Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by Humbert

We are talking about issues regarding the election and Hillary Clinton's decisions regarding Libya. Americans are concerned about their own security. Eliminating Gaddafi is eliminating risk for Americans. Too bad he wasn't taken out before Lockerbie.

Eliminating Gadaffi in a manner that suggests 'free world' leaders failed to consider basic consequences, such as what fills a vacuum, leads to greater dangers for all, including America.

So you are right that Americans are concerned for their own security, as are Europeans, even though it appears their leaders aren't.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by Humbert

^He's dead. Americans could care less. He was a criminal and a terrorist. Any attempts to stroke sympathy for him are a waste of time. Stick to Benghazi its an easier sell.

That's a problem in today's world, Americans could care less. Last time they cared enough to button down their leaders was over Vietnam, but then went to sleep again giving them license to destroy people and countries and regions.

As for Gadaffi and Libya, giving you full benefit of looking several years ahead, would you still depose him because he was as you say a 'criminal and a terrorist'?

The US didnt even have the lead role in the attacks on Libya. It was Sarkozy and Cameron that kicked the whole thing off in the first place the US joined in after the fact. Maybe you should put the blame where it belongs on the doors of the UK and France.

Of course it did, through NATO. Sarkozy and Cameron were the hysterical puppets that kicked it off and created the political and media climate for NATO to step in and save the free world by replacing a nasty tyrant with friendly Islamists, all at the behest of Obama.

And don't lose any sleep, it ought to be pretty clear by now I have zero sympathy for UK and France for their roles in not just Libya but all of the serial American cockups; if they were indeed cockups.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by Humbert

We are talking about issues regarding the election and Hillary Clinton's decisions regarding Libya. Americans are concerned about their own security. Eliminating Gaddafi is eliminating risk for Americans. Too bad he wasn't taken out before Lockerbie.

I agree that Qaddafi was a bad cat.

Did elimination Gaddafi eliminate a risk for Americans?

IMO, no.

It has increased it.

Impossible to prove or disprove. It's about perception.

First it made the world safer, but when scary facts come into play it's about perception.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by Humbert

We are talking about issues regarding the election and Hillary Clinton's decisions regarding Libya. Americans are concerned about their own security. Eliminating Gaddafi is eliminating risk for Americans. Too bad he wasn't taken out before Lockerbie.

I agree that Qaddafi was a bad cat.

Did elimination Gaddafi eliminate a risk for Americans?

IMO, no.

It has increased it.

Impossible to prove or disprove. It's about perception.

I know.

That's why I included the "IMO."

You and I see it differently.

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by Humbert

^He's dead. Americans could care less. He was a criminal and a terrorist. Any attempts to stroke sympathy for him are a waste of time. Stick to Benghazi its an easier sell.

That's a problem in today's world, Americans could care less. Last time they cared enough to button down their leaders was over Vietnam, but then went to sleep again giving them license to destroy people and countries and regions.

As for Gadaffi and Libya, giving you full benefit of looking several years ahead, would you still depose him because he was as you say a 'criminal and a terrorist'?

The US didnt even have the lead role in the attacks on Libya. It was Sarkozy and Cameron that kicked the whole thing off in the first place the US joined in after the fact. Maybe you should put the blame where it belongs on the doors of the UK and France.

Of course it did, through NATO. Sarkozy and Cameron were the hysterical puppets that kicked it off and created the political and media climate for NATO to step in and save the free world by replacing a nasty tyrant with friendly Islamists, all at the behest of Obama.

And don't lose any sleep, it ought to be pretty clear by now I have zero sympathy for UK and France for their roles in not just Libya but all of the serial American cockups; if they were indeed cockups.

Let me get this right.....

Albert or Psuedo?

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by jabir

Last time they cared enough to button down their leaders was over Vietnam, but then went to sleep again giving them license to destroy people and countries and regions.

Actually, Nixon was perceptive enough to see that the anti-war movement was really an anti-draft movement. So he ended the draft and the bottom fell out of the anti-war movement. Done.
Don't forget that there were massive demonstrations all over the US--all over the world, for that matter--before we invaded Iraq. Bush and Co. just ignored everone.

Spot on, and the demos stood no chance against collusion at the highest levels to present tainted evidence justifying an illegal war that could well and deservedly hasten tremendous and permanent adverse changes in the west.

But Gadaffi got the message on day one of the Iraq invasion, realised the implications and moved towards cosier relations with Europe, perhaps hoping he could trust the rats we elected. And it worked for a few years, till Obama popped up to join Europe in boasting about having friends that have a habit of killing us with our own weapons.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by Humbert

^He's dead. Americans could care less. He was a criminal and a terrorist. Any attempts to stroke sympathy for him are a waste of time. Stick to Benghazi its an easier sell.

That's a problem in today's world, Americans could care less. Last time they cared enough to button down their leaders was over Vietnam, but then went to sleep again giving them license to destroy people and countries and regions.

As for Gadaffi and Libya, giving you full benefit of looking several years ahead, would you still depose him because he was as you say a 'criminal and a terrorist'?

The US didnt even have the lead role in the attacks on Libya. It was Sarkozy and Cameron that kicked the whole thing off in the first place the US joined in after the fact. Maybe you should put the blame where it belongs on the doors of the UK and France.

Of course it did, through NATO. Sarkozy and Cameron were the hysterical puppets that kicked it off and created the political and media climate for NATO to step in and save the free world by replacing a nasty tyrant with friendly Islamists, all at the behest of Obama.

And don't lose any sleep, it ought to be pretty clear by now I have zero sympathy for UK and France for their roles in not just Libya but all of the serial American cockups; if they were indeed cockups.

Let me get this right.....

Albert or Psuedo?

?????

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by jabir

That's a problem in today's world, Americans could care less. Last time they cared enough to button down their leaders was over Vietnam, but then went to sleep again giving them license to destroy people and countries and regions.

As for Gadaffi and Libya, giving you full benefit of looking several years ahead, would you still depose him because he was as you say a 'criminal and a terrorist'?

The US didnt even have the lead role in the attacks on Libya. It was Sarkozy and Cameron that kicked the whole thing off in the first place the US joined in after the fact. Maybe you should put the blame where it belongs on the doors of the UK and France.

Of course it did, through NATO. Sarkozy and Cameron were the hysterical puppets that kicked it off and created the political and media climate for NATO to step in and save the free world by replacing a nasty tyrant with friendly Islamists, all at the behest of Obama.

And don't lose any sleep, it ought to be pretty clear by now I have zero sympathy for UK and France for their roles in not just Libya but all of the serial American cockups; if they were indeed cockups.

Let me get this right.....

Albert or Psuedo?

?????

I thought birding was Albert but it is hard to keep these multinics straight.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by jabir

Originally Posted by bsnub

The US didnt even have the lead role in the attacks on Libya. It was Sarkozy and Cameron that kicked the whole thing off in the first place the US joined in after the fact. Maybe you should put the blame where it belongs on the doors of the UK and France.

Of course it did, through NATO. Sarkozy and Cameron were the hysterical puppets that kicked it off and created the political and media climate for NATO to step in and save the free world by replacing a nasty tyrant with friendly Islamists, all at the behest of Obama.

And don't lose any sleep, it ought to be pretty clear by now I have zero sympathy for UK and France for their roles in not just Libya but all of the serial American cockups; if they were indeed cockups.

Let me get this right.....

Albert or Psuedo?

?????

I thought birding was Albert but it is hard to keep these multinics straight.

Birding is not a multi but this clown is for sure.

bsnub and Hummer, you two American idiots, you are so blind and biased by your country mistakes, you think denial is your best strategy to keep your head high

you sound more and more like Bush supporters or even I dare say Boon Mee,

a lot of valid points have been brought forward, and all you can do is to deny it happens

what a bunch of retards you Americans make, all the same, conservatives or liberals, dishonest and delusional

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

what a bunch of retards you Americans make, all the same, conservatives or liberals, dishonest and delusional

You really are an egocentric idiot. Getting funnier by the hour.

Originally Posted by Humbert

He was one of the world's biggest sponsors of terrorism

you mean like Saddam ?

Originally Posted by Humbert

show Hillary to be a strong and decisive leader

you mean like GW Bush ?

Boon Mee, stop multnicking as a faux liberal because it shows

Originally Posted by aging one

You really are an egocentric idiot. Getting funnier by the hour.

oh shut up AO, you old American twat, you are getting sader by the year, maybe too old to post intelligent shit now

Get your fucking kleenex, and try to get a brain before engaging in US politics that you obviously no longer understand.

the world has changed, AO, you didn't and you are left behind. TRUMP is going to win because that's what is needed today for America.

you need a new avatar.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Originally Posted by aging one

You really are an egocentric idiot. Getting funnier by the hour.

oh shut up AO, you old American twat, you are getting sader by the year, maybe too old to post intelligent shit now

Get your fucking kleenex, and try to get a brain before engaging in US politics that you obviously no longer understand.

the world has changed, AO, you didn't and you are left behind. TRUMP is going to win because that's what is needed today for America.

Does Trump want to win ?

The things he is saying and doing now appear to be designed to make him out to be unelectable.

Could it all be a set up from the start to prevent the Reps from fielding a "Real" candidate.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

TRUMP is going to win because that's what is needed today for America.

Trump will win when pigs fly, Belgium becomes a major world power, pizzaboy posts something interesting, and you declare yourself a hetrosexual.

Originally Posted by birding

Does Trump want to win ?

The things he is saying and doing now appear to be designed to make him out to be unelectable.

Could it all be a set up from the start to prevent the Reps from fielding a "Real" candidate.

Of course he wants to win! He hates losers. Trump is saying and doing the same kind things he has all of his life to reel in ignorant suckers. It isn't a set up. Don't go all tin foil hat just because the Republicans bet on the man who they thought could bring their party out of the doldrums and now can't contain. For Christ sake, this IS Donald Trump.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by Humbert

We are talking about issues regarding the election and Hillary Clinton's decisions regarding Libya. Americans are concerned about their own security. Eliminating Gaddafi is eliminating risk for Americans. Too bad he wasn't taken out before Lockerbie.

I agree that Qaddafi was a bad cat.

Did elimination Gaddafi eliminate a risk for Americans?

IMO, no.

It has increased it.

Impossible to prove or disprove. It's about perception.

I know.

That's why I included the "IMO."

You and I see it differently.

I thought I made it clear we are discussing the American electorate not my perception.

It's irrelevant. Both are ignorant.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

you sound more and more like Bush supporters or even I dare say Boon Mee,

a lot of valid points have been brought forward, and all you can do is to deny it happens

what a bunch of retards you Americans make, all the same, conservatives or liberals, dishonest and delusional

Buttplug you are too stupid and caught up in your own ridiculous platitudes to even understand what is being discussed. It's not about the morality of what happened in Libya it is about what the American voter cares about and their perception regarding which candidate is represents a firmer, stronger hand. That is what the public wants. Strength in dealing with terrorism. Making a case for beatifying Gaddafi will not fly with the American public. They could care less about the unrest in Libya because most do not feel the threat coming out of Libya in a tangible sense. The arguments you euros are making are convincing to isolationists and those who would like to see US power diminished. Get a grip on reality.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

you sound more and more like Bush supporters or even I dare say Boon Mee,

a lot of valid points have been brought forward, and all you can do is to deny it happens

what a bunch of retards you Americans make, all the same, conservatives or liberals, dishonest and delusional

Buttplug you are too stupid and caught up in your own ridiculous platitudes to even understand what is being discussed. It's not about the morality of what happened in Libya it is about what the American voter cares about and their perception regarding which candidate is represents a firmer, stronger hand. That is what the public wants. Strength in dealing with terrorism. Making a case for beatifying Gaddafi will not fly with the American public. They could care less about the unrest in Libya because most do not feel the threat coming out of Libya in a tangible sense. The arguments you euros are making are convincing to isolationists and those who would like to see US power diminished. Get a grip on reality.

He's not very bright you know.

Originally Posted by Humbert

^Stephen Cohen is a well known Putin apologist. Trump has become an unwitting puppet of Putin. A useful idiot.

Well you are a unknown clinton apologist.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Buttplug you are too stupid and caught up in your own ridiculous platitudes to even understand what is being discussed.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Humbert

^Stephen Cohen is a well known Putin apologist. Trump has become an unwitting puppet of Putin. A useful idiot.

You would think Longway would check his sources before posting bollocks.

Are you sure he isn't Boon Mee multinicing?

Has the same qualities: Stupidity, inability to read or understand what he cuts and pastes, etc.

Easy way to dismiss someone offering an opposing pov, simply smear the person and not address his arguments.

Its like I said you guys refute nothing and simply regress to name calling; its all quite sad.

No-one is claiming putin is a good guy, the point is, a war with him is unnecessary and counter productive, and under clinton, there will be a face off and it could spark off into war. She is a dangerous loon who doesnt undersand the moves she is making on the global chessboard.

Libya is a terrifying example of her inability to understand the consequences of her actions.