The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(07-23-2016 06:29 PM)CMichFan Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:12 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:00 PM)CMichFan Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 03:12 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 11:32 AM)okgc Wrote:  Neither Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice told the bold face falsehoods that the FBI has accused Hillary of.

FBI did not accuse her of any "bald-faced lies."

They investigated what she was accused of by political enemies and could not find evidence to recommend charges.

Big difference.

This. I am NOT a Clinton fan, but if there were any way to actually charge here with something that would actually stick, you have to believe it would have been done already.

Based on what?

Let me try rephrasing: do your really think that if the Republican-controlled Congress honestly believed she would be convicted of a crime, that Clinton would not have been charged by now?

Do you really think that a Democrat controlled Justice Department, State Department, Oval Office and former Democrat Senator, Sec. of State and current Presidential candidate want to allow for the complete vetting of evidence?

(07-23-2016 06:38 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:29 PM)CMichFan Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:12 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:00 PM)CMichFan Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 03:12 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  FBI did not accuse her of any "bald-faced lies."

They investigated what she was accused of by political enemies and could not find evidence to recommend charges.

Big difference.

This. I am NOT a Clinton fan, but if there were any way to actually charge here with something that would actually stick, you have to believe it would have been done already.

Based on what?

Let me try rephrasing: do your really think that if the Republican-controlled Congress honestly believed she would be convicted of a crime, that Clinton would not have been charged by now?

Do you really think that a Democrat controlled Justice Department, State Department, Oval Office and former Democrat Senator, Sec. of State and current Presidential candidate want to allow for the complete vetting of evidence?

Ok persrod.

(07-23-2016 07:03 PM)Hiller4Hyz09 Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:38 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:29 PM)CMichFan Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:12 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 06:00 PM)CMichFan Wrote:  This. I am NOT a Clinton fan, but if there were any way to actually charge here with something that would actually stick, you have to believe it would have been done already.

Based on what?

Let me try rephrasing: do your really think that if the Republican-controlled Congress honestly believed she would be convicted of a crime, that Clinton would not have been charged by now?

Do you really think that a Democrat controlled Justice Department, State Department, Oval Office and former Democrat Senator, Sec. of State and current Presidential candidate want to allow for the complete vetting of evidence?

Ok persrod.

Ok Chuck

Hillary is, of course a despicable liar, and the worst kind of politician. However, I have never seen someone so ill suited for the presidency than Donald Trump, who likewise lies with every breath he takes. . Both candidates are New York liberals, who want to totally disregard the Constitution.

This whole election is a commentary on how far America has fallen as a country, and how lost the principles on which our country was founded upon are. We now have a Republican nominee who runs on essentially a democratic platform, and who in reality is a "big government" proponent. He is also the poster child for narcissistic personality disorder, and has zero understanding of foriegn policy.

Frankly, as horrible as Clinton would be, trump is worse.

Pence v. Kaine would be a neat battle.

In comparison.

(07-24-2016 06:54 AM)brovol Wrote:  Hillary is, of course a despicable liar, and the worst kind of politician. However, I have never seen someone so ill suited for the presidency than Donald Trump, who likewise lies with every breath he takes. . Both candidates are New York liberals, who want to totally disregard the Constitution.

This whole election is a commentary on how far America has fallen as a country, and how lost the principles on which our country was founded upon are. We now have a Republican nominee who runs on essentially a democratic platform, and who in reality is a "big government" proponent. He is also the poster child for narcissistic personality disorder, and has zero understanding of foriegn policy.

Frankly, as horrible as Clinton would be, trump is worse.

Never though the day would come within the context of politics where I'd be in total agreement with every word you wrote. Holy ****, the apocalypse is neigh.

Quote:has zero understanding of foriegn policy.

Frankly, as horrible as Clinton would be, trump is worse.

Maybe so.

Anyone here want to make the case FOR HRC's foreign policy understanding/decisions?

Iraq

Benghazi

Syria

Lybia

(07-24-2016 08:32 AM)ESSSS Wrote:  

Quote:has zero understanding of foriegn policy.

Frankly, as horrible as Clinton would be, trump is worse.

Maybe so.

Anyone here want to make the case FOR HRC's foreign policy understanding/decisions?

Iraq

Benghazi

Syria

Lybia

Not a lot of "right answers" when it comes to those places.

Quote:Not a lot of "right answers" when it comes to those places.

People who feel qualified to be president of the United States "get paid" to have answers to difficult questions.

HRC and her people are making the case that Americans should fear Donald Trump when it comes to issues like these.

All the while touting "her experience".

They may be right.

So....to those who are buying into this reasoning, what about HRC's history and decision making when dealing with Iraq, Benghazi, Syria, and Libya is appealing to you?

If you are having difficulty answering this question, what about "her experience" is reassuring to you?

(07-24-2016 11:47 AM)ESSSS Wrote:  

Quote:Not a lot of "right answers" when it comes to those places.

People who feel qualified to be president of the United States "get paid" to have answers to difficult questions.

HRC and her people are making the case that Americans should fear Donald Trump when it comes to issues like these.

All the while touting "her experience".

They may be right.

So....to those who are buying into this reasoning, what about HRC's history and decision making when dealing with Iraq, Benghazi, Syria, and Libya is appealing to you?

If you are having difficulty answering this question, what about "her experience" is reassuring to you?

I'd like an explanation about what's wrong with the Iraq reasoning.

Also, these aren't easy templates, to date in wars, and these examples are either are results of invasions (Iraq) or civil wars with factions who are well armed and funded, the other side gets a vote on the events that take place as well.

Things don't always go to plan. Blaming her solely for Benghazi, or even Syria is like Blaming Truman for the Korean death march. It's quite an oversimplification.

(07-23-2016 10:53 AM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 10:30 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(07-23-2016 10:19 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  former Secretary of State Colin Powell, did some of the things with emails that Clinton did.

...as did Condoleezza Rice.

I'm listening ...

Jump to 2:48

Lets not forget all of Trump's outright inaccurate statements, outrageous quests (the whole birther thing), reckless statements (ie NATO), false accusations, and outright lies (anyone find the video of the New Jersey Muslims dancing in the streets after 9-11 yet? Maybe Christie borrowed it last Christmas?) And last but not least what his racial remarks? Clinton has her personal flaws, but the GOP has tried for decades to roast the Clintons, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Benghazi and now the e-mails, spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars and guess what? No criminal indictments. The Clintons may be "oily" (see Ted Cruz for definition of that word) but they aren't criminals. But they're not stupid, reckless or illogical like Trump. Sorry but Hillary is the logical choice this election.

Quote:I'd like an explanation about what's wrong with the Iraq reasoning.

She was in favor of invading Iraq.

More than 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths have been attributed to this invasion.

As well as approximately 5,000 American deaths, and over 30,000 American casualties.

At a cost of well over a trillion dollars.

Was this good judgement on her part?

Has the benefit been worth these costs?

Quote:Also, these aren't easy templates,

Presidents rarely deal with "easy templates".

Quote:To date in wars, and these examples are either are results of invasions (Iraq)

See above.

She favored this invasion

Quote:Or civil wars with factions who are well armed and funded

My point exactly.

She has been in favor of US involvement in civil wars in the middle east.

Does this type of decision making/judgement appeal to HRC supporters?

Quote:The other side gets a vote on the events that take place as well

I'm not taking sides.

I don't support either HRC or Donald Trump.

And I think "W" should go in front of a firing squad.

Quote:Things don't always go to plan. Blaming her solely for Benghazi, or even Syria is like Blaming Truman for the Korean death march. It's quite an oversimplification.

Stop with the straw man tactic.

Nobody has blamed her for anything.

I'm offering her supporters a chance to defend her record ("her experience")

Nobody seems to want to do it using specifics.

I can understand if people don't like Trump because he says things that offend them.

But to claim the HRC is somehow "less scary" because of her experience ???

There is a reason that some neocons are running away from Trump and towards HRC.

By sides I mean the enemy.

Also she and almost 90 percent of our ruling class were for the invasion. Why? One guy wasn't and it was deemed a ploy.

Speaking of straw men, is it assumed if her role in those said events aren't defended to your liking then it's not acceptable to support her over Trump? Is that the implication?

If not? Why is it being presented here this way?

I doubt very much this election is one of absolutes for anyone.

(07-24-2016 02:20 PM)Moomba Wrote:  Also she and almost 90 percent of our ruling class were for the invasion.

That's your best defense of her?

She was as stupid as everyone else?

Quote:Speaking of straw men, is it assumed if her role in those said events aren't defended to your liking then it's not acceptable to support her over Trump? Is that the implication?

No.

Quote:If not? Why is it being presented here this way?

It isn't. Not even close.

I am simply trying to understand (with her history and documented record) why people think she is "less scary" than Donald Trump.

Nobody seems to want or be able to explain this view.

(07-24-2016 02:44 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  

(07-24-2016 02:20 PM)Moomba Wrote:  Also she and almost 90 percent of our ruling class were for the invasion.

That's your best defense of her?

She was as stupid as everyone else?

Quote:Speaking of straw men, is it assumed if her role in those said events aren't defended to your liking then it's not acceptable to support her over Trump? Is that the implication?

No.

Quote:If not? Why is it being presented here this way?

It isn't. Not even close.

I am simply trying to understand (with her history and documented record) why people think she is "less scary" than Donald Trump.

Nobody seems to want or be able to explain this view.

Maybe in spite of her misgivings, it's the Trump is "more scary".

I don't defend her at all. Not a fan, one bit. My question is more around why it seemed so odd that we would just go and invade Iraq because a group of Saudi's executed the 9-11 that "everyone else" was on lockstep. Does t that make you wonder what really was the reason?

When it comes down to it, I'd guess that as a general population, we know three percent of the relevant information to defend or support any of our foreign policy dealings and even less when it comes to fiscal policy since they seem to be so intertwined.

Quote:I am simply trying to understand (with her history and documented record) why people think she is "less scary" than Donald Trump.

I think that part's easy, taking out 'scariness' of an opposing political idealogue one may have on either side when it comes to any election between two parties. Outside of that, she's an even-tempered, methodical, rational, robotic person -- whether her political positions are good or not good.

Trump is extremely thin-skinned, irrational, and impulsive person. Look at his twitter stuff, look at so much of the stuff he says -- Obama's birth certificate issue he kept pressing even when provided by a Republican Governor... Ted Cruz's dad being part of the JFK assassination... going off on Megan Kelly, Cruz's wife, etc. He also says contradicting stuff all the time -- but the people don't care -- they want something Different outside politics-as-usual. With that, they're getting an unstable guy born from a rich family who acts and thinks like a teenager. He can be calm, cool, and collected. He can be rational. But so can just about anyone at a particular time. He is something different that would be interesting to see in Washington to mix things up -- which is the main reason why he's a nominee -- but with that comes the scariness/uncertainty of his stability as a person.

I like Hillary because she is establishment.

I like Wall Street. I like banks. I like pursuing an aggressive foreign policy.

She gets extra credit for being married to Bill.

Iraq? We needed to kick some butt. Any butt. Iraq was a good candidate.

Remember Hillary served under Obama. She would have done much better with an aggressive president that consolidated power in the Middle East.

Wow.

Hey wait, that's right. Our establishment can't be all that bad since we still are the greatest country in the world!! We have two out of the three branches working for us and that's not bad!

I don't want change just for the sake of change, I want a plan to keep the good and correct the bad. I think Hilary and a democratic congress can help do just that! I'm going with the Establishment. You can't fight city hall all the time!!

Quote:You can't fight city hall all the time!!

Or any of the time when the Clintons are involved.

Ask Bernie....#Guccifer2.0