1st Debate! Trump vs Clinton (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
oldfisherman said:
Why is Trump’s opinion on the war so important? He was not a politician with inside info to help him form an opinion. He was relying on the same info we got from the press, which was very slanted.

We have many important issues to fix in this country. Spending so much time on this topic is a waste of energy.
Click to expand...

Because Clinton was for it. They don't want to lose the anti-war crowd to Trump if he was opposed.
 
Denny Crane said:
He said he was opposed to the rush to war.

Sure looks like he suggested not rushing to war.
Click to expand...
Even if that's what he said (I contend you are inferring he said things in that video he did not), that's still not equivalent to saying he was opposed to the Iraq war. He also in that same clip said either go in, or don't go in, make up your mind. You could infer that he was supportive of the Iraq War starting earlier than it started. I don't think we are going to agree on this, so we can leave it at that.
 
Denny Crane said:
CNN continues to report Trump lied, even though they must know by now about this 2003 video.
Click to expand...
Trump has backpedaled on his stands over and over and over....fact check all you want...he just tells people what he thinks they want to hear and he'll change it if it comes back to bite him......Obama's birth certificate comes to mind...his witch hunt for Mexicans has now been watered down to him thinking some can stay...that video is a piece of dust on the double standard table of Trump's campaign...that anyone trusts his judgement at all or holds him to his word lowers my opinion of the ability for folks to make an informed decision in this election. He's a horrible candidate.....that's a fact
 
oldfisherman said:
Why is Trump’s opinion on the war so important? He was not a politician with inside info to help him form an opinion. He was relying on the same info we got from the press, which was very slanted.

We have many important issues to fix in this country. Spending so much time on this topic is a waste of energy.
Click to expand...

People that are held in check by a strong man are not necessarily peace loving candidates for democracy as we have been lead to believe.
When you take out the brute, in the spirit of doing good, you don't have any idea of what you will get unless you have a complete plan to install the democracy and support it.
But then no President has the moral authority to force this vision on another people so it almost can not end in other way than complete chaos.

Trump knows this fact and Hillary has proven she does not, nor will she learn the lesson.
It is worthy of discussion.
 
oldfisherman said:
Why is Trump’s opinion on the war so important? He was not a politician with inside info to help him form an opinion. He was relying on the same info we got from the press, which was very slanted.
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. He could have had a perfectly good talking point by saying 'It wasn't my job to decide whether to go to war back then. It was Hillary's job, and she blew it'.
That's a perfectly honest thing to say. But it isn't what he said.

Instead, he's repeatedly claimed to be 'among the first' to oppose the war. Which he certainly was not, except for maybe his pillow-talk with Sean Hannity. At best, he was among the last to say "maybe we shouldn't rush it, but I'm not sure".

Thus he took something that he could have hit Hillary over the head with, and shot himself in the foot instead.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Thus he took something that he could have hit Hillary over the head with, and shot himself in the foot instead.
Click to expand...

Ha! So he didn't handle the issue to your standard of perfection. Well dang.
 
This is what opposition to the war looks like. This is from October 2002, 3.5 months before Trump's wishy-washy statement about 'do it or don't do it, I don't know.'

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaida, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Click to expand...

Now, compare and contrast to:

"Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know," Trump said. "He's under a lot of pressure. I think he's doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned."
Click to expand...

Trump is a real anti-war hero, all right.

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
Ha! So he didn't handle the issue to your standard of perfection. Well dang.
Click to expand...

Trump could say he's gonna have fucking monkeys build the wall on the Mexican border and you'd be right along with him
 
Chris Craig said:
Trump could say he's gonna have fucking monkeys build the wall on the Mexican border and you'd be right along with him
Click to expand...

If he could train monkeys to build that wall then more power to him. But uh come on man. LOL.
 
Sedatedfork said:
Even if that's what he said (I contend you are inferring he said things in that video he did not), that's still not equivalent to saying he was opposed to the Iraq war. He also in that same clip said either go in, or don't go in, make up your mind. You could infer that he was supportive of the Iraq War starting earlier than it started. I don't think we are going to agree on this, so we can leave it at that.
Click to expand...

SlyPokerDog said:
"I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war (in Iraq), and yes, even before the war ever started."
— Donald Trump on Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016 in a speech
Click to expand...
 
barfo said:
This is what opposition to the war looks like. This is from October 2002, 3.5 months before Trump's wishy-washy statement about 'do it or don't do it, I don't know.'



Now, compare and contrast to:



Trump is a real anti-war hero, all right.

barfo
Click to expand...
Thanks for the quotes. Sure looks like he suggested focusing on the economy instead of going to war.

Backfire much? Of course you do.
 
blue32 said:
If he could train monkeys to build that wall then more power to him. But uh come on man. LOL.
Click to expand...

Well damn man, there is a few of you on the forum that no matter what babble spews from his mouth (and it's getting less intelligible by the day) that are on board and treating him like he is making any sense...like he actually has ideas or something
 
barfo said:
That's exactly it. He could have had a perfectly good talking point by saying 'It wasn't my job to decide whether to go to war back then. It was Hillary's job, and she blew it'.
That's a perfectly honest thing to say. But it isn't what he said.

Instead, he's repeatedly claimed to be 'among the first' to oppose the war. Which he certainly was not, except for maybe his pillow-talk with Sean Hannity. At best, he was among the last to say "maybe we shouldn't rush it, but I'm not sure".

Thus he took something that he could have hit Hillary over the head with, and shot himself in the foot instead.

barfo
Click to expand...

When we invaded Iraq, the polls were something like 90% support for it. You have proof he was against at least the rush to war before those among that 90% changed their mind.
 
barfo said:
This is what opposition to the war looks like. This is from October 2002, 3.5 months before Trump's wishy-washy statement about 'do it or don't do it, I don't know.'



Now, compare and contrast to:



Trump is a real anti-war hero, all right.

barfo
Click to expand...

I didn't know that Obama was running again.

Here's another quote on the subject:

To the disappointment of some antiwar liberals in her Democratic base, Clinton, the former first lady, voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution in October 2002.

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."
Click to expand...

Hillary's quote sounds considerably more pro-war than Trump's somewhat tepid response on Cavuto's show.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
 
Chris Craig said:
Well damn man, there is a few of you on the forum that no matter what babble spews from his mouth (and it's getting less intelligible by the day) that are on board and treating him like he is making any sense...like he actually has ideas or something
Click to expand...

Regardless It makes for a pretty diverse place! ;)
 
Clinton's message in the rally today is she will make us all installers.
 
Chris Craig said:
Trump could say he's gonna have fucking monkeys build the wall on the Mexican border and you'd be right along with him
Click to expand...

He's not racist, so he wouldn't say that.

Hillary would use Super predators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top