~ The Clinton Victory Thread ~

[Monk Of Reason]

There's your first mistake.

But is this question of intelligence masking your argument from obviousness,
ie, that anyone as smart as you would see THE TRUTH? This doesn't work
for me when providing only a highly subjective speculative argument.

Having worked for military contractors, we made weapons at a similar pace in peacetime.
Preparing for a war not happening is quite lucrative.
But you're offering no evidence, such as....
- Comparing companies' profit before & during wars
- Comparing contributions from these alleged "owners" (the beneficiaries of war) of politicians with other companies to examine relative power.

Bush was re-elected for the wars he started.
Obama was re-elected for the wars he continued, despite his promise to end them.
Why reject the voter willingness to wage war as a presidential motivation?

This is a good question.
But I'd like to focus first on your claim that companies are behind the wars.

Getting tough on crime is something the voters pushed, & the politicians listened.
Bill Clinton is the biggest offender here.
How did he benefit from for profit prisons?
If the Clintons are behind this, why vote for them?

As I said, there is influence.
I don't dispute this.
What I take issue with is the claim of ownership.
This case has not been made.
By & large, the voters see what's going on, & they vote for candidates who do what they're already doing.
It's no coincidence that parties like the Libertarians, who want victimless 'crimes' legalized fare poorly.
The Big Two give us war term after term, & the voters affirm this.

I think the difference in our opinion is the definition of ownership and influence. I don't think the line is so easily drawn. You seem to.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the difference in our opinion is the definition of ownership and influence. I don't think the line is so easily drawn. You seem to.

I seem not to.
It isn't your claim (as I recall) that presidents are told to go make war by benefiting companies.
But it's that level of control which I say rises to the level of ownership.
And I dispute that this happens.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd think she wouldn't ask because the question is ludicrous.
Nuclear weapons are best avoided, even at great cost.

Bottom line is: we can't afford a global thermonuclear war. MSNBC rumors (Joe Scarborough) that Trump is asking why we can't use them if we have them. I'm inclined to believe the rumor. source I'm inclined to believe it for various reasons, but the number 1 reason is I see Trump as a person who has never had limits. Nobody says 'No' to him.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bottom line is: we can't afford a global thermonuclear war. MSNBC rumors (Joe Scarborough) that Trump is asking why we can't use them if we have them. I'm inclined to believe the rumor. source I'm inclined to believe it for various reasons, but the number 1 reason is I see Trump as a person who has never had limits. Nobody says 'No' to him.

He's in real estate.
He's faced bankruptcies.
"No!" would've been heard often.
But if this is your criterion for determining who might use the nuclear option, then you must consider Hillary.
She rode her hubby's coattails into office.
She had the DNC system grease the skids for her candidacy.
I'll wager that "no" is a word she's accustomed to wielding rather than hearing.

I don't think this line of thought is useful in determining whom to vote for.

 

[averageJOE]

As Edmund Burke said, " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

No, vote for Hillary because she so superior to Trump and Trump would be a disaster. Don't forget how Ralph Nader gave us George the Second by carving off just a sliver of the Florida vote.

Voting "against" someone rather than voting "for" someone is the same thing as doing nothing. (To me anyway)

And she is not in any way "so superior to Trump", just slightly, and I mean slightly, less evil than Trump. Kind of like a mass shooter using an AK-47 (Trump) than a 9mm pistol (Hillary).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I seem not to.
It isn't your claim (as I recall) that presidents are told to go make war by benefiting companies.
But it's that level of control which I say rises to the level of ownership.
And I dispute that this happens.

Perhaps. I will say that I believe some conspiracy level things regarding the early 2000's and military movements. But the continued military involvement and military budget is most definitely currently influenced by lobbying. Do you agree with that much?

 

[columbus]

He's faced bankruptcies.
"No!" would've been heard often.

How is foisting his debt off onto less rich people telling him "No"?
It is telling him yes. Do what you want and the lawyers will clean up the details.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps. I will say that I believe some conspiracy level things regarding the early 2000's and military movements. But the continued military involvement and military budget is most definitely currently influenced by lobbying. Do you agree with that much?

No, I say the budget is pretty much independent of lobbying.
Where the latter comes into play is what's purchased from whom.
This is a very messed up process from what I saw in the industry.
IMO Israel has more power in foreign policy than the the materiel
manufacturers.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is foisting his debt off onto less rich people telling him "No"?
It is telling him yes. Do what you want and the lawyers will clean up the details.
Tom

Have you even been in commercial real estate deals which became under water?
It's not so simple as just walking from debt. Even government comes a knock'n
for it's share. Lawyers don't quite have the role which you say.
Everything looks so simple to those who aren't involved.

 

[columbus]

Have you even been in commercial real estate deals which became under water?

No, but I have been on the losing side of bankruptcy. Where some rich guy's lawyers said "You're the stupid one. You believed him."
And a judge agreed.

I thought a lot of things. But,"OMG, the rich guy is brilliant! He should be president." wasn't one of them.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but I have been on the losing side of bankruptcy. Where some rich guy's lawyers said "You're the stupid one. You believed him."
And a judge agreed.

I thought a lot of things. But,"OMG, the rich guy is brilliant! He should be president." wasn't one of them.
Tom

You were the creditor?

 

[columbus]

You were the creditor?

A hotel chain stiffed me out of the bill for a bunch of framed prints.
I wasn't the only one.
And it turned out it wasn't the first bankruptcy the owners had filed either.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I did read a BBC article today that said Trump is "hemorrhaging supporters." Hopefully he'll bleed out before the election.

 

[sun rise]

This just shows how Trump is all about diversity!
As Reagan was the "Great Communicator", &
Bill Clinton was the "Great Forni......".....uh....
Donald might become known as the "Great Unifier".

Catching up on this thread - he is. Who else could have united a swath of the Republican party to vote for a Democrat. Who knows, maybe the two parties will work together in Washington to avoid another Trump in 4 years. I've heard that pigs are developing wings and we might just see them fly next year.

 

[sun rise]

Who are the "owners"?
How do they force the prez to do their bidding?
Given that voters love presidents who continue wars, why reject the
simple explanation that presidents do this to gain power for themselves?

I might shock a few people, but I'm not anti-war. I think Afghanistan was the right thing to do but we were stupid there and let the Taliban come back. I also think the long-term is still not settled in other countries in the region.

 

[sun rise]

No, I say the budget is pretty much independent of lobbying.
Where the latter comes into play is what's purchased from whom.
This is a very messed up process from what I saw in the industry.
IMO Israel has more power in foreign policy than the the materiel
manufacturers.

The power of J Street is another issue but I tend to agree with you here or at least think your argument is possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

A hotel chain stiffed me out of the bill for a bunch of framed prints.
I wasn't the only one.
And it turned out it wasn't the first bankruptcy the owners had filed either.
Tom

Think it's bad being the creditor in a bankruptcy....try being the debtor.
It's not the cake walk so many presume.

 

[Revoltingest]

Catching up on this thread - he is. Who else could have united a swath of the Republican party to vote for a Democrat. Who knows, maybe the two parties will work together in Washington to avoid another Trump in 4 years. I've heard that pigs are developing wings and we might just see them fly next year.

Avoid another Trump?
No way!
All elections are so nauseating, but for once we have one which is interesting & entertaining.
Besides....I'd rather avoid another Clinton running for office.
(Rumor has it that Chelsea is preparing to run by playing Grand Theft Auto.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I might shock a few people, but I'm not anti-war. I think Afghanistan was the right thing to do but we were stupid there and let the Taliban come back. I also think the long-term is still not settled in other countries in the region.

I am shocked!
(Not really.)

 

[Revoltingest]

.....your argument is possible.

That's <sniff> the nicest thing anyone <sniff> has ever said to me here!