THE DEBATES 2016

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

See Halifax you just did it again. This is what I said about Trump... "He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am NOT defending him on this point." Was that poorly written? Does that sound like I am legitimizing Trump's criticism of Hillary on Iraq? Clearly I am not. If you have read my posts you would know that I disagree with Trump on Iraq. You just need to do better...it really isn't a lot for this nobody to ask.

Now with respect to Hillary you are correct...her decision did not happen in a vacuum. But she cannot claim she was duped, or pressured, or lied too. She had access to every piece of intelligence that her husband's former CIA chief could provide. President Clinton was in agreement. Prime Minister Tony Blair was in agreement. Political allies such as Senator Joe Lieberman was in agreement. Now ultimately George W Bush is the one who made the decision and as I have said a million times the buck stops with him but nobody who hated the war should kid themselves and pretend she wasn't on board with the decision just because she left some wiggle room within the text of some weasely senate speech. To do so is just to maintain a lie so you can vote with a clean conscience. Hillary is the neocon in this race but I absolutely could not support her. The reason why is that the only thing worse then a neocon is a neocon who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to see things through. After supporting the invasion she proved herself to be a political coward by bailing and putting on this charade of being "duped" when the going got tough. Obama and the democratic base saw through that nonsense in 2008 and it explains why enthusiasm for her is so low right now. It is why her honest and trustworthy numbers can never truly recover. People know that even when it comes to issues of war and peace Hillary will always put her political career above all else and disgust for that type of behaviour is bipartisan. Now when it comes to Trump I may be at polar opposites to him on foreign policy (and am at least honest enough to admit it) but my gut tells me that should he ever find the need to use the military he wouldn't run for the hills the first time it becomes politically difficult. To me that is a critical necessity for being commander in chief and Hillary has failed that test. You keep shilling for her though if you like but spare us your neocon critiques from here on out. I have been reading them for sometime now but since you are so willing to vote for one they will no longer have any meaning.

And where do you stand and what do you think of the 48 republican senators that also voted for the Iraq war?

mfc2006

dignin said:

igotid88 said:

http://youtu.be/h1Lfd1aB9YI

As always, Oliver is spot on.

that was great.

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

See Halifax you just did it again. This is what I said about Trump... "He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am NOT defending him on this point." Was that poorly written? Does that sound like I am legitimizing Trump's criticism of Hillary on Iraq? Clearly I am not. If you have read my posts you would know that I disagree with Trump on Iraq. You just need to do better...it really isn't a lot for this nobody to ask.

Now with respect to Hillary you are correct...her decision did not happen in a vacuum. But she cannot claim she was duped, or pressured, or lied too. She had access to every piece of intelligence that her husband's former CIA chief could provide. President Clinton was in agreement. Prime Minister Tony Blair was in agreement. Political allies such as Senator Joe Lieberman was in agreement. Now ultimately George W Bush is the one who made the decision and as I have said a million times the buck stops with him but nobody who hated the war should kid themselves and pretend she wasn't on board with the decision just because she left some wiggle room within the text of some weasely senate speech. To do so is just to maintain a lie so you can vote with a clean conscience. Hillary is the neocon in this race but I absolutely could not support her. The reason why is that the only thing worse then a neocon is a neocon who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to see things through. After supporting the invasion she proved herself to be a political coward by bailing and putting on this charade of being "duped" when the going got tough. Obama and the democratic base saw through that nonsense in 2008 and it explains why enthusiasm for her is so low right now. It is why her honest and trustworthy numbers can never truly recover. People know that even when it comes to issues of war and peace Hillary will always put her political career above all else and disgust for that type of behaviour is bipartisan. Now when it comes to Trump I may be at polar opposites to him on foreign policy (and am at least honest enough to admit it) but my gut tells me that should he ever find the need to use the military he wouldn't run for the hills the first time it becomes politically difficult. To me that is a critical necessity for being commander in chief and Hillary has failed that test. You keep shilling for her though if you like but spare us your neocon critiques from here on out. I have been reading them for sometime now but since you are so willing to vote for one they will no longer have any meaning.

In what way(s) do you disagree with Trump on Iraq? That he was for the invasion before he was against it? That you opposed the invasion of Iraq from the get go? Or that you don't think it's relevant in this campaign? Or something else entirely? And if you meant to say you weren't blaming Hillary, why didn't you say "I" rather than "nobody?" Plausible deniability perhaps?

As if neocons are above critiquing? See? That's the problem I have with your ilk, you double down like GWB, and with hind sight, admit you wouldn't do one thing differently. So sure in your perfection and fortitude, who cares if the decision was a bad one, the wrong one, we'll just keep at it. You forgot to use the words "false" or "manufactured" in front of the word "intelligence" that everyone was fed as well as the slanderous ruin of anyone that doubted the so called "intelligence." You also seem to neglect the fact that both Bill and Hillary, in hind sight, regret their support. Name me one neocon in GWB's administration who regrets it and has publically said so. So you'll support Trump because if he makes a colossal mistake by, I don't know, invading Iran, he'll stick it out and make the cluster fuck worse? Sound reasoning there but not surprising coming from someone who lives with few recent national sacrifices in blood and treasure.

Hillary's disapproval rating is not due to her Iraq war vote as much as its related to the manufactured BS of whitewater, rose law firm billing records, cattle futures, Vince Foster, Benghazi and missing emails. Just keep repeating it and it'll be true, much like the neocons and when the truth won't sell, manufacture some BS. Hilary's biggest mistake? Trusting GWB to make a rational, thoughtful decision in the best interests of his country and not his business partners.

And I will keep critiquing the neocons and particularly your revisionist history and BS posts as I deem appropriate.

And the critique from you will now and forever be meaningless.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

See Halifax you just did it again. This is what I said about Trump... "He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am NOT defending him on this point." Was that poorly written? Does that sound like I am legitimizing Trump's criticism of Hillary on Iraq? Clearly I am not. If you have read my posts you would know that I disagree with Trump on Iraq. You just need to do better...it really isn't a lot for this nobody to ask.

Now with respect to Hillary you are correct...her decision did not happen in a vacuum. But she cannot claim she was duped, or pressured, or lied too. She had access to every piece of intelligence that her husband's former CIA chief could provide. President Clinton was in agreement. Prime Minister Tony Blair was in agreement. Political allies such as Senator Joe Lieberman was in agreement. Now ultimately George W Bush is the one who made the decision and as I have said a million times the buck stops with him but nobody who hated the war should kid themselves and pretend she wasn't on board with the decision just because she left some wiggle room within the text of some weasely senate speech. To do so is just to maintain a lie so you can vote with a clean conscience. Hillary is the neocon in this race but I absolutely could not support her. The reason why is that the only thing worse then a neocon is a neocon who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to see things through. After supporting the invasion she proved herself to be a political coward by bailing and putting on this charade of being "duped" when the going got tough. Obama and the democratic base saw through that nonsense in 2008 and it explains why enthusiasm for her is so low right now. It is why her honest and trustworthy numbers can never truly recover. People know that even when it comes to issues of war and peace Hillary will always put her political career above all else and disgust for that type of behaviour is bipartisan. Now when it comes to Trump I may be at polar opposites to him on foreign policy (and am at least honest enough to admit it) but my gut tells me that should he ever find the need to use the military he wouldn't run for the hills the first time it becomes politically difficult. To me that is a critical necessity for being commander in chief and Hillary has failed that test. You keep shilling for her though if you like but spare us your neocon critiques from here on out. I have been reading them for sometime now but since you are so willing to vote for one they will no longer have any meaning.

In what way(s) do you disagree with Trump on Iraq? That he was for the invasion before he was against it? That you opposed the invasion of Iraq from the get go? Or that you don't think it's relevant in this campaign? Or something else entirely? And if you meant to say you weren't blaming Hillary, why didn't you say "I" rather than "nobody?" Plausible deniability perhaps?

As if neocons are above critiquing? See? That's the problem I have with your ilk, you double down like GWB, and with hind sight, admit you wouldn't do one thing differently. So sure in your perfection and fortitude, who cares if the decision was a bad one, the wrong one, we'll just keep at it. You forgot to use the words "false" or "manufactured" in front of the word "intelligence" that everyone was fed as well as the slanderous ruin of anyone that doubted the so called "intelligence." You also seem to neglect the fact that both Bill and Hillary, in hind sight, regret their support. Name me one neocon in GWB's administration who regrets it and has publically said so. So you'll support Trump because if he makes a colossal mistake by, I don't know, invading Iran, he'll stick it out and make the cluster fuck worse? Sound reasoning there but not surprising coming from someone who lives with few recent national sacrifices in blood and treasure.

Hillary's disapproval rating is not due to her Iraq war vote as much as its related to the manufactured BS of whitewater, rose law firm billing records, cattle futures, Vince Foster, Benghazi and missing emails. Just keep repeating it and it'll be true, much like the neocons and when the truth won't sell, manufacture some BS. Hilary's biggest mistake? Trusting GWB to make a rational, thoughtful decision in the best interests of his country and not his business partners.

And I will keep critiquing the neocons and particularly your revisionist history and BS posts as I deem appropriate.

And the critique from you will now and forever be meaningless.

As your posts have always been. Touché.

what dreams

wndowpayne said:

Im in Va..min wage is lowest of any state and should go up..but $15 is way too much here compared to NY obviously..

Which part of VA? Fifteen dollars isn't even a living wage in the DC metro area

igotid88

Minimum wage should be over $20 by now

unsung

Why not $100?

wndowpayne

what dreams said:

wndowpayne said:

Im in Va..min wage is lowest of any state and should go up..but $15 is way too much here compared to NY obviously..

Which part of VA? Fifteen dollars isn't even a living wage in the DC metro area

SW Va..and $7.25 isn't a living wage anywhere..

unsung

BS44325 said:

josevolution said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I've forgiven some Presidents' bad mistakes but with Bush it's different. Every time I hear his name, I think about the almost 4,500 military people and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died in the Iraq war and are still dying. It's not forgivable with me. :(

Yet you forgive Hillary for being on board with the decision.

She wasn't exactly on board with the decision as it went down but Slate did a story that I'm linking to so you can see why. Many people were lied to and many people died. The liars are responsible for the dead. It's worth watching Senator Clinton's speech on the Senate floor before the vote was cast to see the entire context. Have a great evening.

"...an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites."

(snip)

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

That is called having your cake and eating it too. She was fully on board just like Senator Leiberman but lacked the courage of her convictions and jumped ship when Obama went to her left. I'm sorry but nobody believed that senate chamber spin when she ran against Obama and nobody is believing it now. She is complicit in the Iraq war you hate and doesn't get to wash her hands of her vote. If you are truly unable to forgive George W Bush then you should be honest and recognize that she can't be forgiven as well.

Sorry, but this is all on GWB. It was a war of choice, an unnecessary war, a war congress approved but GWB didn't have to execute. Him and Cheney should both rot in hell and I really wonder how either of them sleep at night. You neocons can say it was right, blame it on Hillary or still believe there's WMDs in Iraq but it doesn't change the facts. GWB made a colossal mistake, one we're still paying for and will be paying for for generations.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

Nobody is "blaming" Hillary. It was W's decision and his alone. She just happened to fully endorse the decision. Anybody who sees W's invasion of Iraq as "unforgiveable" and now supports Hillary because of her great judgement is being completely and utterly dishonest. She couldn't "spin" her way out of it when she ran against Obama and she can't "spin" her way out of it. She's the neocon in this race.

Trump is blaming Hillary. He's made that pretty clear....even though he's on record for supporting the war as well.

He's certainly trying to have it both ways as well. I am not defending him on this point. My argument is with all the Hillary supporters who just hated the decision to go to Iraq yet have no problem backing her. They are being dishonest and if they really think it was the worst foreign policy decision of all time then they shouldn't support her. Pick a third party or don't vote. After all you would be voting for someone who voted for the deaths of thousands of american troops and innocent Iraqis and who voted to destabilize the middle east. How could the haters of the war possibly vote for and yet sleep soundly at night? I just don't get it.

Says the guy Professor from Canada.

Correct.

Why don't you ever criticize the neo-cons who lied us into war and the republican members of the house and senate who also voted for it? You continually blame Hillary and double down on the debacle from the safe and relatively cost free comforts of Canada. You are openly advocating for Canada to step up to the plate and pay more money and commit 100,000+ troops to the lost Iraq cause, yes? Talk about hypocrisy?

When is the Commander in Chief not the Commander in Chief? When you invade Iraq and it turns out you were duped.

You clearly do not pay attention. I just said I do not "blame" Hillary. Please read what I write otherwise it becomes impossible to communicate with you. My students get that. I wish you would as well. So again...for the last time I do not "blame" Hillary for supporting the Iraq war. The argument I am making is that her speech does not absolve her from her vote. She wants to turn around and say "well I voted for a coalition and the UN and multilateralism" which is complete and utter bullshit. Obama knew it was bullshit and ran against her on it...my guess is you loved it when he did. She also proved with the invasion of Libya that she doesn't need UN authorization to go to war. You my friend hate neocons but you support Hillary who proved her neocon bonafides not just in Iraq but in Libya as well. At what point do you turn around and say "how can I support someone who keeps voting to invade other countries". So again and again and again until you finally process what I am saying...I am not blaming her for Iraq...I am calling you and others out for hating everything about neocon Bush and Cheney yet loving her. She is the neocon in this race and you are giving her your vote.

She's no Bush and sure as hell ain't no Cheney the devil himself , Trump has repeatedly said to bomb the hell out of Isis his no angel himself ...

Libya was her call. She took out gaddafi without united nations approval and let it collapse. It is the equivalent of Iraq minus the messy nation building part. She's the neocon in this race.

So much truth.

unsung

Btw, lester holt is a hack.

I want Milo to moderate the next one.

tweedyfanjen

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

Cliffy6745

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

$32k in NYC and $32k In Plattsburgh, NY are two very different salaries...

HughFreakingDillon

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

if you are going to work at a fast food joint, your degree matters not.

if you are going to work in your field, a minimum wage shouldn't be required. industry standards should be good enough. generally college educated folks going into their field aren't making less than $15.

unsung

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

Pay them $200/hr.

Smellyman

HughFreakingDillon said:

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

if you are going to work at a fast food joint, your degree matters not.

if you are going to work in your field, a minimum wage shouldn't be required. industry standards should be good enough. generally college educated folks going into their field aren't making less than $15.

HughFreakingDillon said:

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

if you are going to work at a fast food joint, your degree matters not.

if you are going to work in your field, a minimum wage shouldn't be required. industry standards should be good enough. generally college educated folks going into their field aren't making less than $15.

unless you are a wildlife biologist. I never made that. Teachers won't make that either in their first job.

HesCalledDyer

HughFreakingDillon said:

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

if you are going to work at a fast food joint, your degree matters not.

if you are going to work in your field, a minimum wage shouldn't be required. industry standards should be good enough. generally college educated folks going into their field aren't making less than $15.

College educated, work in my field. Been at my job almost 15 years and I'm making just a little over this. It's ridiculous. I don't have kids. I don't know how anyone who does have kids survives on this pay scale, because I barely get by.

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

It's kind of like asking "how big of an idiot are you?"

Yeah, that's how I took it too.

HughFreakingDillon

HesCalledDyer said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

if you are going to work at a fast food joint, your degree matters not.

if you are going to work in your field, a minimum wage shouldn't be required. industry standards should be good enough. generally college educated folks going into their field aren't making less than $15.

College educated, work in my field. Been at my job almost 15 years and I'm making just a little over this. It's ridiculous. I don't have kids. I don't know how anyone who does have kids survives on this pay scale, because I barely get by.

really? that's crazy.

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

HesCalledDyer said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

if you are going to work at a fast food joint, your degree matters not.

if you are going to work in your field, a minimum wage shouldn't be required. industry standards should be good enough. generally college educated folks going into their field aren't making less than $15.

College educated, work in my field. Been at my job almost 15 years and I'm making just a little over this. It's ridiculous. I don't have kids. I don't know how anyone who does have kids survives on this pay scale, because I barely get by.

really? that's crazy.

There are a lot of jobs that require education but pay poorly (held by the great people of the world who don't think of money as priority #1) .... too bad so many people hate unions these days. This is the kind of thing unions fight to change.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

HesCalledDyer said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tweedyfanjen said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I dont make very much at all. I dont think people should be making $15 an hour to START. Maybe there shoukd be minimum increases based on length of employment, etc, but $15 for an entry level job is too much. Or maybe base the starting wage on local economics, as pj soul eluded to.

Even for those with college degrees? $15/ hour would be less than $32k/ year.

if you are going to work at a fast food joint, your degree matters not.

if you are going to work in your field, a minimum wage shouldn't be required. industry standards should be good enough. generally college educated folks going into their field aren't making less than $15.

College educated, work in my field. Been at my job almost 15 years and I'm making just a little over this. It's ridiculous. I don't have kids. I don't know how anyone who does have kids survives on this pay scale, because I barely get by.

really? that's crazy.

There are a lot of jobs that require education but pay poorly (held by the great people of the world who don't think of money as priority #1) .... too bad so many people hate unions these days. This is the kind of thing unions fight to change.

I'm one of those. when I started in this job, it was 24K per year. Now, 10 years later, I'm about 37K, which is peanuts compared to pretty much everyone in my peer group (and I'm 42 years old). I thought I was in the minority.