been a Republican, she would have been butchered and packaged by the "liberals" in double quick time.

What we actually see is the unedifying spectacle of them scrambling about in an attempt to excuse her conduct, because it seems probable that she will emerge as Democratic Party candidate for President of the US...... end of story really.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 28 Oct 15 - 12:13 AM

Dream on, Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 11:38 PM

Well, of course, that is the 'so-called liberal' mantra...but McCarthy, isn't the one who ordered an FBI investigation!....and things discovered, and the going forward on that, will be topic of a lot of backroom negotiations...what 'favors exchanged' and such....and what she admitted to, during the other(Benghazi) hearings, leave the other door WIDE open....if you can grasp this, it's not a talking point.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymorg4
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:17 PM

Quite right, Greg. What they're really asking in the "backrooms" is how can we keep these show trials going right up to the elections and how long will our pea-brained constituents continue to buy it. Erstwhile Speaker canidate Kevin McCarthy already clued us in as to their motivation.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 11:55 AM

Yep - it may be a "separate issue", but its the same unadulterated horseshit as all the other "issues", Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 11:26 AM

You missed the point, in your eagerness to make a point!....The things that did come out, is of interest to the other investigation by the FBI, in regards to her E-mail mess.....that is a separate issue....and she admitted to enough to get her in hot water with THAT investigation. Whether or not they go after her on that, is another question, depending on the back room deals.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 07:00 AM

"Get your Benghazi Scorecards right here. Can't tell the political assassins without a scorecard."

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 15 - 03:40 AM

....depending on how they RIG it.....See, technically, when she gave her testimony to the Benghazi Senate Gang, she(reluctantly, but slickly) admitted to exchanging E-mails with Blumenthal and forwarded a couple of his, to Obama, who categorically refused to have him on, nor was he cleared on the security levels, appropriate to the classified, info, being exchanged....sooooo...that is illegal..felony, too...so, depending on who owes who, or what, and/or what 'deal' can be cut, she might not even be indicted!....and then it came out that while she was telling the world, that it was caused by a video, while telling 'her family', oh, and the President of Egypt, that it was an attack, and not the video!

Oh Goody!!..We get to vote for yet another lying fraud!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 02:24 PM

Well she'll be your President not mine.....thank God.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 10:27 AM

You "looked at Iraq"... and THEN guessed about any relevance or connection.

I have "looked at Iraq" for 15 years or so. Ain't it amazing how I can miss all those obvious details that you see so clearly.. (he said, with tongue stuck firmly in cheek)

Clinton made one vote about going into Iraq, based on giving Bush the benefit of the doubt because, as president he was supposed to have access to all the relevant intelligence. She has since said, about 20 times, that she regrets that vote and wishes she'd had better information. She guessed wrong, but her opponents treat it like she planned the whole thing.
It is looking more & more like she is likely to be the next president...... so we shall see how it goes, hmmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 15 - 09:29 AM

I didn't "guess", I looked at Iraq!    Clinton of course supported and still supports the US action there.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 09:45 AM

What I can't work out is why Ache rattles on about "Hillary the Hawk" while at the same time promoting an alliance with a couple of murderous despots like Assad and Putin to supposedly save the middle east. Perhaps his socialism is of the "Nationalist" variety as a number of posters here have suggested.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 09:23 AM

"If I could work out.."
You didn't... you guessed .. and then classified the parts you guessed right about to fit your overall image.

...and "a lawless desert, inhabited by head chopping psychopaths".... is about the most blatant over-stated generalization I have seen in ages. You must tell us what % of those 'lawless desert dwellers' actually do any head-chopping.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:13 AM

"If I could work out that the removal of Gaddafi would turn Libya into a lawless desert, inhabited by head chopping psychopaths, why was it beyond the powers of Mrs Clinton?"

It wasn't....she had a different agenda.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:54 PM

Greg.....I have yet to read one credible source which believes that the decision to attack either Iraq or Libya were the correct ones.

The policy was proved wrong in Iraq, but was repeated by incompetent US and UK governments in Libya with disastrous results.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:47 PM

If I could work out that the removal of Gaddafi would turn Libya into a lawless desert, inhabited by head chopping psychopaths, why was it beyond the powers of Mrs Clinton?

I do not believe that Clinton was motivated by the plight of the Libyan people for one instant, she must have known the fate that her policies would mean for them.

She cant be THAT stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:41 PM

I am not at the moment arguing the rights and wrongs of Mrs Clintons actions in Libya, I am simply responding to those who deny that she is widely perceived as the driving force behind US action in Libya.

I of course do not agree with your assessment of Clintons motivation or the beneficial effects of attacking the Libyan regime.

The same situation is evolving in Syria today almost all opposition to Assad's regime can be described as terrorism, in the same way as the "moderates" in Libya showed their true colours after the overthrow and murder of Col Gaddafi .....the episode which we all saw the "gentle" Mrs Clinton chortling about.

American politicians should accept Putin's offer to share intelligence and rid the world of its biggest menace, Islamic Jihadists.

They of course are stuck in an ideological trough, where all they see is the myth of being seen as Democracy bringers to a land a thousand times more lawless and terrifying than the Wild West.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:29 PM

political commentators in the UK were of the opinion

Right. Political commentators - all born with a caul, I presume?

Right. Opinion. Look that up in your dictionary, Pharoah.

Its not a synonym for "fact".

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Oct 15 - 12:05 PM

Ok Ake... I've been reading thru that CNN article. Then I looked up the author of the article,

http://www.cnn.com/profiles/stephen-collinson

It is always prudent to look behind long articles which take a negative position...(just like one tries to discern the motives when some person or position is excessively praised.)

I seems that Collinson was 'recently' hired to cover the 'stuff' around the 2016 races. A quick look at the topics, plus reading some of them shows a certain trend...perhaps best explained by this blurb about Collinson.

"The network announced the news series this week, rolling out the debut episode from Collinson's native England where he's covering the UK elections. Collinson, a former AFP White House correspondent, promises to give viewers a fun and easy-to-understand guide through a series of fascinating and complex political races and issues each week. CNN says a second episode is slated to hit tomorrow."

The closest I can come to a brief analysis is that Collinson was hired to "stir the pot" and be provocative... something which various UK commentators seem to relish.

That needs to be considered just as carefully as the raw details ABOUT Libya and the various roles different individuals had in determining policy about possible intervention and what it should include.

In Collinson's article, this appears:

"it is clear that Clinton and other top administration aides perceived an agonizing dilemma: Should they take action to avert human carnage or stand by and be accused of abetting genocide?

"Imagine we were sitting here and Benghazi had been overrun, a city of 700,000 people, and tens of thousands of people had been slaughtered, hundreds of thousands had fled," Clinton said on ABC's "This Week" in March 2011. "The cries would be, 'Why did the United States not do anything?' "

In more than one situation in the last few years, that is exactly the cry that we heard. You in the UK heard cries asking "why did WE get so deeply involved with these impossible fights among Arab powers?"
When any attempt to intercede is not ultimately successful, or only partly so, there are always complaints about the money spent and lives lost.... no matter what altruistic (OR political) motives are stated.
Ms. Clinton's judgment was part of the process... she was Sec. of State! It is still clear that she asserted her desire to save lives and **try** to help make Libya independent and able to function. Those who spin that to make it seem like she was mostly concerned about 'her legacy' ...and laying Libya's later problems at her feet are taking the negative view that 'If it doesn't work as hoped, it should never have been tried, and her entire judgment was flawed and/or based on her desire to enhance her legacy.'
History is full of good ideas which failed... and many that succeeded! When MacArthur landed at Inchon during the Korean war, it could have been total disaster due to tides and weather. Afterward, it was hailed as brilliant. When Eisenhower gave the go ahead to land at Normandy, it could have failed even worse. At least back then the issues were clearer and the enemy was obvious.
Now, it is hard to even sort out who we are for or against, and intervention is often based on the possibility of just easing things for innocent non-combatants...(yes, with the hope that IF things settle down, it will ease diplomacy for us in the long run.)

You may interpret as you please, but I have no reason to doubt Clinton's stated intent. IF Libya was now settling into a sane, viable state, would you still claim her decisions were flawed... and call her a hawk? To me, a 'hawk' is one whose first response to any conflict is to 'send in the Marines and bomb anything that looks like like a problem'. Dick Cheney and John McCain come close to that, but I shudder to imagine what Libya would look like today if McCain had been elected. We know what the middle east looks like after Cheney & Bush made their decisions.

So...that's about as 'impersonal' as I can be. I don't expect that it will change your mind one whit.. but I often need to see my viewpoint in print, and reading and debating helps ME better work out what I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:06 PM

Gee Bill, I at least had the "insight" to realise the intervention would lead to a catastrophe.    Didn't see much "insight" from you or others in the threads dealing with Libya at the time?

I you want to be sarcastic, I can take it and give it, but I would rather keep the discussion impersonal.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:59 PM

Greg, certainly most political commentators in the UK were of the opinion that Clinton pushed for military action in Libya against the better judgement of President Obama.
At the time this was big news in the UK.

Are CNN not a reasonably even handed news outlet?

I can give some links to UK papers if required.
CNN

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:57 PM

"...many people realised exactly what Mrs Clintons intentions were .."

Oh.. mind readers! Wow.....

What "many people" did was project what they wanted to believe onto anything that happened.

"President Obama was very unwilling to commit himself or your country to an armed attack."

Gee... amazing insight!

He had said for a long time that he did not intend to commit troops in any manner that would get the US into another ground war in the region. Nothing Ms. Clinton did (anyway, nothing public that YOU would have access to) had any effect on his ultimate decisions. You are drawing implications from 'sources' that spend WAY too much time second guessing the motives of our leaders. Her political ambitions, whatever they were at the time, were not the issue.
Dealing with an impossible situation where 4-5 interests and countries were doing a dangerous dance all over the middle-east can easily be 'interpreted' in several ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:46 PM

many people realised exactly what Mrs Clintons intentions were

Who were these "many people" and what were these supposed "intentions" ??

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:39 PM

I followed the Libyan situation carefully Bill, having been opposed to the support of "the moderate rebels" right from the start(see the Libya threads on this forum), President Obama was very unwilling to commit himself or your country to an armed attack.
He was put in a position(by Clinton) where refusal to attack the regime would have looked like weakness.....he eventually agreed making a situation where he could not win.

If things ended well Mrs Clinton would get the credit, and if things ended badly, he (Obama) would get the blame.

Fortunately many people realised exactly what Mrs Clintons intentions were and hopefully will not forget her actions in the coming elections.
I always thought President Obama would be relatively powerless to effect change, but despite that, I feel him to be a decent individual in a dirty business..... one for which he appears to have lost the appetite.

Isn't about time you all started looking beyond the old "cold warriors" and find some representatives with vision and a penchant for diplomacy?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:28 PM

dozens of commentators

Which ones, exactly, and what is their agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:06 PM

We DO know something about the Wash.Times. Totally financed by the Korean 'preacher'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

A staunch, right-wing rag that would never survive on ts own.

As Ms. Clinton explained at length yesterday, major decisions about Libya were made by Obama... after inputs from the CIA, the diplomats on the ground, the State Dept. staff, and 'partly' by her own suggestions. Daily adjustments in real time are never made by the Sec, of State. You simply cannot pin the overall strategy for such a complex situation on any one person... (and she had a couple of hundred countries whose diplomatic situations she was overseeing.)

"...there are dozens of commentators saying.." And dozens more saying the opposite. You can probably find a couple saying she is in league with Satan....

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 03:30 PM

Don't know anything about the WT, but there are dozens of commentators saying that Libya was Clinton's baby and that is exactly the view I got from news coverage in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymorg4
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 12:23 PM

Ah yes, the Washington Times, you won't see a more reliable news source unless you're standing in line at the supermarket.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 11:55 AM

Just one of many commentators views
Clinton pushed Obama on Libya.
Still LOLing Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 09:31 AM

LOL gillymor.... after I watched her be grilled mercilessly for 10 hours yesterday, I'm sure they regret NOT mentioning her mother's combat boots!


Ake...she did NOT 'push Obama' into anything! You just demonstrated my point about simplistic accusations and slogans.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:29 AM

A nuanced and well-reasoned argument there, Ache but you forgot to add that her mother wears combat boots.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:02 AM

Hillary the Hawk did not learn from the Iraq experience, she pushed Mr Obama into a disgraceful attack on Libya with the horrendous consequences we see today.

IMO that makes her evil AND stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:59 PM

McGrath of Harlow, Yes, Clinton voted Yes on the Iraq question but so did *almost* 100% of the Senate. Surely not *all* of them were evil or stupid. Manipulated and mistaken is what they were. Name me one person who has not found themselves in that position at one point or another. Me? You?

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 07:11 PM

Sanders calls himself a "Democratic Socialist" and he explains that in detail to anyone who asks. Labels are irrelevant...

"Credible candidates"? What do you want? Ms. Clinton has credentials to spare... and a command of the issues rivaling Bill Clinton! Do I automatically with anything she says or does? No... but I didn't totally agree with anyone from FDR on!
Which British politicians do you find totally credible? A Democracy is, by definition, subject to some odd choices at all levels... witness the current Republican circus! Sanders accepts Democracy, but appends certain aspects of 'socialism' to it... meaning fair treatment for **everyone** and changes in tax systems and voting procedures to attain this. He has no vision of anything like Communism.

Ake... you presume a lot from your perch 'over there'. You cannot possibly discern the nuances of either this election or the American system in general. You DO echo some of the sour grapes remarks some of US make by just waving their arms and branding all current politicians as "bought and biased and useless". There are 500+ members of Congress and many thousands of lower level people in this country... some of them are fools, and some of them are brilliant. It is work to sort them out in a Democracy.
I can name a dozen that I would find acceptable to see the highest offices... and there are more that never get noticed; but when the media spotlight hits in an important election, the steam roller of mud-slinging begins trying to spin ANY data into accusations of incompetence and lying and such.... sadly, it is SO much work to sort the wheat from the chaff that many voters merely take the easy path and follow 'talking points' and slogans.
You, sir, simply fall into that trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 03:10 PM

"Rarely, however, do they specify what misdeeds she has committed"

Iraq. It's enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:13 PM

I think the American people deserve much better than this shower of shysters and psychopaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 01:11 PM

It's a sad state of affairs that you are saddled with.
"The devil and the deep blue sea".

I don't see one credible candidate in either party. Perhaps Sanders, but he seems half hearted......not an inspirational leader and why does he refer to himself as a "Socialist Democrat"? Does he mean "Social Democrat"......someone should explain the difference to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 11:36 AM

...just a guess but neither one of these two yay-hoos is going to be the Rebublican nominee for President ..the country-club faction of the 'Pubs won't allow it. It will be Bush vs Clinton ..again. Wait for the dirt on Carson (it's already started...a mother claims he botched a brain surgery on her child)...and Trump will self-destruct. A reporter somewhere is thinking up a question right now that will sink Trump so badly he won't be able to dig himself out of it ...maybe goading him into using a racial slur or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 10:55 AM

Dr. Batshit Crazy is now leading Trump in the polls. Abandon hope.....

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 10:22 AM

..then the pundits claim he will be easy to beat in the General Election. Trump's depth of understanding on any substantive issue is sorely lacking. He has about as much profundity as Kim Kardashian. All he knows is how to look good for the camera (debatable) and speak in simple terms the third-grade mentality of the voters who like him can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 15 - 02:30 AM

Well, Joe Biden has made his decision, so that's that. And O'Malley has sunk really deeply into the nether regions, so that may be that for him too.

On the other hand, it is still so early in the campaign season I doubt any real conclusions can be drawn.

But oh my god- what if Trump gets their nomination??

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Airymouse
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 11:40 AM

I agree with the view of the last post, but my point was that O'Malley made Sanders look bad. Sanders's vote on the Brady bill was something Sanders had to deal with and the defense that Sanders gave, that he had to vote against the bill because he came from a rural state, was torpedoed by O'Malley, to the benefit mainly of Clinton. Meanwhile Clinton never had to deal with her support of the big banks or with her e-mails. It is true that in his campaign speeches O'Malley pointed out the huge speaking fees that Clinton received from the major Wall Street banks (and the major campaign contributions from this source for both her Senate and Presidential campaigns,) but there was not a peep from him about this during the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:14 AM

Sander's vote against the Brady bill

Not so serious at all. That as 1993. This is now. Read his more current statements on firearms.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Airymouse
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:46 AM

Three candidates had serious baggage: Sander's vote against the Brady bill, Clinton's e-mails and her sudden switch to cuddling up to Wall Street after she became Senator of NY, and O'Malley's one-strike-and- you're-out policy which contributed to the problems in Baltimore. Only Clinton escaped unscathed, mostly because of Sander's policy of sticking to issues and not making ad hominem attacks. As others have observed only Clinton and perhaps Sanders and Biden remain serious contenders, but you could see from the debate that O'Malley is aiming for the vice-presidency: his attack of Sander's record on gun control let Clinton stay above the fray. In effect O'Malley did Clinton's dirty work for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:10 AM

I would submit that we have no way of knowing what presidents do and have done in the privacy of their own home.

And I would submit that its reall none of our business, just as it is none of theirs to know what we do in ours.

Nor does it have any necessary impact on what sort of president they will be.

Now, what the Republican candidates have done and are currently doing IN PUBLIC is an entirely different story.

Subject: RE: BS: Oct 2015 Democratic Debate
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:37 AM

I have read in various places that Clinton swears at people and has thrown stuff at her husband, etc.

Given all the stuff that her husband put her through - and publicly- I may well have sworn at him and thrown things at him too.

As for whether such conduct is presidential I would submit that we have no way of knowing what presidents do and have done in the privacy of their own home.