2016 Republican US Presidential Candidates

**Humbert** · 06-05-2016, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Passing Through

So let's call that 5,000 over 40 years

No, during the civil war of 2011.

Originally Posted by Passing Through

So do you want to fly around the world and reduce to a failed state every country which happens to have a leader which reaches these dizzying heights of evil?

Even if NATO did not provide cover for the rebels by destroying government defenses through airstrikes and Cruise missles, Libya would have descended into the same kind of chaos as we have in Syria today with even more human misery. It's simply wishful thinking that Kadafi would have stabilized the situation and returned the country to normalcy.

**Bettyboo** · 06-05-2016, 02:05 PM

Another point is: it's not our choice to make.

This is a consistent problem: Iraq, Syria, we could go on and on... It's not our choice to make, leave the fukers alone, leave their oil alone, leave their land alone, stop selling them weapons and just keep the fuk out of it... But, we don't because that is the basis of British and American global imperialism; we go around doing anything to anyone for benefit to our corporations (whether that be the East India Company or Exxon or Johnson&Johnson or the Faceless Banks (who does own the Federal reserve, City of London Corporation, etc, and why isn't that clearly detailed in the public domain?))...

How does this relate? Well, Shilary is a full supporter and mechanism to empower these corporations. Idiot Trump is a total nutjob who may just go against these corporations in some manner and help to stimulate change.

**Passing Through** · 06-05-2016, 02:05 PM

during the civil war of 2011.

So what's the source for that figure? And it's a little complicated to justify involvement in a civil war by pointing to the deaths in that civil war when you are yourself an active belligerent in that same war. It is doubly so when you are the winner in that war and have a fairly obvious motivation for inflating the other side's guilt.

Even if NATO did not provide cover for the rebels by destroying government defenses through airstrikes and Cruise missles, Libya would have descended into the same kind of chaos as we have in Syria today with even more human misery. It's simply wishful thinking that Kadafi would have stabilized the situation and returned the country to normalcy.

I don't have the specialist knowledge necessary to make that judgment but I'm willing to bet my immortal soul that you don't either. Anyway, this is all about Clinton's eagerness to use violence, which is hardly reduced by your saying that it was all going to go to shit anyway, whether the Americans pitched in or not.

**Cold Pizza** · 06-05-2016, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Neverna

"I understand that Americans are angry and frustrated. But we do not need someone in the Oval Office who mirrors and inflames our anger and frustration," George W Bush told a South Carolina audience.

Like orchestrating and fabricating a lie that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, cost $2 Trillion, and shifted priorities away from pressing problems?

GWB is proving he's still lost.

**Passing Through** · 06-05-2016, 02:15 PM

How does this relate? Well, Shilary is a full supporter and mechanism to empower these corporations

Right. One of the figures behind The Project for a New American Century, the neo-con think tank, has come out in support of her. It's just insane to think that she represents anything other than the absolute core values of the American Empire. Trump is obviously a man of unmatched awfulness but there's at least a slim hope for non-Americans that his presidency might not entail the anal gang-rape which Clinton's would. The best outcome would of course be a socialist third alternative but the rapture is probably more likely to happen first.

**harrybarracuda** · 06-05-2016, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

Originally Posted by Neverna

"I understand that Americans are angry and frustrated. But we do not need someone in the Oval Office who mirrors and inflames our anger and frustration," George W Bush told a South Carolina audience.

Like orchestrating and fabricating a lie that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, cost $2 Trillion, and shifted priorities away from pressing problems?

GWB is proving he's still lost.

He's proving he's still a fucking liar.

**Humbert** · 06-05-2016, 02:34 PM

^Your arguments contain so many false assumptions that I can't be arsed to refute them all. Arguing that Trump is a better choice than Hillary is a real gamble that as an American I would not make. Remember he promised to liberate the oil fields in Iraq and allow the big oil companies to take over. Hardly sounds like a benign anti-corporatist to me. Singling out Hillary for Libya's destabilization when Sarkozy and Cameron were clearly the architects of the strategy also seems a bit disengenuous to me.

**harrybarracuda** · 06-05-2016, 03:03 PM

**Cold Pizza** · 06-05-2016, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Humbert

^Your arguments contain so many false assumptions that I can't be arsed to refute them all.

You're referring to me?

If so, my comments are not assumptions, they are fact.

GWB lied.

There were hundreds of thousands of death.

The cost was over $2 Trillion +.

I am however making the assumption that "GWB is still lost."

Woodward wrote that at the age of 45 GWB still "didn't know who he was."

My post, you are perhaps referring to:

Like orchestrating and fabricating a lie that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, cost $2 Trillion, and shifted priorities away from pressing problems?

GWB is proving he's still lost.

**Humbert** · 06-05-2016, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

You're referring to me?
If so, my comments are not assumptions, they are fact.

Passing Through.

**Sumbitch** · 06-05-2016, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Hope you're right.

You do? A Humphy Trumpy presidency will make George W's 8 years of war look like peace.

**Passing Through** · 06-05-2016, 03:41 PM

Your arguments contain so many false assumptions that I can't be arsed to refute them all.

Condescension may work on occasions but not when your posts are entirely limited to versions of 'You're wrong', 'Idiot', 'You don't know anything'. In cases such as yours, it just makes you look even more of a cretinous twat.

Arguing that Trump is a better choice than Hillary is a real gamble that as an American I would not make.

As I said in my first post, Clinton is probably the better choice for Americans so congratulations on agreeing with me. On domestic issues, she seems less terrible than Trump. However, I (thank the Lord) am not an American and neither are most of the people on this forum so my and their concerns with domestic policies are probably less than yours. Equally, I think I made it pretty clear that Trump was an unknown quantity (you can amuse yourself by seeing how many hedging devices I have used on this thread though you'll see that nowhere did I come within a thousand light years of describing him as 'a benign anti-corporatist' so you can fuck off with that one) whereas Clinton is the exact opposite and that given that uncertainty (careful - another hedge coming up) Trump may be less shit than Clinton and given her self-evident awfulness, I might (you've just passed another one) be tempted to cast my non-existent vote for him.

Singling out Hillary for Libya's destabilization when Sarkozy and Cameron were clearly the architects of the strategy also seems a bit disengenuous to me.

Actually, what I said was "It's true that Clinton was not alone in turning Libya into a failed state but 'he did it too' is not much of an excuse when it comes out of the mouth of 7-year-old, let alone a would-be President." Disingenuous, my fucking hairy white arse. Really, what is the fucking point of bothering with someone who is entirely incapable of reading? Vote for Clinton. Vote for Trump. You can vote for Donald fucking Duck, for all I care.

**Norton** · 06-05-2016, 04:01 PM

The grand old party is soiling their knickers. Their candidate is likely not only to lose the Presidency but the house, senate and supreme court as well.

Go get em Trump. You da man.

**Cold Pizza** · 06-05-2016, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Passing Through

How does this relate? Well, Shilary is a full supporter and mechanism to empower these corporations

Right. One of the figures behind The Project for a New American Century, the neo-con think tank, has come out in support of her. It's just insane to think that she represents anything other than the absolute core values of the American Empire. Trump is obviously a man of unmatched awfulness but there's at least a slim hope for non-Americans that his presidency might not entail the anal gang-rape which Clinton's would. The best outcome would of course be a socialist third alternative but the rapture is probably more likely to happen first.

Look who's lurking. Article 2 1/2 months old but relevant.

The Neo-Cons.

Robert Kagan: Republican, Neocon, PNAC co-founder endorses Clinton

By dharmasyd
Friday Feb 26, 2016
The connection between Hillary and the extreme right Republican Neocons became much clearer today when Robert Kagan, a co-founder and co-author of “The Project for the New American Century, endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.

I would be tempted to call his endorsement a dirty trick designed to drive Democrats away from HRC, but the closeness between them has gone on for many years. Therefore, I think this is just a neocon effort to co-opt the Democratic party. I’m sure they believe it would be better for their desires if they own both parties, not just the Republicans.

This Sunday 2014 NYT article shows the reasoning.

The Next Act of the Neocons -- Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?

Robert Kagan: Republican, Neocon, PNAC co-founder endorses Clinton

**Jesus Jones** · 06-05-2016, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Vs the mass murders on foreign soil and and more under the present establishment.

Hysterics

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Rascist? Which media news agency has pulled the wool!

When Trump says to the crowd when singling out a black lives protester, that in the old days they used to beat them and send them out on stretchers, I would call that racist. You know his father was a KKK supporter don't you. You are aware that he used to be a slumlord who has a history of harrassing black tenents don't you.

BLM are equally racist. Open season on crackas!

If we must drag relatives into the present, have you looked at the Bushes history?

I guess we live in different fantasy worlds.

**misskit** · 06-05-2016, 04:08 PM

Who do you reckon da man will choose for a running mate?

**Jesus Jones** · 06-05-2016, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Why do racists always object so much to being called racist.

You don't actually know what a racists is do you?

In you're PC fantasy world, not liking black cars would be deemed racists. Just as you believe opinions on controlled immigration as being racist.

Oddly, your ilk are always first to throw insults, and last to shut-up!

Another red blob coming my way!

**Passing Through** · 06-05-2016, 04:16 PM

^^^ Yes. Important quotation from that

We need to remember that Robert Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland. Nuland had been a foreign policy adviser to VP Dick Cheney. When Obama was elected and named Clinton as Secretary of State, HRC brought Victoria Nuland into the State Department. Originally serving as an information official conducting press sessions for State, Nuland soon transitioned to Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs. From this post, Nuland planned, orchestrated, and directed the disastrous coup in Ukraine

That's 'Fuck-the-EU' Nuland for those Americans worried about Trump's inability to get on with your European friends.

This is what a Clinton presidency would be like. Would a Trump presidency be worse? Possibly. Would it be less bad? Possibly.

**S Landreth** · 06-05-2016, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by aging one

Not that many Americans are stupid.

There’s another person who feels the same way. You might know of him,……..

Starts at 5:45 into the video above.

It’ll be nice to see/hear the guy above canvassing for our next president Hillary Clinton, shortly after July 28th.

Originally Posted by aging one

I feel very confident. This election will eclipse Goldwater's wipe out way back when.

This will set records.

I don’t know about that,…but I do think it will end up looking something like this,……..

353 Adding Nevada and Colorado.

To the list below,….

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by longway

Game on!

Go Trump

338

An update. Today we’re adding Florida (29) and Utah (6) of all states. Utah is one of those solid red states. It hasn’t voted dem in over 50 years, until now.

If Donald Trump becomes the GOP nominee, Utah would do the unthinkable: vote for a Democrat for the first time in more than 50 years, according to a poll released by the Deseret News in Salt Lake City

If

Originally Posted by S Landreth

I knida like this post,.......

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Go Trump!

All that is needed is 270 to win.

Dems are starting off with 217 (blue state) electoral votes. 53 electoral votes are needed from the purple states for Mrs. Clinton to win. Let’s see if we can find any

Virginia - 13

North Carolina – 15

New Hampshire – 4

Iowa – 6

Ohio - 18

Hillary Clinton Wins

President Hillary Clinton (with aide)

so let’s add another……..

Wisconsin - 10

Hope I haven’t rained on anyone’s parade

I’ll update this once Pennsylvania swings left (20 more with Penn., total will be 303). Polls show them tied now.

Getting close, again. Just need Florida's 29, but they are not needed.

An update,….

303

Pennsylvania

Clinton leads by 43 percent to 35 percent in Pennsylvania, a state that hasn't supported a Republican for president since 1988. She leads Cruz, 45 percent to 42 percent.

I wonder if Trump will even show up at the debates between the two

**Little Chuchok** · 06-05-2016, 04:34 PM

At least, up until now, Donald hasn't been bought.......

**Norton** · 06-05-2016, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by misskit

Who do you reckon da man will choose for a running mate?

Rick Perry volunteered. Seems nobody else is stepping up.

**longway** · 06-05-2016, 04:50 PM

^ way too early, why show his hand at this stage.

**Norton** · 06-05-2016, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by longway

why show his hand at this stage

Indeed. Hands are a bit small. He should keep them under wraps.

**Humbert** · 06-05-2016, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by longway

^ way too early, why show his hand at this stage.

He has professed that he would like someone with congressional experience but finding one would be problematic for him. He would strengthen his base of support and unite the two wings of the party by naming an ideological conservative but he is anethema to them. The only choice he has is to choose another outsider, another populist. He really has split the Republican party into Conservative v. Populist factions. Realistically, his only choices may be Chris Christie or Ben Carson.

**Storekeeper** · 06-05-2016, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Humbert

Realistically, his only choices may be Chris Christie or Ben Carson.

Kasich ... Would be a better choice for Trump.

Thread: 2016 Republican US Presidential Candidates

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions