US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[aygart]

Hilary voted for the Iraq war because she had a vote. Trump didn't have a vote. One of his oft repeated lies is that he was against the war. He wasn't. He was for the war. Yet he continues to repeat the lie even though it has been proven wrong. He hardly ever gets called on it by the media.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/
He was NEVER FOR the war. In the sparse news records about it from the time when his opinion about it was irrelevant it is clear that as soon as 4 days after the war started he said “If they keep fighting it the way they did today, they’re going to have a real problem.”

In Sep of 2003 he said this

It wasn’t a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq.

In Nov he said this

I think his bigger problem is going to be what’s happening in Iraq. I believe the economy is doing well. I think it could get better, but lots of surprises out on the horizon, and what is going to happen with Iraq, what is going to happen with the world situation, that could be the bigger problem that President Bush has.....[/size]So, you know, it is a tremendous cost to this country, what’s gone on there, and again, we are getting some very, very unpleasant surprises in Iraq, and hopefully something is going to be done about it quickly.....[/color][/size][/color]The question is whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place. ...........

*The only people who should take issue with a response are Trump supporters. Most people didn't watch the Kahns at the DNC. Their presentation was before prime time and it was primarily seen by people already supporting Hilary. Had he ignored it, and given a vaguely empathetic response in the interview, it likely would have faded from memory pretty quickly. Now the Kahns are on every channel sucking up news coverage on a day when Hilary lied blatantly and badly about the FBI investigation.

Agreed but that is a purely tactical discussion.
[/size][/color]

[aygart]

A partial list:

What is unconstitutional about the Muslim ban his immigration policies?

He has NEVER been able to do eminent domain on his own any statement he has made needs to be viewed in that context. Going "overboard" is an admitted and know negotiating tactic of his.

Libel laws-Meh There is one candidate who very clearly said she wants to be able to criminalize POLITICAL SPEECH ABOUT HER!!!!!!!!!!

The whole torture thing is misrepresented by Ds and the press. He expressed support for waterboarding which the Bush administration did not call torture.
Killing civilians without due process-You mean like the drone strikes under Obama/Clinton?

[Yehuda57]

Just was thinking about this whole mess and it occurred to me to look at this way. What are the issues I care about the most. By far #1 is israel / Safety from terrorism. As an illustration, if israel Called the POTUS and said the time has come they need to bomb Iranian nuclear reactors and they need US support. If hillary is in office the chance I would put in her answering yes at 5 percent. Trump somewhere well over 50 percent.
2nd most important issue: Religious freedom. IE protection from social justice laws i give hillary a 0 trump 50 percent chance
Third. economy no idea who will be better

You don't think the office of the presidency has anything to do with how you got to a situation the prime minister of Israel has to make such a call?
Remember, the last time Israel needed to make such a call, they didn't. They just did it. And the US was none too happy, and even Regean "punished" them for it to an extent.

Trumps ignorance, and dangerous foreign policy, and inability to handle criticism can only make a volatile situation worse. Russia has ties with anti Israel terrorist factions in places like Syria, Lebanon, and more. Sure, it's not like the Cold War days using the Arab countries as proxies against the US, but it could be pretty bad for Israel.

Israel receives a ton of aid from the USA - militarily and financially. Given Trumps comments about NATO and other alliances, that he doesn't want to do anything for anyone unless they pay, how confident are you the US will keep cutting those checks? I'm not.

2nd - religious freedom - making Muslims register, banning people from the country based on religion, and other ridiculous comments are so far against religious freedom, it is laughable you can even dream of putting Trump in the same sentence as religious freedom.

3rd - well, he he wants us to think he ran his businesses well, and will run the country like that. With his trail of bankruptcies, lawsuits and unpaid bills, I'll take the word of other successful businessmen and women who don't think so highly of him.

[aygart]

You don't think the office of the presidency has anything to do with how you got to a situation the prime minister of Israel has to make such a call?

I think that was exactly his point! There is no President/Sec of State who has emboldened radical Islam like Obama/Clinton.

[Yehuda57]

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!
He was NEVER FOR the war.

https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeedandrew/trump-on-the-howard-stern-show-on-sept-11-2002

In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

That's BEFORE the war and all the quotes you provided.

[aygart]

https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeedandrew/trump-on-the-howard-stern-show-on-sept-11-2002

In the interview, which took place on Sept. 11, 2002, Stern asked Trump directly if he was for invading Iraq.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”

That's BEFORE the war and all the quotes you provided.

That sounds very for it LOL

[Yehuda57]

That sounds very for it LOL

Are you dense? It is the only quote that was before the war. It is pro, even if not emphatically so. All the other quotes are irrelevant as they ARE NOT BEFORE THE WAR. You cannot claim "I was against the war," if the only record of your opinion states the opposite. that is called a LIE.

[aygart]

Are you dense? It is the only quote that was before the war. It is pro, even if not emphatically so. All the other quotes are irrelevant as they ARE NOT BEFORE THE WAR. You cannot claim "I was against the war," if the only record of your opinion states the opposite. that is called a LIE.

This is your looking through biased lenses like every single one of your statements. Within DAYS of the start of the war he was very clearly against it so you are bringing an "I guess so" to make the case that he changed in the 3 days after the war started. That is ridiculous. If it would be him saying that about Hillary in an opposite situation you would be calling him a liar for it.

[Yehuda57]

What is unconstitutional about the Muslim ban his immigration policies?

He has NEVER been able to do eminent domain on his own any statement he has made needs to be viewed in that context. Going "overboard" is an admitted and know negotiating tactic of his.

Libel laws-Meh There is one candidate who very clearly said she wants to be able to criminalize POLITICAL SPEECH ABOUT HER!!!!!!!!!!

The whole torture thing is misrepresented by Ds and the press. He expressed support for waterboarding which the Bush administration did not call torture.
Killing civilians without due process-You mean like the drone strikes under Obama/Clinton?

For immigration start here: https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/10/trump-vs-the-constitution/

criminalize POLITICAL SPEECH ABOUT HER!!!!!!!!!!
Source?

Torture: No, he said he would do a "hell of a lot worse than waterboarding." He also said "torture works." (which has also been proven wrong, but that's a side point)

Killing civilians  - he said expressly he wanted to kill terrorists' families. That the drone strikes are also often illegal doesn't excuse it and is far from the same scale.

[Yehuda57]

This is your looking through biased lenses like every single one of your statements. Within DAYS of the start of the war he was very clearly against it so you are bringing an "I guess so" to make the case that he changed in the 3 days after the war started. That is ridiculous. If it would be him saying that about Hillary in an opposite situation you would be calling him a liar for it.

I state facts, and I am biased. You state he said something days after the war started, when the earliest quote you gave is September, almost 6 months later.

ETA: the comments he made previously you didn't quote, I'll assume because they don't explicitly state he is against the war, only he unhappy about costs and other aspects.

[aygart]

I state facts, and I am biased. You state he said something days after the war started, when the earliest quote you gave is September, almost 6 months later.

ETA: the comments he made previously you didn't quote, I'll assume because they don't explicitly state he is against the war, only he unhappy about costs and other aspects.

And because I did quote only not using the forum quote feature.

[aygart]

For immigration start here: https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/10/trump-vs-the-constitution/

You mean birthright citizenship of all things? You are bringing an opinion article to prove your point?

For immigration start here: https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/10/trump-vs-the-constitution/

criminalize POLITICAL SPEECH ABOUT HER!!!!!!!!!!
Source?

I think you need to read up on Citizens United.

[cholent]

I think you need to read up on Citizens United.

Trump is definitely no better on this one. He has made it clear he would do the same for journalists who write about him.

And Citizens United is way more than a video about Clinton, that's a huge misrepresentation

[aygart]

Trump is definitely no better on this one. He has made it clear he would do the same for journalists who write about him.

And Citizens United is way more than a video about Clinton, that's a huge misrepresentation

How so and how so?

[Yehuda57]

I think you need to read up on Citizens United.

Dems have been speaking about overturning CU for forever and half. For some reason, it is never it was never on the agenda in the past 8 years. It's a blatant pander that isn't on the agenda because they'll lose out plenty. It's not like the Republicans have a monopoly on super pacs. Please, Ds like to paint the Koch brothers as election buyers, when Ds often receive far more from their corporate supporters.

The Rs do the same, for example: postcard tax codes? Please, it is not going to happen.

And again, having a Constitutional law changed within the confines of Constitutional law is entirely different from expressing blatant ignorance of the Constitution, and wishing to enact Federal laws that run counter it. And regarding freedom of speech for the press and individuals, your response is "meh" whereas Citizens United gets ALL CAPS and exclamation marks. But *I* am biased.

[cholent]

How so and how so?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-vows-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-make-suing-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[aygart]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/donald-trump-vows-to-open-up-libel-laws-to-make-suing-the-media-easier-heres-how-he-could-do-it/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Please explain what you are trying to show with either of those.

[cholent]

Please explain what you are trying to show with either of those.

If you can't understand the first one, you are being willfully blind

Citizens United as it was ruled on became more about the ability of corporations or others to pour unlimited money into politics through superpacs... the actual video against Hillary, which was presented as non-political but obviously was, was at that time understood even by the lower courts as being illegal. Any Republican would have brought the same suit if the video was directed against them. Her stance against CU is about shutting down superpacs, not the specific video which is water long under the bridge.

[Yehuda57]

And because I did quote only not using the forum quote feature.

Again, he was not expressly against the war in those quotes after the war began till much later.

[aygart]

Dems have been speaking about overturning CU for forever and half. For some reason, it is never it was never on the agenda in the past 8 years. It's a blatant pander that isn't on the agenda because they'll lose out plenty. It's not like the Republicans have a monopoly on super pacs. Please, Ds like to paint the Koch brothers as election buyers, when Ds often receive far more from their corporate supporters.

The Rs do the same, for example: postcard tax codes? Please, it is not going to happen.

And again, having a Constitutional law changed within the confines of Constitutional law is entirely different from expressing blatant ignorance of the Constitution, and wishing to enact Federal laws that run counter it. And regarding freedom of speech for the press and individuals, your response is "meh" whereas Citizens United gets ALL CAPS and exclamation marks. But *I* am biased.

Constitutional freedom of the press does not preclude libel laws which can very constitutionally can be made stricter. The entire purpose of constitutional freedom of the press is to protect POLITICAL speech. Trump talking about libel laws is not POLITICAL speech. Dems in general look to limit POLITICAL speech (you are right that it is all Dems). She is very clearly saying that her criteria for SCOTUS appointments would include that they would reverse CU which won by one justice. That is very far from "not going to happen" and would change within A FEW MONTHS OF HER TAKING OFFICE with Scalia's replacement. Here you are focusing on libel laws but saying meh about criminalizing political speech. That is ridiculous.

Of course I am biased like everyone else in the world. That does not preclude your bias. That also does not mean that everything anyone says is a product of your bias. I have in these forums been quite critical of Trump and he is far far my first choice for POTUS. I fully agree with the characterization of "pick your poison" and my "support of Trump is only to the extent that he is not as bad as those like you who are blindly swallowing everything his opponents are saying are making him to be. By doing so you are showing that everything you are saying in this regard is a product of your bias.

A prime example of this is your statement that restricting Muslim immigration is unconstitutional. That is simply UNTRUE! The constitution does not protect citizens of Syria! The constitution allows discrimination against them and they are not entitled to due process either.