U.S Election 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7324&tid=ss_tw

Trump used money donated to his charitable foundations to settle legal bills.

Bet this still doesn't hurt him.

[adzii_nufc]

All whilst Clinton faces another barrage off the Email scandal crowd that could be very serious if its proven she ordered Paul Combetta to tamper with them in any way.


https://amp.ibtimes.co.uk/hillary-cl...t-tips-1582223

Someone made a failed attempt to scrub the account in question. Unaware that Reddit submissions can be archived.

So both Trump and Clinton are dodgy, there's no winning. AFAIK Obama pardoned Combetta before he was even trialed. So there's another corrupt one to add to that list.

[Osem]

What a choice eh?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump were to win and God only knows what sort of mess he'll make of the job. Mind you, maybe there are powerful people behind the scenes in the likes of the CIA and NSA who'd rather like to have someone they can manipulate at the helm of good ship America...

[Pierre]

Clinton is just as bent and has used her foundation for equally if not more dodgy dealings.

But of course Trump is much worse..................

http://observer.com/2016/08/the-six-...needs-to-know/

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Osem

What a choice eh?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump were to win and God only knows what sort of mess he'll make of the job. Mind you, maybe there are powerful people behind the scenes in the likes of the CIA and NSA who'd rather like to have someone they can manipulate at the helm of good ship America...

Remember the last president to say no to the CIA? He took the open top limo.

I wish stuff like that was still just conspiracy. We'll find out in 50 more years what they've been doing post 2000. We're past shooting presidents, trying to blow up your own buildings and kidnapping your own citizens for experimentation so what could possibly be worse? It's crap like this that fuels '911Truthers' basically built them a stage to stand on.

A lot of power still resides with Congress, a lot of Americans and others are exaggerating way too many things. Trump will do this/that/the other and the same for Clinton. Knowing fine well that the POTUS doesn't hold such powers. The same people making ludicrous claims that Obama would bring Sharia Law to the US last time round. The same folks that go straight for Bush when it comes to Iraq and conveniently miss out the guy that spent years trying to get a conflict in the middle east, Dick Cheney.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Clinton is just as bent and has used her foundation for equally if not more dodgy dealings.

But of course Trump is much worse..................

http://observer.com/2016/08/the-six-...needs-to-know/

That's a bit weak. The Washington Post story is saying he used the money for other means which would be illegal. Some of those 'scandals' are just inferences the writer chooses to make without substance:

Bill raked in at least $26 million from speaking to organizations that also donated to the Clinton Foundation. Sure, they paid him to speak to him, and he may have spoken to them just for the money, but I’m sure it didn’t hurt that they also donated to the foundation.

I mean all of them suggest some sort that people that donated to the charity also donated to Clinton. That is different to what Trump is being accused of. The money to Clinton's campaign was separate to that of the charity. She didn't use charitable funds for her campaign. The main one problem there is people who had meetings with Clinton who also donated to her charity. Which is bad but rather typical of politics. Even in the UK the biggest contributors to the political parties will get dinners/access to their leaders.

---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

What a choice eh?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump were to win and God only knows what sort of mess he'll make of the job. Mind you, maybe there are powerful people behind the scenes in the likes of the CIA and NSA who'd rather like to have someone they can manipulate at the helm of good ship America...

It makes you nostalgic for the days of Romney and McCain. I didn't agree with them on pretty much anything, obviously, but they were within the scope of normal political discourse. Neither of them were like Trump. He isn't even conservative. Just a campaign fueled on hate. No policies on anything other than building a war, keeping out Muslims and touring the families of suspected terrorists.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

That's a bit weak.

It's all weak, both candidates are weak.

But I don't think Trump is any worse than Clinton.

He's said a many stupid thing, but he's also batted straight on a lot of things too.

This election is either going to be really quite exciting and very close, or Clinton will just batter Trump in a landslide.

I can't believe that those two are the best the US has to offer

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's all weak, both candidates are weak.

But I don't think Trump is any worse than Clinton.

He's said a many stupid thing, but he's also batted straight on a lot of things too.

This election is either going to be really quite exciting and very close, or Clinton will just batter Trump in a landslide.

I think Trump is a lot worse than Clinton. I think it's a dangerous man. He said Obama wasn't born in the states, as I previously said he has suggested America go after the families of suspected terrorists, he said Mexican immigrants were raping people, he has frequently gone after women with comments about their appearance be it the wives of rival candidates, rival candidates themselves or people interviewing him and wanted to punish woman who have abortions which not even pro-life campaigners want.

That's without his long list of business deals behind him.

Clinton isn't perfect, she would be lose massively to pretty much any other of the Republicans who stood in the Primary, but Trump is a internet comment section turned real. He would rather be bulling some group of people that talk about policy. His answers to foreign policy is usually 'we'll go in there and sort it out'.

What is he actually going to do when he is President? No one seems to know. We have an idea with Clinton, it's slightly left of Obama but still rather centrist.

What is he going to do abroad? What if his commanders refuse to kill the family of a terrorist? Why is that even a discussion point?

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think Trump is a lot worse than Clinton. I think it's a dangerous man. He said Obama wasn't born in the states, as I previously said he has suggested America go after the families of suspected terrorists, he said Mexican immigrants were raping people, he has frequently gone after women with comments about their appearance be it the wives of rival candidates, rival candidates themselves or people interviewing him and wanted to punish woman who have abortions which not even pro-life campaigners want.

That's without his long list of business deals behind him.

Clinton isn't perfect, she would be lose massively to pretty much any other of the Republicans who stood in the Primary, but Trump is a internet comment section turned real. He would rather be bulling some group of people that talk about policy. His answers to foreign policy is usually 'we'll go in there and sort it out'.

What is he actually going to do when he is President? No one seems to know. We have an idea with Clinton, it's slightly left of Obama but still rather centrist.

What is he going to do abroad? What if his commanders refuse to kill the family of a terrorist? Why is that even a discussion point?

Then nothing. There's no requirement. As per the constitution:

You are not required to follow an unlawful order. That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.

Just the same rules that stop the POTUS shooting your face off in public.

But commanders wouldn't refuse that order, they have no issue dropping missiles on civilians elsewhere so why would this make a difference? See the problem there... Obama has had no issue with the civilian death toll caused by chasing terrorists abroad. Killing their families and even some completely unrelated to terrorism at all. It becomes an issue when a madman talks about it though. A country that knows full well that they're racking up collateral damage each time they target a terrorist suddenly have an issue when someone openly says they'll do what Obama is doing. Must be the way he never used the terms 'Incorrect Intelligence or accident'

Originally Posted by adzii_nufc

Then nothing. There's no requirement. As per the constitution:

Where is that in the constitution? I assume it's a recent amendment.

But commanders wouldn't refuse that order, they have no issue dropping missiles on civilians elsewhere so why would this make a difference? See the problem there...

Well they do have an issue with it. America and Britain have pretty strict rules of engagement when conducting military operations in civilian areas.

There is a a big difference between civilians dying in military operations targeting an enemy and civilians being intentionally targeted. If you have evidence of the Americans intentionally setting out to kill civilians, i.e not as a result of a botched operation, then that's different. However if the Americans wanted to kill civilians they could do so easily and level whole cities in moments.

Trump has suggested intentionally killing them. It's a huge difference and it's a measure of how screwed up this situation has become that instead of it automatically disqualifying him we're debating if the constitution allows it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think Trump is a lot worse than Clinton. I think it's a dangerous man. He said Obama wasn't born in the states,

many people took that position after Obama won, and as I recall Obama was very very slow to produce evidence. It was a stupid position to take, but he wasn't a politician at the time nor was he running for president, he has since retracted the allegation.

as I previously said he has suggested America go after the families of suspected terrorists,

I don't know if it was 'suspected' terrorists but his point was that terrorists don't care about themselves, but if they thought their actions might have repercussions upon their family they may think twice about it. Also in many cases the families of terrorists know or suspect that something may be going on but do nothing. A fair point, poorly executed. But when it comes to terrorism nothing should be off the table.

he said Mexican immigrants were raping people,

Obviously not all but there are many illegal immigrants in the US that commit felonies in the US, are deported, and then come back to commit more crime, the Kate Steinle case, being the example of the moment.

he has frequently gone after women with comments about their appearance be it the wives of rival candidates, rival candidates themselves or people interviewing him

Not smart, good job that nobody in politics or the media have taken the **** out if him and his appearance though isn't it.

wanted to punish woman who have abortions which not even pro-life campaigners want.

no defence for that one. He immediately retracted it, he just not skilful or experienced enough to check his own wondering mind.

The debates are going to be really interesting. He could very possibly self destruct. It will be very interesting to see what a seasoned politician like Clinton can do. She should by rights take him to the cleaners.

What is he actually going to do when he is President? No one seems to know. We have an idea with Clinton, it's slightly left of Obama but still rather centrist.

She's not left of Obama. You get 4 more years of Obama with Clinton. Which is not very exciting. Obama has been a very mediocre president. He's done very little to better the lives of African Americans.

What is he going to do abroad? What if his commanders refuse to kill the family of a terrorist? Why is that even a discussion point?

Does " go after" mean kill?

I don't think he'll do too much but he has stated that he'll declare war on ISIS, which would be interesting.

[adzii_nufc]

Originally Posted by Damien

Where is that in the constitution? I assume it's a recent amendment.



Well they do have an issue with it. America and Britain have pretty strict rules of engagement when conducting military operations in civilian areas.

There is a a big difference between civilians dying in military operations targeting an enemy and civilians being intentionally targeted. If you have evidence of the Americans intentionally setting out to kill civilians, i.e not as a result of a botched operation, then that's different. However if the Americans wanted to kill civilians they could do so easily and level whole cities in moments.

Trump has suggested intentionally killing them. It's a huge difference and it's a measure of how screwed up this situation has become that instead of it automatically disqualifying him we're debating if the constitution allows it.

I don't think there's just laws inside the US stopping him, what does the Geneva Convention offer?

As for evidence the US targets civilians, there isn't any in that sense, I'm just saying they know they will kill civilians. If they launch a hellfire missile into a street then there's just no way you're not going to cause collateral damage. That in a sense is knowing? Example being, although this was completely botched and they ended up killing 80 odd civilians and no suspects, coalition aircraft hitting a cluster of houses in the village of Tokkhar, Syria. They leveled the entire place and there's just no way they didn't know it housed civilians. It's a great success when you take down a lunatic terrorist but it doesn't feel that right when you've wiped out a village to do so. Kunduz Hospital incident is a similar situation, they knowingly fired upon a building inhabited with Civilians under the pretense the Taliban had raided the place and had human shields and hostages, Their solution to a situation like that was to accept Afghan calls for a bombing run.

Guess the point I'm getting at is, whether it's via the accidental methods or via trump deliberately doing it, the outcomes are the same, countless people die for no reason and it's my opinion that neither are acceptable. I get Trump as a person saying it is worse and insane. Just think the loss of life should be more important.

But yes, I accept Trump's version would undoubtedly set that death toll higher and allow him to target at will.

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

many people took that position after Obama won, and as I recall Obama was very very slow to produce evidence. It was a stupid position to take, but he wasn't a politician at the time nor was he running for president, he has since retracted the allegation.

I don't know if it was 'suspected' terrorists but his point was that terrorists don't care about themselves, but if they thought their actions might have repercussions upon their family they may think twice about it. Also in many cases the families of terrorists know or suspect that something may be going on but do nothing. A fair point, poorly executed. But when it comes to terrorism nothing should be off the table.


Obviously not all but there are many illegal immigrants in the US that commit felonies in the US, are deported, and then come back to commit more crime, the Kate Steinle case, being the example of the moment.



Not smart, good job that nobody in politics or the media have taken the **** out if him and his appearance though isn't it.

no defence for that one. He immediately retracted it, he just not skilful or experienced enough to check his own wondering mind.

The debates are going to be really interesting. He could very possibly self destruct. It will be very interesting to see what a seasoned politician like Clinton can do. She should by rights take him to the cleaners.



She's not left of Obama. You get 4 more years of Obama with Clinton. Which is not very exciting. Obama has been a very mediocre president. He's done very little to better the lives of African Americans.



Does " go after" mean kill?

I don't think he'll do too much but he has stated that he'll declare war on ISIS, which would be interesting.

IIRC he changed his tone on that 'Kill' thing too, downright denied it at one point.

Here: Changes from kill to go after: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b065e2e3d4d82d

Here is the direct quote from December though

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.

Do any of us assume 'Take out' means anything other than kill?

South Park weighed in on this with their returning episode for season 20. The character Mr Garrison is blatantly being portrayed as Trump, it's an interesting watch, suggesting now he's actually up head to head he has no clue what to do if he wins.

Quote Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/po...ists-families/

So it's evident people do actually consider this could have been a massive backfire in Trump not actually expecting to be this far into it.

That quote though, Politicians playbook isn't it? Said it but didn't say it 6 months later.

Originally Posted by Pierre

many people took that position after Obama won, and as I recall Obama was very very slow to produce evidence. It was a stupid position to take, but he wasn't a politician at the time nor was he running for president, he has since retracted the allegation.

He retracted it last week. Also why should Obama provide his birth certificate? He was a citizen of the United States. It is not normal for Presidential candidates to release their birth certificate or for any citizen to be required to do so to prove their nationality.

We all know why a few people requested it of Obama and not of any other candidate.

I don't know if it was 'suspected' terrorists but his point was that terrorists don't care about themselves, but if they thought their actions might have repercussions upon their family they may think twice about it. Also in many cases the families of terrorists know or suspect that something may be going on but do nothing. A fair point, poorly executed. But when it comes to terrorism nothing should be off the table.

Yes it should. Killing their families is off the table to any decent human being. If you kill the wives/children/brothers/sisters of people because they're terrorists then you are a common murderer and nothing more.

She's not left of Obama. You get 4 more years of Obama with Clinton. Which is not very exciting. Obama has been a very mediocre president. He's done very little to better the lives of African Americans.

The Democratic platform, of which she is the lead campaigner as the leader of the party, is to the left of Obama. It's been heavily influenced by Sanders as part of the Democratic convention.

We'll see in history where Obama will come out. I don't think he'll go done as mediocre though. Looking back I suspect this handling of the 2008 crash will go down well. The United States recovered far quicker than most other economies after the crash and the stimulus, opposed by a minority Republicans at the time, was a success. I don't believe he has been at the wheel for a recession either (other than 2008 obviously). The medical system took a step forward in having pre-existing conditions covered and younger people covered throughout their University years on their parents coverage. Other than that there are two appointments to the Supreme Court, America has massively increased the amount of their energy supplies that originate within the United States, he repealed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. Really his domestic record is likely to go down very well.

His foreign record isn't so great. Good: Cuba, Iran and Osama and maybe moving towards Asia more. Bad: Syria. Syria will probably go down as his biggest failing.

I think he'll go down as one of the 'good' Presidents but these things always depend on history. How Obamacare fares will be a key issue. Either way though being the first black President, winning two-terms, and killing Osama is likely to always place him in the ones people talk about.

There is a good article from many months ago actually: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...vements-213487

[Pierre]

Because we'll know that building walls to keep out illegal immigrants makes you a racist, facist *******.

http://news.sky.com/story/great-wall...rants-10586233

---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Also why should Obama provide his birth certificate? He was a citizen of the United States. It is not normal for Presidential candidates to release their birth certificate

Rightly or wrongly it was questioned, and it could have been sorted out in minutes, but IIRC it dragged out for months, further fuelling the speculation and birther conspirators.

Yes it should. Killing their families is off the table to any decent human being. If you kill the wives/children/brothers/sisters of people because they're terrorists then you are a common murderer and nothing more.

I wasn't referring to the 'killing' of, and I'm not sure if he ever said ' killing'. But ' going after' whatever that means, I wouldn't take off the table

Really his domestic record is likely to go down very well

The circumstances and outlook for African Americans, ethnic minorities, blue collar workers have not improved under Obama in fa t they have declined. the USA's influence and respect on the world stage has declined. Obama has been a poor president for the US with no good option in sight.