American Politics

[xi0]

Gas prices here rose 20 cents in the past week, Obama is ruining the economy. Also I do agree with the war on coal, all those hardworking american families that cant pursue the American dream because democrats want to only enhance the quality of life for themselves and feel good about using more electricity to fund their ipods and ipads instead of using fuel sources that can keep people employed.

But still, compared to how it was only a few years ago, it's much better than what it was. Now, this could not have anything to do with our economic policy, but the average voter isn't going to care about that.

This happens any time emergent technology comes about. The companies that employ these people either put a stake in said new technology or they fall by the wayside. There is nothing "democrat" about it. Other than to say that they're obviously more interested in renewable sources of energy. Otherwise, new and emerging industry is something republicans are always for. So I'm not sure why you have an attitude towards it. This is how capitalism works. But it is the fossil fuel industry that receives so much subsidies, so one can hardly say that the "free market" is at work here.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

So Ted Cruz shot himself on the foot with his endorsement to Donald Trump, not that I give a shit since he's a symbol of the GOP's greatest hypocrisy. I'm glad that he's not the nominee.

Anyone here watched the interview between Hillary and Zach Galifianakis? I've had a good laugh at the ending.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 23, 2016 ---

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...wing-9-11-victims-to-sue-saudi-arabia/7873184

I'm glad that he vetoed the bill, but the real problem is Congress. If they passed this disastrous bill, then that would probably be the end of the U.S. Economy (we're already broke as it is, with a national debt of over $16 Trillion). Then it doesn't help that I'm reading the Facebook comments people are making (like how someone claims that "it further proves that Obama is a muslim destroying the west"), which makes Tinfoiled nutjobs look like PhD Professors with 120+ IQs.

 

[xi0]

I'm glad that he vetoed the bill, but the real problem is Congress. If they passed this disastrous bill, then that would probably be the end of the U.S. Economy (we're already broke as it is, with a national debt of over $16 Trillion).

I'm not sure I see the correlation between the bill not being vetoed and the end of the US Economy...? I mean, I don't see this expanded upon in this article. Am I missing something? There's a difference between it setting some sort of legal precedent (which I still see as debatable) and whatever effect it could have on our economy. A "senior Saudi Prince" posturing doesn't necessarily mean anything.

The issue really is tort being an avenue for the family of victims of the attacks because regardless of what intelligence implicates, it's hard to imagine anyone actually being brought to justice regarding it. If people within the Saudi government are directly responsible for funding the attacks in any way, I fail to see what is objectionable about it.

 

[M3J]

Christ, fuck Ted Cruz. This lying piece of shit went from being against Trump to supporting and blowing him. he's an idiot, and so are the republicans and democrats voting for their party because it aligns with what they want rather than what's better. People like Cruz and Ryan are why this country's in deep shit.

Gas prices here rose 20 cents in the past week, Obama is ruining the economy. Also I do agree with the war on coal, all those hardworking american families that cant pursue the American dream because democrats want to only enhance the quality of life for themselves and feel good about using more electricity to fund their ipods and ipads instead of using fuel sources that can keep people employed.

How is 20 cents an indication of anything? Gas prices fluctuate all the time, and it was at its highest when Bush was the president and went down during Obama's reign. Obama's not ruining the economy, and some stats say he's done a good job, better than Bush anyway.

The ironic part about accusing democrats of this is conservatives doing the same exact thing, but in ways that hurt others or robs them of their money. Why is it okay conservatives and bankers and CEOs can enhance the quality of life for themselves and hurt hardworking people who need money to make ends meet?

So Ted Cruz shot himself on the foot with his endorsement to Donald Trump, not that I give a shit since he's a symbol of the GOP's greatest hypocrisy. I'm glad that he's not the nominee.

Anyone here watched the interview between Hillary and Zach Galifianakis? I've had a good laugh at the ending.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 24, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 23, 2016 ---

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-...wing-9-11-victims-to-sue-saudi-arabia/7873184

I'm glad that he vetoed the bill, but the real problem is Congress. If they passed this disastrous bill, then that would probably be the end of the U.S. Economy (we're already broke as it is, with a national debt of over $16 Trillion). Then it doesn't help that I'm reading the Facebook comments people are making (like how someone claims that "it further proves that Obama is a muslim destroying the west"), which makes Tinfoiled nutjobs look like PhD Professors with 120+ IQs.

Wouldn't we be getting money from Saudi Arabia? How would that end the economy or make us even more broke? Or did I misunderstand/misread?

 

[shionoro]

@M3J From the link:

"A senior Saudi Prince reportedly threatened to pull billions of dollars out of US assets if it becomes law, but Saudi officials now distance themselves from that claim."

Furthermore, obama feared for other countries to make similar laws, which could be able to hurt the US troups on foreign soil.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I'm not sure I see the correlation between the bill not being vetoed and the end of the US Economy...? I mean, I don't see this expanded upon in this article. Am I missing something? There's a difference between it setting some sort of legal precedent (which I still see as debatable) and whatever effect it could have on our economy. A "senior Saudi Prince" posturing doesn't necessarily mean anything.

The issue really is tort being an avenue for the family of victims of the attacks because regardless of what intelligence implicates, it's hard to imagine anyone actually being brought to justice regarding it. If people within the Saudi government are directly responsible for funding the attacks in any way, I fail to see what is objectionable about it.

If this procedure enables the family victims to sue a country (or, more specifically, the government), then that would also be a gateway for other people to sue the U.S. for the collateral damage we've caused. The Doctors w/o Boarders, the family that had their wedding bombed, and even the Iraqis and Afghanis would be able to sue us. Granted, that may depend on the victor of the case, but just imagine if they lost their cases...

Wouldn't we be getting money from Saudi Arabia? How would that end the economy or make us even more broke? Or did I misunderstand/misread?

Loopholes that would enable other foreign countries to sue the U.S. If it works one way, then it works the other way. Consider the damage we've caused in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan (and let's also not forget the Doctors w/o Boarders and the wedding bombings) and the case losses.

@M3J From the link:

"A senior Saudi Prince reportedly threatened to pull billions of dollars out of US assets if it becomes law, but Saudi officials now distance themselves from that claim."

Furthermore, obama feared for other countries to make similar laws, which could be able to hurt the US troups on foreign soil.

Thank you.

 

[Styx]

Looking at our options for president makes me sick. On one hand we have a lying, abusive, manipulative monster (who laughed about freeing a rapist) and on the other we have an arrogant, ignorant businessman who has no filter and can't get what he does support or doesn't support straight.

If only this country were intelligent enough to vote for someone that is actually capable of fixing this country instead of radicals. Look at Gary Johnson people. It is possible to find someone who isn't a raging liberal or a crazy conservative.

I wouldn't blame her if she's sick and tired of the whole Benghazi controversy. Millions of Taxpayers' money are being poured over countless of investigations.

Meanwhile, on Florida: Tim Canova lost to Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the 23rd Congressional District Primary. I've basically lost faith in the state, especially how they've allowed someone who gave the middle finger to millions of voters to win such political position.

If she's sick and tired of it, she shouldn't have refused them security and lie to the world about the cause of the attack and her involvement in it. Innocent people died. It should stick with her for the rest of her life.

Regardless, I would hardly call the effort to investigate deaths caused by one of her countless mishaps and lies a "waste of money". She is absolutely incompetent and a liar who believes her voters are all idiots and easily manipulated.

EDIT

Posted without content. Sorry, new to site and I guess I pressed something too soon. Let me fix this...

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

If she's sick and tired of it, she shouldn't have refused them security and lie to the world about the cause of the attack and her involvement in it. Innocent people died. It should stick with her for the rest of her life.

Except these guys knew what they signed up for. In case you've missed this: the sister of one of the victims forgave Hillary (I'm unsure about the rest of the families, but I do know that they keep telling Trump not to use their names for political purposes).

Don't get the wrong idea: I'm not saying they deserved to die or the Benghazi incident was justified or anything along that line. It's a tragic that 4 people lost their lives, and it's reasonable that Hillary failed her job as secretary, but we have a history of U.S. Embassies under attack since 1924, and Benghazi isn't even remotely that devastating compared to the others (with the Nairobi attacks of 1998 being the deadliest, a total of 213 deaths including 10 U.S. Personnel and 2 U.S. security guard).

 

[Styx]

Except these guys knew what they signed up for. In case you've missed this: the sister of one of the victims forgave Hillary (I'm unsure about the rest of the families, but I do know that they keep telling Trump not to use their names for political purposes).

Don't get the wrong idea: I'm not saying they deserved to die or the Benghazi incident was justified or anything along that line. It's a tragic that 4 people lost their lives, and it's reasonable that Hillary failed her job as secretary, but we have a history of U.S. Embassies under attack since 1924, and Benghazi isn't even remotely that devastating compared to the others (with the Nairobi attacks of 1998 being the deadliest, a total of 213 deaths including 10 U.S. Personnel and 2 U.S. security guard).

How does signing up for risks make what she did better? They didn't sign up to be betrayed and left behind like trash. And why does it matter if someone related to the victims forgave Hillary? Does the fact that one of the mothers holds her responsible mean something to you then? Regardless, does that make the things she has done go away magically? Does it make her incompetence any less apparent? No, it doesn't. This isn't the first time she lied and abused her powers and it won't be the last.

The fact that we had failed security for our embassies in the past should not excuse Hillary from this as well. She needs to be held responsible for once in her life for her actions and lies. Enough with slapping her wrists and laughing about it. And I consider the lives of four Americans just as devastating as any other above it, especially when the person directly responsible for it lied about it and disrespected their lives by saying it was caused by an anti-Islamic video when it was due to her incompetence.

She is not made of president material, not with the way that she lies and abuses her power or with her belief that her voters are all idiots she can easily manipulate.

(If it sounds like I am being aggressive towards you, I apologize. That is not my intent.)

 

[xi0]

If this procedure enables the family victims to sue a country (or, more specifically, the government), then that would also be a gateway for other people to sue the U.S. for the collateral damage we've caused. The Doctors w/o Boarders, the family that had their wedding bombed, and even the Iraqis and Afghanis would be able to sue us. Granted, that may depend on the victor of the case, but just imagine if they lost their cases...

Well, I still fail to see the link between unintended collateral damage, and the deliberate and intentional acts on 9/11. Iraq and Aghanistan were war zones, midtown Manhattan wasn't.

But even then, if you think countries should be held accountable for such things, then I don't see much of a problem with it in theory.

Loopholes that would enable other foreign countries to sue the U.S. If it works one way, then it works the other way. Consider the damage we've caused in countries like Iraq or Afghanistan (and let's also not forget the Doctors w/o Boarders and the wedding bombings) and the case losses.

Not necessarily. It seems to me that a the country would have to have something akin to an extradition agreement in regards to civil law. I mean, the main issue this is happening at all is because the criminal justice system wouldn't work due to something like diplomatic immunity.

I realize that a most of this is conjecture since there still isn't a 100% proven link between elements within the Saudi government and the attack, but there's more than enough suggestion there for litigation to be justified if a lawyer wanted to. And Obama is going to get pushback for this from most of Congress probably.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

How does signing up for risks make what she did better? They didn't sign up to be betrayed and left behind like trash. And why does it matter if someone related to the victims forgave Hillary? Does the fact that one of the mothers holds her responsible mean something to you then? Regardless, does that make the things she has done go away magically? Does it make her incompetence any less apparent? No, it doesn't. This isn't the first time she lied and abused her powers and it won't be the last.

You misunderstood. I never said Hillary should be forgiven for her lack of responsibility; I'm only saying that working in Embassies involves enormous risks that security usually involves the said-government's responsibility (in other words, Libyan Government; feel free to correct me tho). You're right that she failed as secretary, and that she should've done more.

The fact that we had failed security for our embassies in the past should not excuse Hillary from this as well. She needs to be held responsible for once in her life for her actions and lies. Enough with slapping her wrists and laughing about it. And I consider the lives of four Americans just as devastating as any other above it, especially when the person directly responsible for it lied about it and disrespected their lives by saying it was caused by an anti-Islamic video when it was due to her incompetence.

She is not made of president material, not with the way that she lies and abuses her power or with her belief that her voters are all idiots she can easily manipulate.

(If it sounds like I am being aggressive towards you, I apologize. That is not my intent.)

You've missed the point: it's not about the past embassies under attack justifies/excuses Hillary; it's about the numbers. Having 4 people dead is an average number (if not, lower), which is better a single digit number than a 3 digit number. You're right that the 4 American lives did matter, but the ones that has the right to complain about it are the family of these victims. As heartless as I may sound (and a dick, which isn't intentional), but I'm one not to really care for the victims because I have never met them or even knew them (Think about it this way: I never cared about them before, why should I now?).

Also, could you please stop calling her a liar? I find it quite annoying that people don't realize that you literally cannot become a politician by not becoming a liar. She's a liar, yes, but so are many other politicians.
And just so you know, I'm not trying to sound like an apologist nor am I trying to defend Hillary. You're right that she maybe unfit to become president and that she abuses her powers.

Well, I still fail to see the link between unintended collateral damage, and the deliberate and intentional acts on 9/11. Iraq and Aghanistan were war zones, midtown Manhattan wasn't.

But even then, if you think countries should be held accountable for such things, then I don't see much of a problem with it in theory.

The problem here is that Iraq and Afghanistan (or just Iraq) were illegal wars, wars that wasn't supposed to happen but it did. They claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destructions, and they found not a single weapon that fits that category, and now because of the war that enabled the rise of ISIL, Iraq is in a clusterfuck of a nation than it ever was before. The civilians (or what remains there) can and will enable a lawsuit against the U.S. (and others who were involved, like the U.K).

Not necessarily. It seems to me that a the country would have to have something akin to an extradition agreement in regards to civil law. I mean, the main issue this is happening at all is because the criminal justice system wouldn't work due to something like diplomatic immunity.

I realize that a most of this is conjecture since there still isn't a 100% proven link between elements within the Saudi government and the attack, but there's more than enough suggestion there for litigation to be justified if a lawyer wanted to. And Obama is going to get pushback for this from most of Congress probably.

How so? If U.S. sues Saudi over 9/11, then why shouldn't Iraq sue the U.S. (and other countries involved) over an illegal invasion when it's impact is far greater than 9/11 by a landslide?

 

[Styx]

You misunderstood. I never said Hillary should be forgiven for her lack of responsibility; I'm only saying that working in Embassies involves enormous risks that security usually involves the said-government's responsibility (in other words, Libyan Government; feel free to correct me tho). You're right that she failed as secretary, and that she should've done more.

It would have been one thing if she had made these mistakes and admit to them, but she didn't. She tried to hide it and blame others for it. Even if the job is risky, it shouldn't change the fact that she did really horrible things and then did more to cover her own back. She should have been removed from her position immediately.

You've missed the point: it's not about the past embassies under attack justifies/excuses Hillary; it's about the numbers. Having 4 people dead is an average number (if not, lower), which is better a single digit number than a 3 digit number. You're right that the 4 American lives did matter, but the ones that has the right to complain about it are the family of these victims. As heartless as I may sound (and a dick, which isn't intentional), but I'm one not to really care for the victims because I have never met them or even knew them (Think about it this way: I never cared about them before, why should I now?).

Well I consider four innocent lives just as important as a thousand of them and I don't mean to imply anything concerning your character when I say it. It isn't any less important simply because more hadn't suffered or because I hadn't met them before (I understand what you mean by that. A lot of people feel the same way too). I have every right to complain, whether or not I was related to them. They were Americans and she is supposed to protect them. If she cannot do that, and even admit her failures, how can she be our president? How could she protect me or serve me? How could anyone think she is capable of that enormous task when she failed miserably at a lesser one and then twisted her way out of the fault?

The discussion is on her character and her actions have continuously shown she is not a trust worthy person, let alone a competent and decent one.

Also, could you please stop calling her a liar? I find it quite annoying that people don't realize that you literally cannot become a politician by not becoming a liar. She's a liar, yes, but so are many other politicians.
And just so you know, I'm not trying to sound like an apologist nor am I trying to defend Hillary. You're right that she maybe unfit to become president and that she abuses her powers.

May I ask what difference it makes that others are liars? They are a problem too, but they currently aren't running to become my president and haven't committed the same lies that killed fellow Americans. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the rest of them at the moment, but perhaps spreading the truth about Hillary Clinton/discussing it or refusing to vote for her, will do something about just one corrupt, filthy person that could ruin this country with her scheming and selfishness. So I believe that if she is a liar, she should be called one. To be honest, I would call her much worse but I know better than to.

I haven't gotten the impression you are defending her. I would say you are trying to explain how it is common and or not as bad as it could have been...?

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Well I consider four innocent lives just as important as a thousand of them and I don't mean to imply anything concerning your character when I say it. It isn't any less important simply because more hadn't suffered or because I hadn't met them before (I understand what you mean by that. A lot of people feel the same way too). I have every right to complain, whether or not I was related to them. They were Americans and she is supposed to protect them. If she cannot do that, and even admit her failures, how can she be our president? How could she protect me or serve me? How could anyone think she is capable of that enormous task when she failed miserably at a lesser one and then twisted her way out of the fault?

The discussion is on her character and her actions have continuously shown she is not a trust worthy person, let alone a competent and decent one.

I guess I should've also added that the ones that I should feel sorry are the family of the victims, after re-reading what I've commented.
But it's like I said tho: you're correct that she failed as secretary and that she's not decent enough to fit as POTUS. More should've happened when it comes to the response, but I guess the only ones who can stop her is Congress (which I doubt they'll do something about it; if they failed to respond to things like the Wall Street crooks that destroyed the Economy or even the Sandyhook shooting that resulted in 20+ dead children, then I doubt they'll do something about a president who will endanger the country).

May I ask what difference it makes that others are liars? They are a problem too, but they currently aren't running to become my president and haven't committed the same lies that killed fellow Americans. Unfortunately I can't do anything about the rest of them at the moment, but perhaps spreading the truth about Hillary Clinton/discussing it or refusing to vote for her, will do something about just one corrupt, filthy person that could ruin this country with her scheming and selfishness. So I believe that if she is a liar, she should be called one. To be honest, I would call her much worse but I know better than to.

Well, it's just that being a liar is part of a politician's nature. You wouldn't hear a politician say things like "I was at a strip club with all the bitches!" or "I got $5 million from the NRA to yell 'Fuck you!' to anti-guns advocates" or just anything that may deem immortal to the public eye. Granted, not all politicians are liars, but it's really difficult to pinpoint someone who fits that category (I can only think of Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders; a shame neither of them are actual candidates for the presidency).
But as much as it pains me to say it myself, Trump and Hillary are the only ones who could win the election. Gary Johnson doesn't even have 10% of the votes, and Jill Stein... forget her, she's just another delusional clown believing that she has a chance at winning (why people are supporting her is beyond my knowledge). But it's like I said earlier: Congress is the only one that can stop this disaster from destroying the country, but it doesn't help when it's filled with clowns refusing to even nominate Garland Merrick.

 

[Styx]

I guess I should've also added that the ones that I should feel sorry are the family of the victims, after re-reading what I've commented.
But it's like I said tho: you're correct that she failed as secretary and that she's not decent enough to fit as POTUS. More should've happened when it comes to the response, but I guess the only ones who can stop her is Congress (which I doubt they'll do something about it; if they failed to respond to things like the Wall Street crooks that destroyed the Economy or even the Sandyhook shooting that resulted in 20+ dead children, then I doubt they'll do something about a president who will endanger the country).

You don't have to say those things, you know. It won't be assumed, or shouldn't be, that you don't care.

I don't think what she did and what happened is comparable to crooks destroying the economy or the illegitimate use of firearms, especially the later. Such are the results of civilians, while she worked as Secretary when she lied, scammed and allowed the things that happened to happen. Though I agree it seems nothing will be done about her, not even after her latest scandal. She's apart of too many things that make her untouchable.

Well, it's just that being a liar is part of a politician's nature. You wouldn't hear a politician say things like "I was at a strip club with all the bitches!" or "I got $5 million from the NRA to yell 'Fuck you!' to anti-guns advocates" or just anything that may deem immortal to the public eye. Granted, not all politicians are liars, but it's really difficult to pinpoint someone who fits that category (I can only think of Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders; a shame neither of them are actual candidates for the presidency).
But as much as it pains me to say it myself, Trump and Hillary are the only ones who could win the election. Gary Johnson doesn't even have 10% of the votes, and Jill Stein... forget her, she's just another delusional clown believing that she has a chance at winning (why people are supporting her is beyond my knowledge). But it's like I said earlier: Congress is the only one that can stop this disaster from destroying the country, but it doesn't help when it's filled with clowns refusing to even nominate Garland Merrick.

I do not think it is part of being a politician's nature. I think most people are just liars or cheats or disgusting and they like the power that comes with being a politician, so they flock to it. Even if they are in the extreme minority, there are politicians out there that aren't corrupt and actually mean Americans—left or right (religious or not)—well and wish to make their daily lives improve as you said.

I don't know whether Bernie Sanders is a liar. I have no reason to say that he is, but he is not fit for POTUS either, just thankfully for far less severe reasons than those for Hillary. I understand our options make us pick between the lesser evils (damn it all that Gary Johnson doesn't stand a chance in hell unless the two do something really unspeakable) and it sucks. I will not put myself in that situation though. I will vote Gary Johnson no matter how impossible it is he will win. Maybe when one of the devils are elected, some people will see Gary's name and look him up to help put a worthy man in office.

(Who is Jill Stein? Never heard of her before.)

 

[xi0]

The problem here is that Iraq and Afghanistan (or just Iraq) were illegal wars, wars that wasn't supposed to happen but it did. They claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destructions, and they found not a single weapon that fits that category, and now because of the war that enabled the rise of ISIL, Iraq is in a clusterfuck of a nation than it ever was before. The civilians (or what remains there) can and will enable a lawsuit against the U.S. (and others who were involved, like the U.K).

Illegal by whose standard? I think it's easier to apply this logic to the war in Iraq due to faulty intelligence (at best), but most of this is hindsight. Despite the interventionist policy of the Bush years, we didn't destroy things and leave them by the wayside, regardless of collateral damage.

American foreign policy is not the sole factor in the rise of ISIL. The civil war in Syria started 5 years before american military operations ceased in Iraq. Wahabbist movements are a Saudi export. Ironically, this is the basis of linking elements of the Saudi government to 9/11 in the first place.

And all that being said, if Iraqi civilians wish to do so, then I don't see what would stop them, or what should stop them in theory. Unless we're just supposed to use the "might makes right" argument.

How so? If U.S. sues Saudi over 9/11, then why shouldn't Iraq sue the U.S. (and other countries involved) over an illegal invasion when it's impact is far greater than 9/11 by a landslide?

The legality of the invasion of Iraq is still debated. The legality of 9/11 isn't. The scale of the impact of both events would only be relevant in regards to damages claimed by "injured parties", not whether tort should be allowed to be pursued by victims in the first place.

When it comes to the family of 9/11 victims, I don't really see the logic working against what they would hope to accomplish. The civil law system exists for this exact purpose. Obama is rejecting it on the grounds of diplomatic reasons, in which his veto is his prerogative, but I don't see how Congress won't work to overturn such a decision. If there is a legitimate link between one of our "closest allies" in the ME and the attacks, then holding them legally responsible only makes sense. Another problem with this is the government censoring such information in the first place. If the theory is correct, the intelligence community shares blame as well.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

You don't have to say those things, you know. It won't be assumed, or shouldn't be, that you don't care.

I don't think what she did and what happened is comparable to crooks destroying the economy or the illegitimate use of firearms, especially the later. Such are the results of civilians, while she worked as Secretary when she lied, scammed and allowed the things that happened to happen. Though I agree it seems nothing will be done about her, not even after her latest scandal. She's apart of too many things that make her untouchable.

It's more about how Congress would react to a crisis or a tragic within the nation, instead of actually comparing apples and oranges. The only way I can think that they'll impeach or take a stand in general is if it's done for political advantage.

I do not think it is part of being a politician's nature. I think most people are just liars or cheats or disgusting and they like the power that comes with being a politician, so they flock to it. Even if they are in the extreme minority, there are politicians out there that aren't corrupt and actually mean Americans—left or right (religious or not)—well and wish to make their daily lives improve as you said.

I don't know whether Bernie Sanders is a liar. I have no reason to say that he is, but he is not fit for POTUS either, just thankfully for far less severe reasons than those for Hillary. I understand our options make us pick between the lesser evils (damn it all that Gary Johnson doesn't stand a chance in hell unless the two do something really unspeakable) and it sucks. I will not put myself in that situation though. I will vote Gary Johnson no matter how impossible it is he will win. Maybe when one of the devils are elected, some people will see Gary's name and look him up to help put a worthy man in office.

(Who is Jill Stein? Never heard of her before.)

Bernie Sanders has a really good reputation of being an honest politician (I've heard his approval rating in Vermont is up to 89%). He may not be the best candidate, but he is more than qualified than Hillary and Trump combined (or, at least that's the way I see it).
Well, the problem that I'm seeing about Gary Johnson is that there really isn't a lot of spotlight media for him, outside of using some of his mistakes like "What's Aleppo". If he were to gain a lot of media attention as Trump, he *might* have an opportunity to take off as the first member of a third party to win an election.
I don't know though, I wish it was possible for him to win, but you have people who supports Hillary no matter what, and people who supports that nutjob who literally has zero experience in Politics (let alone, business).

I'm just curious, but are you being sarcastic, or serious? I really can't tell. ;D

Illegal by whose standard? I think it's easier to apply this logic to the war in Iraq due to faulty intelligence (at best), but most of this is hindsight. Despite the interventionist policy of the Bush years, we didn't destroy things and leave them by the wayside, regardless of collateral damage.

American foreign policy is not the sole factor in the rise of ISIL. The civil war in Syria started 5 years before american military operations ceased in Iraq. Wahabbist movements are a Saudi export. Ironically, this is the basis of linking elements of the Saudi government to 9/11 in the first place.

And all that being said, if Iraqi civilians wish to do so, then I don't see what would stop them, or what should stop them in theory. Unless we're just supposed to use the "might makes right" argument.

But the collateral damage done by the U.S. enabled the rise of ISIL tho. It's definitely not the cause, but the war has definitely benefited them (many of their recruiters happened to be former Sadam Hussein's soldiers). It's not the matter that the U.S. allowed ISIL to form nor is it that we've allowed Wahabbism to be born, because that's not true (ISIL only broke apart from Al-Qaeda).
Truth to be told, I'm unsure why they haven't done so. It could've happened years ago, but I guess it might also have something to do with their social environment (lack of technology, ect...).

The legality of the invasion of Iraq is still debated. The legality of 9/11 isn't. The scale of the impact of both events would only be relevant in regards to damages claimed by "injured parties", not whether tort should be allowed to be pursued by victims in the first place.

When it comes to the family of 9/11 victims, I don't really see the logic working against what they would hope to accomplish. The civil law system exists for this exact purpose. Obama is rejecting it on the grounds of diplomatic reasons, in which his veto is his prerogative, but I don't see how Congress won't work to overturn such a decision. If there is a legitimate link between one of our "closest allies" in the ME and the attacks, then holding them legally responsible only makes sense. Another problem with this is the government censoring such information in the first place. If the theory is correct, the intelligence community shares blame as well.

But what would really achieve by suing Saudi Arabia? It sure as hell will not achieve "justice", so the only benefit I see through this is money (which I see this as insulting to the victims of 9/11; how could people use their dead family member or friend for finance advantage?).
I don't know. I just see this bill as dangerous that enables foreigners to sue the U.S.; if they happened to be the victors, then they'll get paid through the Tax Revenues (it only makes sense, unless the government is doing some fishy business).

 

[shionoro]

Bernie Sanders has a really good reputation of being an honest politician (I've heard his approval rating in Vermont is up to 89%). He may not be the best candidate, but he is more than qualified than Hillary and Trump combined (or, at least that's the way I see it).

I do not see it that way. I mean, clinton's approval ratings as new york senator were really high, too.
She got reelected into office with a better margin than in her first election (67% against 55% earlier).
Sanders got 65 against 71 in the LATER election.
That's even better and both obviously did something right when their approval in the elections went up.
But those 4% difference are not that big in my book.
The people who were governed by them both thought they were doing a pretty good job, and that is what makes me think they both would not make bad presidents.
I am aware that a president has to handle foreign politics and not only his state tho.
But even there i would say clinton has a good trackrecord. Aside from benghazi, her approval ratings as a secretary of state were really high.

As i see it, clinton's approval ratings go down when it is election time in important elections. Because that is the time everyone sets out to throw shit at her. When she is just left alone to work, people like what she does.

 

[Styx]

It's more about how Congress would react to a crisis or a tragic within the nation, instead of actually comparing apples and oranges. The only way I can think that they'll impeach or take a stand in general is if it's done for political advantage.

It really seemed like it would have been an advantage for them when it happened or at least when the truth came out, though it is so shameful to realize they won't do anything for the benefit of the nation unless it largely benefits them first.

Bernie Sanders has a really good reputation of being an honest politician (I've heard his approval rating in Vermont is up to 89%). He may not be the best candidate, but he is more than qualified than Hillary and Trump combined (or, at least that's the way I see it).
Well, the problem that I'm seeing about Gary Johnson is that there really isn't a lot of spotlight media for him, outside of using some of his mistakes like "What's Aleppo". If he were to gain a lot of media attention as Trump, he *might* have an opportunity to take off as the first member of a third party to win an election.
I don't know though, I wish it was possible for him to win, but you have people who supports Hillary no matter what, and people who supports that nutjob who literally has zero experience in Politics (let alone, business).

I think they are both nutjobs, just for different reasons. They both would be better suited as garden gnomes in the White House's garden than POTUS. The only comfort I get from this joke of a presidential selection is that maybe when the country is run into the ground by yet another Democrat or Republican who their own party agenda in their eyes, people will start to look outside of the main parties for candidates who have their heads on straight.

Yea, I know he's barely gotten any spotlight and that makes me so angry as an American. It shouldn't be allowed for media to highlight only their favorite candidates, and it shouldn't be accepted to shun them when debates are going on in order to question their favorite big Republican or Democrat.

I'm just curious, but are you being sarcastic, or serious? I really can't tell. ;D

About Jill Stein? I am serious. I have not heard of her before, and I don't recall seeing her on CNN, Fox or any other news channel.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I do not see it that way. I mean, clinton's approval ratings as new york senator were really high, too.
She got reelected into office with a better margin than in her first election (67% against 55% earlier).
Sanders got 65 against 71 in the LATER election.
That's even better and both obviously did something right when their approval in the elections went up.
But those 4% difference are not that big in my book.
The people who were governed by them both thought they were doing a pretty good job, and that is what makes me think they both would not make bad presidents.
I am aware that a president has to handle foreign politics and not only his state tho.
But even there i would say clinton has a good trackrecord. Aside from benghazi, her approval ratings as a secretary of state were really high.

As i see it, clinton's approval ratings go down when it is election time in important elections. Because that is the time everyone sets out to throw shit at her. When she is just left alone to work, people like what she does.

Well, that's when she was as a New York Senator, which I've heard great things about that (especially what she's done for the Black community, which could explain why she is popular among them). Or, at least that's what my parents believed.
I don't know. Sanders has been known to push for universal healthcare and even heavily criticized Alan Greenspan for his stupid ideology (which he later admits that it's flawed), as well as even "predicted" the Panama Papers back in 2011. I'm unsure what he's done in Vermont, and I don't have a lot of time to look it up, sadly.

I think they are both nutjobs, just for different reasons. They both would be better suited as garden gnomes in the White House's garden than POTUS. The only comfort I get from this joke of a presidential selection is that maybe when the country is run into the ground by yet another Democrat or Republican who their own party agenda in their eyes, people will start to look outside of the main parties for candidates who have their heads on straight.

Yea, I know he's barely gotten any spotlight and that makes me so angry as an American. It shouldn't be allowed for media to highlight only their favorite candidates, and it shouldn't be accepted to shun them when debates are going on in order to question their favorite big Republican or Democrat.

Maybe one day when there are a lot of people who knows there are third-party. One thing's for sure: the GOP will not make it when it comes to their stance (especially on Millennials). Democrats, while they have a lot of issues like the stunt they pulled on Sanders, might become victorious for the upcoming years, but they really need to step-up their game about their candidates.
I don't know, both of the shit party needs a massive reform, but I know that's never going to happen unless Millennials takesover the political platform.

What's also sad is that Gary Johnson isn't going to be on the Debate because he didn't achieved a specific amount of percent. Would've been an interesting turn of event if he actually joined the debate, and maybe he will grab the attention of the American people.

About Jill Stein? I am serious. I have not heard of her before, and I don't recall seeing her on CNN, Fox or any other news channel.

Jill Stein is a Greenparty candidate, but she's riding a boat to nowhere with her stupid party (not to try and sound like a dick, but she's a bloomin' moron). At least Gary Johnson has been extremely impressive on the polls; Jill Stein is around 1% (if not, lower).
But yeah, it's best if you don't know her.

 

[GrySun]

LUL Ted Cruz LUL

Who was it, shioniro maybe, who was arguing me that Cruz made the right choice by refusing to endorse Trump back at the RNC and praising Cruz for being brave and smart?

I doubt that rat's endorsement matters at all.

Christ, fuck Ted Cruz. This lying piece of shit went from being against Trump to supporting and blowing him.

That reminds me of someone... Can't put my finger on it..was it some birdie?