|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The 2016 United States Presidential Election | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Then the response by Diomedes
quote: Wallace was indeed biased on Syria. He let Hillary get away with the whopper that her No-Fly Zone against Syria would somehow help to fight ISIS and related extremists. The truth is that it would ensure a stalemate in the west of Syria (and much increased bloodshed in the west) with the result being that Assad would still have the east of the country completely abandoned. There are like 5000 (or more) Kurdish refugees here in Lincoln, Nebraska and it is a direct result of (our government here in the U.S.A.)arming rebels (which also drastically help ISIS) which cause Assad and the Alawites to have to divert every last government troop (and any private fighters as well) into the east of the country to fight for their lives and very survival. Then ISIS, in the abandoned west, gets free reign to slaughter the guts out of the Kurds once Assad and the government are absent in the east. We armed rebels (not as much as the gulf states who also funded them the earliest) a half-decade back and it caused Syria to see its legitimate internationally recognized government have to divert all troops to the west. ISIS was able to gain serious ground in the east (never mind the fact that the west was in shambles as well - the Assad government was on the verge of falling) AFTER the financial intervention of outside powers, and that is chronologically a fact. The added dimension is that many of the rebels that were armed ended up fighting for extremist groups. Another issue (and one I don't want to spend any time on beyond this sentence), but it was Kentucky GOP Senator Rand Paul himself who said that it was very ironic that the rebels are called "extremists" when they cross the border into Iraq and slaughter Kurds, but they are called "moderate rebels" and "good guys" when they cross back into Syria. Remember how right wing nuts (who are presented as reasonable Republicans on Meet the Press) like Hugh Hewitt kept calling the Iranian al Quds force "terrorist" in an effort to intimidate Iran from entering Syria (A media firestorm erupted for weeks/months in 2015 when a radio interview resulted in Trump displaying ignorance of the Iranian group when he thought Hewitt was asking him about the Kurds which sound similar to the Arabic word Quds). Remember the smear job of Iran when word was that they were finally about to consider intervening in Syria? Russia entered Syria in September 2015 and it gave Iran and Hezbollah (a Shia group in Lebanon) the strength to make the decision to enter, despite endlessly dishonest smearing in the U.S.A. press. It was long overdue intervention but it has helped raise the possibility that the opposition to Assad can be destroyed eventually. The possibility exists that there can eventually be a return of Syrian troops to the west and the Kurds can stop loosing lives in the (what like )100,000s to slaughter. The No-Fly Zone of Hillary and Mike Pence will ruin that hope for certain. Wallace never raised these issues and neither did any of the biased worthless journalists that moderated the debates. They told lies though and cleverly diverted AWAY FROM ACCURACTE PICTURES of what was going on in our policy as it relates to Syria. They know that Americans don't understand a thing about Syria and the players involved. Trump has helped educate them so that the number of informed has easily quadrupled since the debates. They now know that Iran is fighting ISIS (our disgraceful politicians regularly throw Iran and ISIS with the word "terrorist" into one giant slurred soup so that Americans don't have a chance of knowing they are bitter enemies as opposed to the same thing) and that Assad and ISIS are enemies and not the same thing. Trump parses the issues involved instead of the conflated soup of lies Hillary spits out as she cynically takes advantage of - and infact contributes to - the ignorance of the American people. Perhaps Hillary can explain to the American people - in 2017 - why we are literally at war with Russia in the Mediterranean when Russia responds to a U.S. military attack on Syria when Assad violates our interventionist and aggressive No Fly Zone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: A no-fly zone isn't about providing safe zones for civilians. It is 100% different from a safe zone. Amazing that Russia used to be accused of tying to split off the western part of Syria into an Alawite nation (which could cause the Druze to split off into their own state around jebel Druze (mountain of the Druze) then a natural result would be a domino effect leading to an independent Christian nation (which naturally would come), then an independent Kudish nation, and then even an independent (non Ismaili) Shia nation (despit the fact that standard 12er Shia Muslims are only about 3% of the population while Alawites are 8%, Druze, 2.5%, and non-reincarnation/ non avatar (standard) Ismailis are about 1.2% for a total of 12% Ismailis). This is just more deliberate garbling. (Trump is a big proponent of a safe zone but 100% against a no-fly zone)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Google type in "madeleine albright worth it"
That Secretary of State under Bill Clinton said it and it is on video.
quote: Hillary opposed letting in the Central American children who were refugees. Sanders opposed it at the time. Sanders said, on the Univision debate, that any child should have the right to cross the border. Hillary was forced to claim she agreed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2
|
quote: Earlier nwr made it sound like Hillary has no record of support for attacks on Iraq. (I don't feel like chasing down the exact post that load can be found in) I remember the Bill Clinton presidency from 1993-2001 very well. Iraq was bombed constantly. Remember Christmas of 1998 (or 1997)? More to the present though. Like Syria. As for Syria, we were about to attack Assad until an education campaign changed things. In the U.K. the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition had enough of a split over the war that their support for a war campaign against Syria needed Labor votes, which seemed to be very much there AT FIRST. Labor members were educated in the coming weeks by anti-war folks, and at the last minute (before a vote for war) the huge bulk of the minority Labor party choose to oppose the war. The House of Commons vote was pulled once the supporters for war became a sudden minority. That gave the anti-war movement a shot in the arm in the U.S. congress to oppose the Clinton/Kerry war push. In the House Republicans like John Culberson (Houston) and Democrats like Alan Grayson (Orlando) were able to defeat the pro war push. Btw your comments on Clinton have been somewhat/fairly accurate. She lost the election and she was about the only Democrat that could have lost to Trump. The fact that she lost to Trump proves that ANY GOP candidate would have beaten her. I'm just glad it wasn't a neo-con like Rubio or Fiorina. Trump is light years better, in fact he is about the best deal the country could hope to get considering the fact that the DNC made it a "it is (was)Hillary's turn alone to run in 2016 for the Democrats" type of election.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: I raised the issue of the possibility of Trump's 9/11 views after the South Carolina debate in early February. (my posts were in the April-May vicinity I suppose, but I remember Percy responding to them anyway). Here are google pages on the issue. The hits mostly seem to be old material (from the primaries) where the GOP partisans are attempting to smear him as a 9/11 Truther for various reasons. I'm not sure how groundbreaking the Milbank accusations are though. I haven't been able to research them but it seems a possibility that Jones possibly held back from releasing an "old video" before the election out of fear that it could hurt Trump. Was the video never seen until late November of 2016 or is it something that has been available for a long time? Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I'm not bothered (Milbank sure is bothered by just about everything about Trump).
I should have checked google "news" (as opposed to the basic web search) on this issue. It has lots of relevant hits. Google
quote: And that's just from page one. Anyway, I'm not bothered, and I find the issue interesting. Roger Stone said Alex Jones has far more listeners than CNN does according to the ratings. Interesting times. Alex Jones used to be quite popular with minority communities in New York (Puerto Ricans, for example, would often bring him up and expect people to know who he was), but he might not be quite as popular now due to his harsh immigration views. He was little known in most places for a long time after 9/11 but seems to be gaining awareness. Trump's election is interesting indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Not only did Trump loose by nearly 3 million votes (a very large amount), but exit polls showed that 70% of Americans favored a pathway to citizenship for illegals (no deportation!) and a shocking 54% opposed "the Wall" being built.
The GOP won because they found a great (opposition) candidate in Hillary Clinton. That was the best recruitment they could have dreamed of. That enabled Trump (with his 61% negatives verses 37% positives) to win the electoral college. I posted (before the Iowa caucus) that it was a joke that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee with her 54% negative ratings. I said that she was an unelectable fraud. Her negatives remained at 54% on election day, and her positives were the exact same 44%. CNN said, during the times of November 8 voter returns coming in, it was groundbreaking that we have 2 candidates with overall negatives like these too. It was more amazing that both had double digit negatives. More amazing yet that the one with 61% negatives actually won (electoral votes anyway). | Cook Political Report has updated results for every state and nation Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Exit polls are based on very large samples of actual voters leaving polling stations. Yes, each polling station gets sampled (or a massive amount of them). Even states like Wyoming and Delaware get a large sample of voters opinions (as well as the actual voters telling how they actually voted)
Pre-election polls have very small samples of the entire nation (and dreadfully small samples from each individual state), and are problematic when it comes to deciding the "likely" demographic makeup might be on election day. I was amazed that Hillary only lost Texas by 9.0%, Arizona by 3.5%, and Florida by 1.2%. For an election that saw the GOP perform much better nationwide than typically, it should send terrifying message to the Republican individual's heart. Trump lost nationally by about 1.5%+ in 2016 Better than the 3.9% loss in 2012 and the 7.5% loss in 2008. Worse than the 2.45% GOP win in 2004 and the 0.5% Democratic (popular vote) win in 2000. Arizona and Texas haven't done so good for Democrats since 1996. Clinton lost Texas by 6% in 1996 but he won nationwide by 8.5%. Gore lost Arizona by about 6% in 2000 but it voted GOP by double digits since then. I'm not so sure the Republicans should be too excited. They lost Virginia by 5.4% as well as loosing Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. North Carolina was won by less than 4% so it too might be getting closer. Trump was a bad candidate but the "Trump effect" was no more devastating for the GOP than Hillary was hurtful to Democratic performance. And Hillary did win the popular vote by about the same amount the opinion polls had her winning. The polls were accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: I thought the "police" policy was to send in border agents to police the border and keep people out. Is Faith saying we should finally get rid of borders? End the forced policing and impositions. I like that. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2323 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Here is what the Old Testament says about the issue. It has to do with the ACTUAL Biblical reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. (not the lies of the preachers)
quote: When one gets to the New Testament, then it gets to the most disgusting lie preachers peddle today. That lie is the issue that the tither is still in effect. It is not! That was an Old Testament law that is no more. However. The New Testament features both the Gospels (via the words of Jesus) and Acts demanding 100% of income (and property) going into a (fledgling) governmental fund. I was just reading the World Book Encyclopedia on Apostle Barnabas. They actually mention the issue of 100% of income (and property) being required. I have been in endless debates on this issue, and the only verses offered, by those trying individuals to show that a tithe is still in place in the New Covenant, are actually (contrary to their claim)verses where Paul is collecting money for the "poor" Jerusalem Christians of James (that seemed to have called themselves Ebionites or Nazarenes). It is most ironic considering todays fundamentalist Christians are from a tradition that killed off those Jewish Christians over 1500 years ago. And todays fundis continue to despise their views intensely. Fundamentalists "Christians" of today are the biggest liars and phonies on the face of the planet. The last liar I debated was back in Lincoln (I'm not in the mood to argue with the endless trillions of New York City fundamentalists so I haven't agued much anymore) and he overheard me debating somebody else on the tithe. He stated matter with certainty that the tithe was indeed in the New Testament. All he could offer was 2 Corinthians 9. Ironic that he started talking to me by asking me what my source was for the "Pella Flight" which I mentioned to the others (before he jumped in)while talking about verses about Paul's collection for the Jerusalem Christians. He said "where do you get you information". I said Eusebius talked about the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem refusing to fight the Romans in the Jewish uprising during the 60s A.D and how they fled to palla in trans-Jordan. "Go read it", I said. I spelled out Eusebius, letter by letter, and told him that his c. 325 A.D. Church History is in most Christian bookstores either in book form of software. Fundamentalists like him a lot. He refused. He refused other book references too (I told him about the Interpreters Commentary Matthew-Mark volume 7 having scholarly articles that accept the historicity of the Pella Flight and the fact that Ebionites were their genuine descendants). Romans 15, Acts 21, 1 Corinthians 16, Galatians 2 were already covered (in my debates with the others), then he brought up 2 Corinthians 9 when he jumped in. All refer to the "poor" Christians (Ebionites) that followed James. Google
quote: I have been in so many debates on this issue that it is unreal. And the arrogance is amazing . I've had to deal with people brag loudly about how they showed me "the tithe" in 1 Corinthians 16 even AFTER I showed that it was a collection for the Jerusalem Christians of James. I "refuse to see the truth" because I don't accept that it is a tithe and infact has nothing to do with a national Israel governmental law from the Old Testament. Faith. Do you claim there is still a tithe that Paul is collecting? I do think the collection was voluntary. I still think a 100% "tax" was the ideal government that the Christians were to seek however.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024