I thought Hillary was very good tonight. She just owns Sanders on details. His message has been effective so far, but he often pivots to the same things over and over. I trust her FAR more (between the two of them) to make the right judgments on the wide variety of issues that a president faces.
I only watched the first half but agree with you. Now I do like Bernie but he's getting a bit like a Chatty-Marco doll--pull the string and the same 10 responses come out. Hillary strikes me more as a leader, who can think on her feet, Bernie, as more of a philosopher.
I have been pleasantly surprised how well Hillary carries herself and answers the questions in these debates.
I think both candidates are starting to repeat themselves now. They both do what works for them and they both know the moderators aren't able or willing to go in depth on any issue.
I thought Hillary tried really hard to appeal to black voters by attaching herself to Obama. She's done it in every debate, but it was more obvious than ever last night, considering the upcoming primaries. The way she tried to excuse her connection to Wall Street by referencing Obama was strange. She's basically trying to tell black voters: it's okay that I receive money from Wall Street because Obama does the same. It may work, but I think it's just another way for her to avoid the issue.
On foreign policy, she was slightly ahead.
The tone of the debates is getting nastier and it just doesn't appeal to me at all. It's only gonna get worse on that front. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
I think both candidates are starting to repeat themselves now. They both do what works for them and they both know the moderators aren't able or willing to go in depth on any issue.
These aren't really debates. They are just competitive campaign advertisements.
I thought Hillary was very good tonight. She just owns Sanders on details. His message has been effective so far, but he often pivots to the same things over and over. I trust her FAR more (between the two of them) to make the right judgments on the wide variety of issues that a president faces.
I only watched the first half but agree with you. Now I do like Bernie but he's getting a bit like a Chatty-Marco doll--pull the string and the same 10 responses come out. Hillary strikes me more as a leader, who can think on her feet, Bernie, as more of a philosopher.
I have been pleasantly surprised how well Hillary carries herself and answers the questions in these debates.
I think both candidates are starting to repeat themselves now. They both do what works for them and they both know the moderators aren't able or willing to go in depth on any issue.
I thought Hillary tried really hard to appeal to black voters by attaching herself to Obama. She's done it in every debate, but it was more obvious than ever last night, considering the upcoming primaries. The way she tried to excuse her connection to Wall Street by referencing Obama was strange. She's basically trying to tell black voters: it's okay that I receive money from Wall Street because Obama does the same. It may work, but I think it's just another way for her to avoid the issue.
On foreign policy, she was slightly ahead.
The tone of the debates is getting nastier and it just doesn't appeal to me at all. It's only gonna get worse on that front.
I'm not a fan of big money in politics, and that is quite the understatement, but I'd rather a Hillary with Wall Street money than ANY Republican in any scenario.
Barack's administration and his appointees have been real cozy with Wall Street, not to mention his Justice Department appears to be soft on prosecuting Wall Street, at least based on results, but I'd take eight more years of him. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
The truth never mattered. It was all part of a jumbled web of lies meant to confuse the American people to support an attack on Iraq. WMD, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, ties to 9/11, axis of evil, etc all came from the neo-cons serving under Bush. We attacked because Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to and were willing to distort the truth in every possible way. They used those lies to pull on Bush's emotions to finish the job that Bush Sr started.
This is true up to a point, but let's not kid ourselves. A significant portion of the American public would have supported invading Iraq even without all of the Cheney misdirection. As a country, we are a lot more warlike than we sometimes choose to believe.
In fact, I wonder whether a lot of Sanders' rhetoric is actually missing the mark. Sure, it sells well to his core supporters, but if you look at broader demographics, it doesn't sell at all. The majority of the public supports sending ground troops to Syria and Iraq right now. The support is much higher among Republicans, of course, but about 40% of Democrats support it.
It doesn't take that much of push to get the American public behind a war.
The truth never mattered. It was all part of a jumbled web of lies meant to confuse the American people to support an attack on Iraq. WMD, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, ties to 9/11, axis of evil, etc all came from the neo-cons serving under Bush. We attacked because Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to and were willing to distort the truth in every possible way. They used those lies to pull on Bush's emotions to finish the job that Bush Sr started.
This is true up to a point, but let's not kid ourselves. A significant portion of the American public would have supported invading Iraq even without all of the Cheney misdirection. As a country, we are a lot more warlike than we sometimes choose to believe.
In fact, I wonder whether a lot of Sanders' rhetoric is actually missing the mark. Sure, it sells well to his core supporters, but if you look at broader demographics, it doesn't sell at all. The majority of the public supports sending ground troops to Syria and Iraq right now. The support is much higher among Republicans, of course, but about 40% of Democrats support it.
It doesn't take that much of push to get the American public behind a war.
But for the misdirection, how would Iraq have even arisen as an issue post 9/11? We were in Afghanistan and might have intensified the hunt there if our warlike natures so demanded.
A majority of Americans favored invading Iraq even before 9/11. It was 52% in February 2001. In 1993, it was 70%.
Don't get lulled into replacing one bit of mythology with another.
I don't think there was ever a polling regarding Iraq, until buyers remorse after the 2003 invasion (that is now forgotten or ignored as we're willing again to send ground troops) where the American people were not in favor of invasion. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Cruz Campaign hires a porn star for one of their "Anti-Rubio" TV commercials:
Quote:
In the ad “Conservative Anonymous,” members of an Alcoholic’s Anonymous parody meet to complain about having voted for Marco Rubio. “Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time,” an attractive blonde woman says.
The actress in question, Amy Lindsey, appears to have an extensive history of appearing in softcore porno films. Among her greatest hits: Kinky Sex Club, Milf, Carnal Wishes, Animal Lust, Insatiable Obsession, and Sex Spa II.
Her social media accounts feature pictures of Lindsey hanging out with porn actor Ron Jeremy and a video of her hawking her movie Milf.
Buzzfeed interviewed the actress in question, who confirmed she was the same Amy Lindsay in the porno flicks. Lindsay told Buzzfeed she considers herself a conservative and a Christian, who will support either Cruz or Donald Trump.
Cruz Campaign Gettin Jiggy With It _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
A majority of Americans favored invading Iraq even before 9/11. It was 52% in February 2001. In 1993, it was 70%.
Don't get lulled into replacing one bit of mythology with another.
I don't think there was ever a polling regarding Iraq, until buyers remorse after the 2003 invasion (that is now forgotten or ignored as we're willing again to send ground troops) where the American people were not in favor of invasion.
I supported the war at the time, but it had nothing to do with WMD's. I actually thought it was weird that years later people kept harping on WMD's. It was kind of a side note.
Side note, eh? Saddam's posession of those weapons was what we were sold as the primary justification for invasion.
Let me ask you this: if you remember WMDs being some little "side note", which is absolutely absurd, then what, pray tell, do you remember as being la raison principale?
You know what? I'm actually getting mixed up. I suppose my memory is failing me. I probably need some rest and shouldn't be typing on forums right now. lol
It's people tying the invasion to 9/11 that was wrong.
We did go there because Saddam failed multiple times to comply with weapons inspectors.
Do explain then, with Blix and UNMOVIC, going through the nation of Iraq, including Saddam's palaces--which, you must try to look at from the other foot, just what any other country would say about having another authority going wherever they wanted and looking into all of your books, and after UNSCOM was spying on Iraq earlier--finding essentially nothing of noncompliance (except complete records of WMD destruction which did not exist) and no WMD, and with Blix notifying Bush of exactly that result, why did we attack at that point?
If I recall correctly, there were several instances of Saddam not letting inspectors into facilities until days or weeks after they were supposed to. He was repeatedly warned, and he repeatedly defied those warnings.
Hindsight is 20/20. But at the time, it sure seemed like he was purposely hiding something. And with his history, he didn't exactly deserve the benefit of the doubt. And from many accounts, Saddam himself may have actually believed he had a good supply of WMD's.
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67579 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:57 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
You know, man, we have this thing called The Political Thread.
You're right AH. I'll ask the mods to move it. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
I know most of you are liberals here, but you have to admit that this is good ad.
Why would this make you more likely to vote for Ted Cruz? That's my test for whether a political ad is good. This is the kind of stuff that makes partisans cheer, but how many people who see this ad will even remember that it came from Ted Cruz?
I guess taking shots at HRC is easy, but Ted Cruz needs to worry with getting the nomination in the first place. Does this sort of ad help?
A majority of Americans favored invading Iraq even before 9/11. It was 52% in February 2001. In 1993, it was 70%.
Don't get lulled into replacing one bit of mythology with another.
I remember a lot of people were ticked off that Bush Sr. didn't finish the job and take out Saddam the first time around....
I guess Bush Sr. knew the card he was dealt with and didn't want to have a headache on his hands.
I supported the war at the time, but it had nothing to do with WMD's. I actually thought it was weird that years later people kept harping on WMD's. It was kind of a side note.
Side note, eh? Saddam's posession of those weapons was what we were sold as the primary justification for invasion.
Let me ask you this: if you remember WMDs being some little "side note", which is absolutely absurd, then what, pray tell, do you remember as being la raison principale?
You know what? I'm actually getting mixed up. I suppose my memory is failing me. I probably need some rest and shouldn't be typing on forums right now. lol
It's people tying the invasion to 9/11 that was wrong.
We did go there because Saddam failed multiple times to comply with weapons inspectors.
Do explain then, with Blix and UNMOVIC, going through the nation of Iraq, including Saddam's palaces--which, you must try to look at from the other foot, just what any other country would say about having another authority going wherever they wanted and looking into all of your books, and after UNSCOM was spying on Iraq earlier--finding essentially nothing of noncompliance (except complete records of WMD destruction which did not exist) and no WMD, and with Blix notifying Bush of exactly that result, why did we attack at that point?
If I recall correctly, there were several instances of Saddam not letting inspectors into facilities until days or weeks after they were supposed to. He was repeatedly warned, and he repeatedly defied those warnings.
Hindsight is 20/20. But at the time, it sure seemed like he was purposely hiding something. And with his history, he didn't exactly deserve the benefit of the doubt. And from many accounts, Saddam himself may have actually believed he had a good supply of WMD's.
That was true during the first inspection with UNSCOM and Scott Ridder.
Ridder was saying before the invasion that they caught on to his tricks and that they has secured 90-95% of all his WMD. That turns out to be very accurate since there were sporadic findings thereafter.
But when the second round of inspections began, around Oct 02 if I recall correctly, the inspections were finding nothing. This was not a case of giving the benefit of the doubt; this was a finding of fact.
Why, when we go to all the trouble to resume inspections, and when we do, the inspections are not finding WMD or 1441 violations, why then would we attack is still a question no one has ever answered--except the honest one: We were going in, period, and the inspections and all of the hoopla and shenanigans by the Bush administration was just a subterfuge.
This is why I have said that a legitimate case could be made for war crimes. Though it would never happen and even if it did, I don't know if a conviction would result, but, it would be very interesting, at the very least, for the public to learn just what was known when and by whom. I don't believe there is a greater misplacement of the public trust than to unjustly kill hundreds of thousands in the name of the US, by using deceit and misdirection. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Yep, that's good. I do have a conceptual problem with this stuff, though. The president has almost zero ability to do anything about local police officers. The same is true of the prison population discussion from last night. But the average voter doesn't know that.
Yep, that's good. I do have a conceptual problem with this stuff, though. The president has almost zero ability to do anything about local police officers. The same is true of the prison population discussion from last night. But the average voter doesn't know that.
Absolutely true. Nevertheless, I like the message and execution (no pun intended) and I like how it targeted a demographic stronghold of HRC. My perception is that HRC has early commitment, but not deep commitment within the black community.
There's a generational divide among blacks. Older blacks are strong for Hillary, younger people haven't committed to anyone. That's why Bernie meeting with Sharpton seemed forced and ultimately pointless. The people he can reasonably reach don't care about Sharpton and people like him. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
There's a generational divide among blacks. Older blacks are strong for Hillary, younger people haven't committed to anyone. That's why Bernie meeting with Sharpton seemed forced and ultimately pointless. The people he can reasonably reach don't care about Sharpton and people like him.
Is the divide purely generational, or is it a case of establishment versus upstarts within the black community? Or is it a case where "establishment" and "older generation" indistinguishable?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
