1. We are looking for a volunteer to help out with entering the DC and Marvel comics solicitations. If you are interested, please contact Harley.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Just in time for Halloween, enter for a chance to win a $50 Gift Card from FUN.com! Details here.
    Dismiss Notice

2016 Presidential Election thread (Fall General Election phase)

Discussion in 'Cafe toonzone' started by wonderfly, Jun 14, 2016.

?

Who will you vote for, for President of the United States?

  1. Donald Trump (Republican)

    5 vote(s)
    10.4%
  2. Hillary Clinton (Democrat)

    20 vote(s)
    41.7%
  3. Other (Independent/Third Party)

    7 vote(s)
    14.6%
  4. Abstain

    2 vote(s)
    4.2%
  5. I'm ineligible to vote (due to age, nationality, etc) but I'd vote for Trump

    1 vote(s)
    2.1%
  6. I'm ineligible to vote (due to age, nationality, etc) but I'd vote for Clinton

    8 vote(s)
    16.7%
  7. I'm ineligible to vote (due to age, nationality, etc) but I'd vote "Other" (Independent/Third Party)

    4 vote(s)
    8.3%
  8. I'm ineligible to vote (due to age, nationality, etc) but I'd abstain from voting.

    1 vote(s)
    2.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Spideyzilla

    Spideyzilla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    259
    Not fair at all. For starters, Bush was the one who ordered the pullout date. Not Obama. Obama stuck to the date, but Bush was the one who set it. I'd remind Wonderfly that ISIS sprung up because the woeful new Shia government that the Americans installed began to persecute the long in power Sunnis, and the rebellion of the Sunnis is what started ISIS. It didn't hurt that many ISIS fighters are angry young men who grew up with American bombs hitting their communities their entire lives, people who it wasn't hard to convince to hate the West. Would American occupation really have prevented that? Maybe? Or maybe it would have just sprung up more conflict and the Americans never would have left at all. Would these young terrorists have just said "Well, there's still a few Americans here, oh well!" So we should still occupy an area after the conflict is over forever? Because it was happening no matter what. ISIS was doomed to happen the moment bombs started dropping in Iraq.

    As for being for the Iraq War... you're entitled to your opinion. But there was no victory. The war was incredibly unpopular, and war without homefront support is doomed. Some estimates say there were be 1.2 million dead by the time Obama pulled out. Over a trillion dollars spent. And what was it for? WMDs? Nope, Iraq didn't have those. Retaliation for 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved, and Bush openly said that he was more worried about the Iraq invasion that finding bin Laden, who actually did it. I'd also like to remind you that the Bush government originally pinned the anthrax scare on Iraq. Guess what? They weren't involved in that either. It wasn't worth it. Getting involved in the Shia/Sunni conflict is doomed to fail. Perhaps if America hadn't created such a woeful Iraqi government with a dreadful military, then maybe Iraq could fought ISIS off by themselves. To fully prevent ISIS, the American military would basically have had to stayed there till the end of time. To say otherwise is basically propaganda.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. stephane dumas

    stephane dumas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    84
    Which make me wonder what if the borders of the Middle-East was drawed differently than the current one made by the Sykes-Picot agreement like for example, this map done by T.E. Lawrence? If T.E. Lawrence was living currently, what he would had done?

    Meanwhile, guess who built an army for a possibility of a contested election? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...d-legal-armies-possibility-contested-election
    It look almost like if we go in as what sci-fi author/novelist Tom Kratman described in his dystopian novel, "A state of disobidience".
     
  3. MDawg

    MDawg Nerfariously planning

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    16,505
    Likes Received:
    312
    It's hilarious when China of all places criticizes Trump's call to get out of a global climate change pact.

    China is like the epitome of global polluters, so to see it do something rare and outright say Trump's ideas are terrible is quite surprising.

    I'm sure Trump will bellyache about how hypocritical China is for not being part of his pro-black skies program to do away with that lazy blue sky and fresh air with progress.

    Even GOP presidential nominee loser Scott Walker endorses Hillary.
     
    #403 MDawg, Nov 1, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2016
  4. SB20xx

    SB20xx Oooooh!
    Staff Member Moderator Reporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    40,545
    Likes Received:
    256
    ^ Just in case people in this thread take this literally, Scott Walker is being sarcastic in that tweet. Walker's still very much a Trump fanboy.
     
  5. MDawg

    MDawg Nerfariously planning

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    16,505
    Likes Received:
    312
    Yeah, I know. It's just funny how he completely fails at sarcasm completely. Goes back to my earlier comment on Conservatives not understanding humor though.

    Same tweet, but with this pic would have worked vastly better.

    [​IMG]

    It's all about presentation. The picture he used seems like a gigantic, rousing endorsement.
     
  6. stephane dumas

    stephane dumas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    84
    That photo, the angle it was taken reminds me of former Quebec Premier Pauline Marois.
    [​IMG]
     
  7. MDawg

    MDawg Nerfariously planning

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    16,505
    Likes Received:
    312
    Oy! This is US Presidential topic! Not weird Quebecois topic. We don't take kindly to these affronts around here.

    Just for that, Hillary is taking all your maple toffee.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. I.R. Shokew

    I.R. Shokew DISGRACED and Rooting ONLY for Underdogs

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    455
    (Off - topic) Oh, shut up, Walker!

    Walker needs to be chased out of Wisconsin, already... He's wrecked Wisconsin beyond repair and there needs to be retribution of the most painful kind for that. Same with whomever's in charge on Michigan right now. Such great states - now ruined and uninhabitable thanks to fascist corporatist garbage.

    Too bad I feel a Trump Presidency is inevitable, at this point - he may be an idiot, but the worst he can do is cause Great Depression 2 (hopefully with an obstructive enough Congress, even that won't happen). And there's no way he's gonna be trigger - happy enough to cause WW3, either, as much as people think, otherwise.
     
  9. SB20xx

    SB20xx Oooooh!
    Staff Member Moderator Reporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    40,545
    Likes Received:
    256
    Anyone ever tell you you're incredibly hyperbolic? Wisconsin, like any state, has its good and bad parts. Sure, some counties aren't doing too hot financially, but it's not like they're third world warzones or anything.
    No offense, but this is one of the strangest trains of logic I've read recently. You go from lamenting a Trump presidency to basically saying, "Eh, he won't be that bad, the economy might go south but at least he won't start WW3". Within the same sentence. Besides, shouldn't your concern that Trump might cause Great Depression 2 be enough of a reason to vote for the other side? Unless you're convinced Hillary would do the same?
     
  10. I.R. Shokew

    I.R. Shokew DISGRACED and Rooting ONLY for Underdogs

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    455
    Hillary would likely do the same with TPP and the like, as well as getting trigger happy against Russia for dumb reasons. Neither candidate can be trusted not to have that happen, no matter whom I vote for, honestly. It's all just about playing the waiting game now.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. MDawg

    MDawg Nerfariously planning

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    16,505
    Likes Received:
    312
  12. stephane dumas

    stephane dumas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    84
    Another dump from Wikileaks about Clinton and the workings of the elite. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it
     
  13. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    Allright, let's go down the rabbit hole a little ways:

    Read this link. Yes, Bush set the pullout date, it was part of a treaty signed in 2008, his last year in office, but per that link, it was always meant to be renegotiated depending on "conditions on the ground". Condeleeza Rice said the December 31st, 2011 deadline for troop withdrawl was agreed upon to "put the end of the war in sight and left the new U.S. President a firm foundation for a successful conclusion of our presence there."

    As that link says, the deadline was always meant to be renegotiated, if needed. Obama simply used it as his "exit point". That link goes on to describe how Obama didn't try hard enough to extend troop presence. Compare that to John McCain's plan in 2008, which outlined a goal of having Iraq War VICTORY by 2013. Not a plan for "troop withdrawal", but a plan for VICTORY. Bush and McCain from the start insisted that you don't announce when you're going to leave. Obama failed to heed that warning, seizing upon Bush's timeline, which was meant to be malleable.

    The 2007 U.S. Troop Surge worked. It was working. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" was largely destroyed and dismantled.

    And don't give me "ISIS is formed from young Muslims who got tired of American bombs hitting their homes" - THAT is liberal "blame the U.S.A." hyperbole.

    Read this link. ISIS is formed from the remnants of "Al Queda in Iraq" which, again, was largely dismantled by the end of the Bush presidency. It's name was changed to "ISIS" in April 2013, and it moved into Syria that year, taking advantage of the civil war there to gain weaponry and recruit new fighters.

    Read this link. President Obama failed to honor his threat to push for the overthrow of President Assad in Syria, if Assad used chemical weapons, which is what happened in August 2013. There is a quote from one of the links above that's very telling:

    "Some have speculated that if the Obama administration had armed the rebels in Syria, then ISIS may not have had an opening in Syria. "I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if we had committed to empowering the moderate Syrian opposition last year," said Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) in August 2014."

    In January 2014, ISIS moved back down into Iraq and took control of Falluja and Ramadi, and from there that's when the media started hearing about the horror stories of ISIS. To Reiterate: The mess in Syria empowered ISIS. Obama's weak stance on not empowering the rebels lead to the rise of ISIS. Obama is to blame for the rise of ISIS.

    And if the game is "Well, we never should've been there in the first place" - all intelligence suggested Saddam Hussein had WMD's. It was Hussein who kicked out the weapons inspectors in the late 90's, with only minimal retaliation by the Clinton presidency. Read this link. Saddam Hussein was in clear violation of U.N. resolutions, though opinions differ as to whether that justified a military response by the United States.

    But beyond WMD's, in Neo-Con thinking, the goal was to install two democracies on either side of Iran, the major terror threat of the Middle East. With a American friendly Afghanistan on one side, and a "Pro-U.S.A." Iraq on the other, Iran would be contained. That was the goal. Yes, it didn't work out that way. But I know between Bush and Obama which president I blame more for the current state of affairs.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    #413 wonderfly, Nov 1, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2016
  14. stephane dumas

    stephane dumas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    84
    Looks like a sad news for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on the polling side http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/01/the-presidential-race-is-still-not-close
     
  15. Red Arrow :D

    Red Arrow :D Proud Beneluxer

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    11,222
    Likes Received:
    785
    No one outside the US, the UK and Israel believed there were any proper WMDs in Iraq. Not even Bush believed this nonsense. He just wanted oil.

    I couldn't find a single Dutch/Swedish/French article about that war that makes Bush look like one of the good guys. Not even from ten years ago.
     
  16. stephane dumas

    stephane dumas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    84
    This French article didn't mentionned Bush but however mentionned the involvement of France in Iraq. http://ici.radio-canada.ca/actualite/zonelibre/03-01/saddam.html and I spotted this special edition of the Montreal La Presse newspaper showing the fall of Saddam's statue. http://collections.banq.qc.ca:81/lapresse/src/cahiers/2003/04/09/X/82812_20030409X.pdf along with a old thread on this French forum.

    And now the Clinton Campaign question release of FBI's Marc Rich pardon records.
     
  17. Spideyzilla

    Spideyzilla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    259
    Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until after the invasion, so let's get that out of the way. There was no victory to be had. Even if they destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq, what then? You still had the Shia and Sunni conflict, which had been kept largely under wraps under Saddam. He ruled with an iron fist, which at least lead to some stability. You still would have had Shias persecuting the already angry Sunnis, and nothing would have changed that. ISIS may have taken a different form, but you can't honestly think that Iraq would have settled down with the new government that was installed. The underlying problems were now in the forefront.
    As I've said, I respect your opinion, but I have many issues with this statement. Al Qaeda in Iraq would not have existed if the invasion hadn't happened. That is not up for debate. You know what's better than defeating something? Never letting it happen in the first place. That is a fact. The 1.5 million dead would not be dead. Let me repeat: 1.5 million. That is also a fact. I'm not being a "blame the USA liberal." I'm pointing out a bad decision when I see it. To not point out bad decisions and admit a country can be responsible for terrible things is dangerous. Do you really think the Sunnis that were overthrown, had their leader capture and were persecuted by the new government weren't going to rebel? And do you really think those young children who grew up in war were going to love America? They would have been ripe for being filled with propaganda, since America was indeed responsible for what was happening to them. Is it excusable for them to join groups like ISIS? No one is saying that. But you have to have a nuanced view as to why many of them joined.
    Okay.
    Obama frankly never should have said anything about that, outside of condemnation and perhaps promises of humanitarian relief. Remember, the very concept of invading Syria was overwhelmingly rejected by the American people in 2013. I can't imagine it would have done much but get America involved in another endless war. I could be wrong.
    Unquestionably. No one is saying Obama is blameless.
    As I have said, that is a horribly simplistic statement. The reason the rebels were not overthrown as to why the moderate rebels were not supported was because the US chose to join its gulf allies, who saw the war as an opportunity to remove Iranian (read: Shia) influence from Syria. Of course, the Iranians and Russians came to Assad's defence, and that is why the war continues to rage. ISIS was an unintended consequence of all this. It's an enormous mess that the Americans certainly share blame. I'd place the blame mostly on Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Hillary Clinton. She was the real force fighting to stand with these allies. Once again, no one has said this adminstration is blameless.
    No. It didn't justify a response. America was supposed to be busy fighting al Qaeda, I think someone else could have been worrying about Saddam. Yes, he was in violation of the U.N, so why did the US have to care at the time? Shouldn't Bush have been more focused on finding bin Laden? If the intelligence thought he had WMDs, then I question the quality of intelligence Bush was receiving. The fact is the Hussein had not struck the United States, and despite the efforts of the Bush administration to say otherwise, he was not a clear and present danger. As I said before, they tried to pin 9/11 and the anthrax scare on him. They were wrong on both of them. There was no reason to be there. If he was so bad and such a threat, why was no interested in helping Bush go after him? I can tell you relations between Canada and America suffered mightily after Jean Chretien refused to go to Iraq. As RedArrow said, Israel and the UK also had interest in going after Iraq. And again, 1.5 million dead, trillions spent, the birth of ISIS. It wasn't worth it.
    It's that Neo-Con thinking that keeps coming up. Trying to play the Middle East like a chess board. They had to be incredibly naive to not expect the infighting between Shias and Sunnis to start up as soon as Hussein went down. You know what? They did know. Here's a quote from Dick Cheney in 1991:
    I guess Cheney forgot that stance a mere 12 years later. Too bad, he pretty well called everything accurately.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    I appreciate your reading through my post, and I've now read through yours, some of which I can agree with, and some I can't. ;)

    I think I'll leave it at, as I don't want to go too far off topic.

    To bring it back to Trump, the one thing I feel can be said is that he is NOT a "Neo-Con" (or a Republican Hawk, or whatever term you wish to use). I may be, but he is not. He is a classic "America First" protectionist, more in line with Ron Paul than other Republicans.

    Here's an excellent article on Trump's foreign policy stance.

    Here's a quote from it:

    "Trump has no desire to make the rest of the world in our image; he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.

    The neocons bemoan Trump’s rejection of a global role for the United States, but Trump has no intent to withdraw the United States from the world stage. He only rejects the wanton use of our young men and women on foreign adventures of questionable value.

    The neocons have two clear foreign policy objectives, and Trump may grant them neither. For many of them, their deepest yearning, ungranted even in the waning days of the George W. Bush presidency, is an air campaign against Iran. Trump doesn’t like the Iran nuclear agreement, but his instinct is to make a better deal rather than attacking, while Hillary Clinton has a strong record of supporting the prodigal misuse of military force. Clinton is just another neocon, though wrapped in sheep’s clothing — just as on some foreign policy issues Trump is little more than Bernie Sanders in wolf’s clothing."

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the Presidential Election is now less than one week away!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. wonderfly

    wonderfly Shaking things up a bit
    Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2002
    Messages:
    17,362
    Likes Received:
    216
    For those interested in following the Electoral Map:

    6 ways Trump could win.

    Each of the 6 scenarios start with Trump winning Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa. Which I believe he can do. But if he doesn't win all 4 of those, it becomes a major uphill battle.

    I've also been following RealClearPolitics list of polls, and it continues to show improvement for Trump over the last few days. Each of these polls "massage" the numbers using their own analysis of voting trends, but there are patterns in Trump's favor.

    That LATimes/USC poll (the one that's been favorable to Trump for months now) has Trump up currently by 5 points. But it is admittedly the outlier of the polls.

    The ABCNews/WashingtonPost poll (the one that had Clinton ahead by 12 points just 2 weeks ago) - it had Trump ahead by 1 point just 2 days ago, but now it's back to having Hillary ahead by 2 points today.

    The Rasmussen poll today has Trump ahead (for the first time) by 3 points. Trump and Clinton were tied in this poll for the last 2 days prior, and last week was a mixture of Clinton ahead barely or they were tied.

    The Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll (labeled "the most accurate of 2012" by Nate Silver) had Clinton ahead by 4 points last Saturday, but just a week prior to that (back around Oct. 19th or 20th), when it started polling, it had Trump ahead by 1 point. Since last Saturday, Trump's been climbing back up the polls and they've now been tied the last 2 days.

    So who knows?
     
    #419 wonderfly, Nov 3, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  20. Jean74

    Jean74 Ready for Halloween

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trump says or heard about this, if he wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote. He will have a cow. And will leave it at that!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • Find Toonzone on Facebook

  • Toonzone News

  • Site Updates

    Upcoming Premieres

  • Toonzone Fan Sites


Tac Anti Spam from Surrey Forum