Election 2016 Thread

[Forty Two]

Hillary Clinton is just going to be a continuation of the same irrational policies that you've been stuck with for decades, but I still think it would be better if she beat Trump. Trump is just too much of a loose cannon. There's just no telling what fuckwittery he might get up to if he snared the top job.

edit: I should add, the supreme court judge pick should be enough reason for Mercan's to pick Hillary over Trump.

He's making a bed for himself with his promises. He's very clear on what he wants to do, so when he gets elected, he better fix the trade deals, and fix the immigration system, and add industrial jobs to the economy, rebuild the military, and disentangle us from unnecessary overseas meddling. What "fuckwttery" are you worried about? He doesn't give a fuck about abortion policy, he is in favor LBGTQ rights and doesn't want to limit what they can do, he is very pro-equality of the sexes. What would be the worst bit of fuckwittery he might do?

Well his advocacy of war crimes is an obvious bit of fuckwittery. But to be honest, I'm more concerned about what he might randomly come up with. The guy has the maturity of a teenager. He seems totally reactionary and unstable.

This is silly stuff. He says "look at what ISIS does, chopping off heads, torturing, burning people, drowning people, etc.... and we have our hands tied." He minimizes waterboarding, sure -- but, many people are of that view. It's not universal or inarguable that it is always improper. If you look at what the Brits did the IRA folks they caught - wall standing, hooding, and other "intensified interrogation techniques" they're just as bad, if not worse than waterboarding. The French too used various techniques, not to mention Russians and Chinese. Waterboarding is small potatoes compared to the really thorny stuff.

But, if that's the bit you don't like - advocating war crimes - so does Hillary. Hillary said Trump advocates war crime when he said to kill their whole family, etc. -- well, that's what she and Obama did -- http://www.salon.com/2016/06/06/in_atta ... war_crime/ (and that's from Salon.com -- not some right wing rag). I guess she admitted to war crimes.

[pErvinalia]

Tu quoque, as usual. And it wasn't a policy of Obama/Clinton.

[Forty Two]

Tu quoque, as usual. And it wasn't a policy of Obama/Clinton.

It wasn't a policy to use drones to kill civilians suspected of terrorism and bomb the places where they and their families live?

It's not tu quoque anyway - it's comparing the two candidates, and saying that if you object to Trump for saying he would bomb civilians suspected of terrorism and their families, then you need to also object to Hillary taking part in bombing suspected terrorists and their families. To object to one, but not the other is not tu quoque, it's identifying hypocrisy.

[Forty Two]

If starting wars is what you're worried about, Hillary Clinton is a bigger worry than Trump: https://www.vice.com/read/hillary-clint ... ifying-812

[pErvinalia]

Tu quoque, as usual. And it wasn't a policy of Obama/Clinton.

It wasn't a policy to use drones to kill civilians suspected of terrorism and bomb the places where they and their families live?

It's not tu quoque anyway - it's comparing the two candidates, and saying that if you object to Trump for saying he would bomb civilians suspected of terrorism and their families, then you need to also object to Hillary taking part in bombing suspected terrorists and their families. To object to one, but not the other is not tu quoque, it's identifying hypocrisy.

So all that stuff about the Brits was what, exactly?

And Trump has said he will kill the families to put off terrorists. Obama droning that kid can't have been for that reason as they had already killed his terrorist father weeks previously. The logical assessment is that they must have suspected he was a terrorist, or why bother killing him and the other people around him?

[Forty Two]

Yes, if Obama kills him with a drone, it's only logical that the kid must have been a terrorist.

And, I love it how it's just fine for Obama to kill anyone suspected of being a terrorist. LOL. No war crime there. We say he's a terrorist! Boom.

[Forty Two]

Hillary the Hawk -- http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hi ... 2016-test/

In one of the book’s most quoted passages, Gates writes that he witnessed Clinton make a startling confession to Barack Obama: she had opposed George W. Bush‘s last-ditch effort to salvage the Iraq war, the 2007 troop “surge,” because the politics of the 2008 Democratic primaries demanded it.

Clinton has demonstrated a well-documented willingness to use American military power overseas. Gates’ book is just the latest evidence, along with previous reporting and original interviews with current and former Obama officials, of the strikingly hawkish voice Clinton offered during Obama Situation Room debates.

As Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war. She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes. In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.

[pErvinalia]

If starting wars is what you're worried about, Hillary Clinton is a bigger worry than Trump: https://www.vice.com/read/hillary-clint ... ifying-812

Re-read what I said.

In any case, Clinton is at least predictable, and not an immature bully. The latter type of person shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.

And before you start, you know I'm no fan of Hillary. Accepting Hillary by rejecting Trump isn't the same thing as being pro-Hillary.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, if Obama kills him with a drone, it's only logical that the kid must have been a terrorist.

And, I love it how it's just fine for Obama to kill anyone suspected of being a terrorist. LOL. No war crime there. We say he's a terrorist! Boom.

You really are a fucking retard. Learn to read.

[Hermit]

With hispanics, Trump has never suggested that spanish speaking people are in any way bad or undesirable. He has only spoken out against illegal aliens.

"I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things." Should have recused himself for being of Mexican heritage? I don't think judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is an illegal migrant. He's not even a migrant of any description, having been born in Indiana to naturalised parents.

I am really sick and tired of Euros and Ozzie/NZ-ers on this point -- you folks don't tolerate illegal immigration into your countries.

And what is it with this tu quoque argument again? Are you telling us to stfu for the same reason you do not?

[Scot Dutchy]

With hispanics, Trump has never suggested that spanish speaking people are in any way bad or undesirable. He has only spoken out against illegal aliens.

"I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things." Should have recused himself for being of Mexican heritage? I don't think judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is an illegal migrant. He's not even a migrant of any description, having been born in Indiana to naturalised parents.

I am really sick and tired of Euros and Ozzie/NZ-ers on this point -- you folks don't tolerate illegal immigration into your countries.

And what is it with this tu quoque argument again? Are you telling us to stfu for the same reason you do not?

He is jealous that other countries have it under control.

[Forty Two]

With hispanics, Trump has never suggested that spanish speaking people are in any way bad or undesirable. He has only spoken out against illegal aliens.

"I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things." Should have recused himself for being of Mexican heritage? I don't think judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is an illegal migrant. He's not even a migrant of any description, having been born in Indiana to naturalised parents.

I am really sick and tired of Euros and Ozzie/NZ-ers on this point -- you folks don't tolerate illegal immigration into your countries.

And what is it with this tu quoque argument again? Are you telling us to stfu for the same reason you do not?

He's referring to the bias of being a member of an organization which is boycotting his company. The Mexican heritage bit relates to the guy being a member of what Trump says are La Raza related organizations. Indelicately worded. Curiel is American born, for sure.

[Forty Two]

With hispanics, Trump has never suggested that spanish speaking people are in any way bad or undesirable. He has only spoken out against illegal aliens.

"I have a Mexican judge. He’s of Mexican heritage. He should have recused himself, not only for that, for other things." Should have recused himself for being of Mexican heritage? I don't think judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is an illegal migrant. He's not even a migrant of any description, having been born in Indiana to naturalised parents.

I am really sick and tired of Euros and Ozzie/NZ-ers on this point -- you folks don't tolerate illegal immigration into your countries.

And what is it with this tu quoque argument again? Are you telling us to stfu for the same reason you do not?

He is jealous that other countries have it under control.

Indeed. I am quite certain that a Russian or Mexican found having entered the Netherlands without any inspection/visa/or permission would quite likely be asked to leave. I am jealous that they can do that without being racist.

But, the reality is, yes, other countries seem to be allowed to control their borders. An American politician is somehow labeled racist for suggesting that people who entered the country illegally, with no visa, no visa waiver card, no inspection, nothing, ought to leave.

[Hermit]

He is jealous that other countries have it under control.

The Australian government calls refugees 'illegals' and puts them into concentration camps in New Guinea, Nauru and tried to contract one out to Thailand. Even the refugees that the government itself acknowledges to be genuine asylum seekers (about 90% of the total) are not set free on Australian soil. 48% of Australians agree with this policy. Yes, we are a xenophobic and racist nation - have been since before we even became a nation. One of the two big motivations for our only armed rebellion, the Eureka Stockade of 1854, was our opposition to all those Chinese miners stealing gold before we could. I don't know if CES is jealous about that.

[Forty Two]

Refugee =/= illegal.

If a person comes to the US illegally, they can claim refugee status if they are outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country. So, people in general are not refugees.

In the US, refugees are put into a process of administrative and judicial review, where they are given due process and a fair hearing to show that they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. That is not the same as an economic migrant, or someone who is just leaving one country to go to another because they are seeking a better opportunity.

If, however, you blokes in Oz treat people so badly, then you may wish to discuss those issues, rather than worrying about what the US does, which is significantly more friendly to immigrants than what you describe. And, even implementing what Trump is suggesting, we would STILL be more friendly to immigrants than what you describe.