Dr The Singh Posted 27 October 2016 Posted 27 October 2016 I see Michelle Obama is being pimped out! Great move by the Democrats
ozleicester Posted 27 October 2016 Posted 27 October 2016 4 hours ago, bovril said: quote amusing and relevant in some points and as with every story, documentary or report there will always be some bias. However if you try to be a little less lemming like and a little more discerning, if you step away from the the images and soundtrack and listen to, then research and question the detail. I found that much of the information presented was accurate, relevant and enlightening. No one should agree with everything that someone says... but if people take a little time to listen and question, the world would undoubtedly be a better place. This sums it up for me...
The Doctor Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 On 27/10/2016 at 20:32, Loves2spooge said: 72% wants world war III the rest are ok with electing a racist f#ck I'll have to go with the racist , I think 4 years of racist USA would be better than a world war Don't quite see how Hilary is more likely to start WWIII than a man who doesn't understand why he can't throw nukes out like sweets in Halloween, care to explain?
MPH Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 7 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Don't quite see how Hilary is more likely to start WWIII than a man who doesn't understand why he can't throw nukes out like sweets in Halloween, care to explain? Hes just spent $300 million on a new hotel... that will probably be his reason for not wanting to drop any nukes... won't want it damaged...
The Railway Man Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 14 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Don't quite see how Hilary is more likely to start WWIII than a man who doesn't understand why he can't throw nukes out like sweets in Halloween, care to explain? Big supporter of the original War in Iraq, as SOS faciliatated the sale of F-15's to Saudi Arabia which are now being used to bomb schools, hospitals and civilians in Yemen, was one of the the key people in invading Libya and ebeing paid huge amounts to speak about it to the point of laughing about civil war that followed it, then along with Obama throwing arms to the rebels in Syria to fight Assad in 2012, pretty much all of which ended up flowing into the hands of ISIS. Yeah it's going to be a bed of roses with her in charge. Who would Trump even nuke if he wanted to?
leicsmac Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 I don't really buy Trump having a dangerous foreign policy as a reason to not go for him tbh. At the very least, there isn't an awful lot of distinction between the main two when it comes to breaking out the bombers and drones. It's the domestic policy, particularly the social part of it, espoused by Trump and those behind him, that should give people a moments pause.
Webbo Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 Just now, leicsmac said: I don't really buy Trump having a dangerous foreign policy as a reason to not go for him tbh. At the very least, there isn't an awful lot of distinction between the main two when it comes to heading out the bombers and drones. It's the domestic policy, particularly the social part of it, espoused by Trump and those behind him, that should give people a moments pause. Whoever wins it I wouldn't worry too much, we always get these scare stories about the Republican candidate, they never prove correct. Even if Trump wanted to all the terrible things you imagine there are checks and balances.
Loves2spooge Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 Hilary wants to establish a no fly zone on Syria That alone is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people , if that ain't enough for ya Russia and the US currently share the skies above Syria and maintain a military-to-military communication channel to avoid confrontation. But since they operate over different parts of the country and with different objectives – the US in the east against the Islamic State, Russia to the west against Assad’s opposition – a US-imposed no-fly zone would put their objectives into conflict. Clinton, who has long backed a no-fly zone said: “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees,” Yeah that's nice if you don't count the hundreds of thousands of people you're gonna sacrifice for said safe heavens , imposing a no-fly zone unilaterally would be a declaration of war on Russia , a War between two of the most strongest faction in this world would require the involvement of NATO for the US and CHINA for RUSSIA in other means , World war III The reasons to not vote for hilary are here and there are more , only the emails incident should've ended her run but no , someone is backing her , someone is gonna benefit from this so yeah you can search for the facts if you want I don't support trump but I feel like the only reasons people aren't gonna vote for him is because : he's orange , he's hair is weird , duuuh he grabs pussayyyys . There are other reasons but I feel like these 3 are the only ones people use
leicsmac Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 15 minutes ago, Webbo said: Whoever wins it I wouldn't worry too much, we always get these scare stories about the Republican candidate, they never prove correct. Even if Trump wanted to all the terrible things you imagine there are checks and balances. If Trump wins he'll get to pick at least one and possibly as many as three of the Supreme Court candidates during his term (depending, quite frankly, on who else dies). He'll pick conservative minded ones. If he wins then it's likely the Repubs will also have a majority in either of the two houses of Congress so obviously they won't block his choices (It may even be that though he isn't very socially conservative himself he'll have to appoint someone who is as a sop to his party). Once they're in place with a Republican controlled Congress, I'm not sure what checks and balances are left to stop challenges. If he wins and appoints the first SC judge of his choice, I would reasonably expect both Roe vs Wade and the gay marriage ruling being challenged within a year (and those are two just off the top of my head). And with the makeup of the SC as it would be, I would not hold out much hope that they would survive. And Supreme Court judges serve for life. 10 minutes ago, Loves2spooge said: Hilary wants to establish a no fly zone on Syria That alone is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people , if that ain't enough for ya Russia and the US currently share the skies above Syria and maintain a military-to-military communication channel to avoid confrontation. But since they operate over different parts of the country and with different objectives – the US in the east against the Islamic State, Russia to the west against Assad’s opposition – a US-imposed no-fly zone would put their objectives into conflict. Clinton, who has long backed a no-fly zone said: “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees,” Yeah that's nice if you don't count the hundreds of thousands of people you're gonna sacrifice for said safe heavens , imposing a no-fly zone unilaterally would be a declaration of war on Russia , a War between two of the most strongest faction in this world would require the involvement of NATO for the US and CHINA for RUSSIA in other means , World war III You'd hope that cooler heads would prevail before it got that far...but yeah.
Webbo Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 If Clinton wins she'll pick judges that match her prejudices. The Dems have in power 8 years, a little redressing of the balance won't hurt.
leicsmac Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 4 minutes ago, Webbo said: If Clinton wins she'll pick judges that match her prejudices. The Dems have in power 8 years, a little redressing of the balance won't hurt. I'm not entirely sure possible negation of a lot of hard won freedoms and equalities that women and other groups have fought for for the last few decades can really be defined as "redressing the balance", but we shall see. If he does win, I do hope that I'm wrong, you're right, and there are more checks and balances than I think there are.
Webbo Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 54 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I'm not entirely sure possible negation of a lot of hard won freedoms and equalities that women and other groups have fought for for the last few decades can really be defined as "redressing the balance", but we shall see. If he does win, I do hope that I'm wrong, you're right, and there are more checks and balances than I think there are. Well obviously the left agenda is always correct and there's never an alternative view that isn't evil but in a democracy all opinions have a right to be represented.
leicsmac Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 11 minutes ago, Webbo said: Well obviously the left agenda is always correct and there's never an alternative view that isn't evil but in a democracy all opinions have a right to be represented. Absolutely, and if the majority hold those views, then let them be represented in the way democracy allows. (Of course, it's not been an awfully long time since it was made that everyone COULD be represented in the US.) The little strawman dig aside, I would be curious to know the reasoning behind wanting to repeal the two rulings described above. It seems like straight forward inhibition of freedoms of groups that have had to deal with a lot of that in the past, but I'd be interested to hear arguments justifying them differently.
The Doctor Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 3 hours ago, The Railway Man said: Big supporter of the original War in Iraq, as SOS faciliatated the sale of F-15's to Saudi Arabia which are now being used to bomb schools, hospitals and civilians in Yemen, was one of the the key people in invading Libya and ebeing paid huge amounts to speak about it to the point of laughing about civil war that followed it, then along with Obama throwing arms to the rebels in Syria to fight Assad in 2012, pretty much all of which ended up flowing into the hands of ISIS. Yeah it's going to be a bed of roses with her in charge. Who would Trump even nuke if he wanted to? Didn't say it was going to be a bed of roses with her, but cynical and hawkish as she is, she's not an unstable toddler who doesn't understand why we don't use nuclear weapons to solve conflicts. Given the choice between a shit sandwich and a lunatic who seems bent on destroying foreign relations and supports attacks on his own country by another nation, only the most bitter of misanthropes would take the latter.
Guest WarehamFox Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 Only one is a criminal!!! The other is a tit! The votes on Foxestalk would vote for a criminal!!!! That's alarming guy's and girl's! Maybe we in the UK could have a vote between maybe Cowell (tit) v Savile (crim)! Neither had been done of any crime 10 years ago, so who would you vote for? I think I would vote Savile! But the tit Cowell would be the better choice? People can be so driven by media and not ask why! Open your minds!
leicsmac Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 10 minutes ago, WarehamFox said: Only one is a criminal!!! The other is a tit! The votes on Foxestalk would vote for a criminal!!!! That's alarming guy's and girl's! Maybe we in the UK could have a vote between maybe Cowell (tit) v Savile (crim)! Neither had been done of any crime 10 years ago, so who would you vote for? I think I would vote Savile! But the tit Cowell would be the better choice? People can be so driven by media and not ask why! Open your minds! Alleged criminal (not that I don't believe she's pretty bloody shifty). I believe there is something called due process? And I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason why I'd go for her (not because of any like for her, nor much antipathy for Trump himself, but because of the party behind him and the domestic policy choices I believe they would have free reign to implement) are pretty clearly stated multiple times.
Finnaldo Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 2 hours ago, WarehamFox said: Only one is a criminal!!! The other is a tit! The votes on Foxestalk would vote for a criminal!!!! That's alarming guy's and girl's! Maybe we in the UK could have a vote between maybe Cowell (tit) v Savile (crim)! Neither had been done of any crime 10 years ago, so who would you vote for? I think I would vote Savile! But the tit Cowell would be the better choice? People can be so driven by media and not ask why! Open your minds! This isn't a Trump rally lad, the overzealous use of exclamation marks doesn't win opinions. Ultimately either side is going to be terrible but if you 'open your mind' you could also suggest Clinton has been in politics for 30 years and has therefore developed the classic political trait of being a pathological liar. Anything difficult or contentious like Syria will be talked about once folllowing her election and then she'll never bring it up again and sweep it under the rug as something "untenable in the current political climate" or some shite like that. Mwanwhile, the only success Trump has found in his short political campaign is pandering to whatever reactionary event is in the news this week. His presidency would see a conservative SC Judge, and then its open season. Some news story akin to the Carolina trans toilet incident? Outcry from social conservatives and a couple of LGBT rulings are overturned. The whole Trump movement is based on the momentum of knee jerk reactions, the social implications would be terrible. So to answer your question, I'd happily take a pathological liar well versed in politics, who'll likely do little to truly hinder, than a loudmouth who's only method is to react quickly rather than logically.
GaelicFox Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 The people voting for Clinton on here is astonishing , do any of you actually follow politics in America or just follow the Murdock sound bites ? Trump is the saviour of the western world , Any man who eats a burger with a knife and fork is a man that is destined for great things pray for donald and God bless America
GaelicFox Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 2 hours ago, WarehamFox said: Only one is a criminal!!! The other is a tit! The votes on Foxestalk would vote for a criminal!!!! That's alarming guy's and girl's! Maybe we in the UK could have a vote between maybe Cowell (tit) v Savile (crim)! Neither had been done of any crime 10 years ago, so who would you vote for? I think I would vote Savile! But the tit Cowell would be the better choice? People can be so driven by media and not ask why! Open your minds! WELL SAID !!!
Guest Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 1 minute ago, GaelicFox said: The people voting for Clinton on here is astonishing , do any of you actually follow politics in America or just follow the Murdock sound bites ? Trump is the saviour of the western world , Any man who eats a burger with a knife and fork is a man that is destined for great things pray for donald and God bless America So it's no to 'Murdoch' soundbites for you but yes to Trump soundbites that have little to no truth/substance and are completely unachievable ?
bovril Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 Clinton, from what I've read and heard from acquaintances who follow these things, is a reckless hawk who is very much a puppet of the military industry. Trump actually seems thick, he is in no way capable to do the job and appeals to the baser human instincts. Thank fvck I can't vote in this one. One thing I don't get in this election and the Brexit debate is all this 'two fingers to the establishment' stuff. All a bit sixth former in a Che Guevara t-shirt innit.
leicsmac Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 3 minutes ago, bovril said: Clinton, from what I've read and heard from acquaintances who follow these things, is a reckless hawk who is very much a puppet of the military industry. Trump actually seems thick, he is in no way capable to do the job and appeals to the baser human instincts. Thank fvck I can't vote in this one. One thing I don't get in this election and the Brexit debate is all this 'two fingers to the establishment' stuff. All a bit sixth former in a Che Guevara t-shirt innit. It's because the people saying that, whether Bernie or Bust folks or classic fvck-tha-government guys from the other side of the spectrum, either don't know, don't care or view as acceptable collateral damage the misery a combined Republican president, Congress and Supreme Court will inflict on various groups. Because, largely, they're not part of those groups and so won't have to feel it. 8 minutes ago, GaelicFox said: The people voting for Clinton on here is astonishing , do any of you actually follow politics in America or just follow the Murdock sound bites ? Trump is the saviour of the western world , Any man who eats a burger with a knife and fork is a man that is destined for great things pray for donald and God bless America A-grade baiting, GF!
GaelicFox Posted 29 October 2016 Posted 29 October 2016 12 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said: So it's no to 'Murdoch' soundbites for you but yes to Trump soundbites that have little to no truth/substance and are completely unachievable ? And the she witch is giving truthful sound bites ? She can't even deliver emails to the state department and claims not to be able to use two phones ( now has two and iPad and an old mini) What do the clintons make ? Do they own patents ? Have they inherited a kings ransom ? Are they in sanitation ? Construction ? Tech companies ? The answer is NO , so now the question that really matters how did they amass such a huge fortune in 20 years ???? Circa 500m dollars political prostitues that's how , rodgering American big banks and corporate world for 20 years she should be in jail with her sleazeball husband !
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.