[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
So... there was a Democratic debate on PBS, and CNN picked it up as well.

Poor Hillary, when will she ever get her facts straight..
 
So there is a New Micheal bay film coming about called 13 hours which is about what happened in Bengzahi, I wonder how much this will effect Hillary's campaign.
 
So there is a New Micheal bay film coming about called 13 hours which is about what happened in Bengzahi

By "coming" I think you mean "was out last month". By "Micheal" I think you mean "Michael". By "what happened in Benghazi" you have to remember that it takes artistic licence with the truth, as do many action films. It's not a documentary.

Economist
The order to “stand down” was never made, according to multiple investigations: seven of them congressional and one independent. Those investigations, most of them led by Republicans, multiplied as allegations over the administration’s handling of Benghazi grew.
 
By "coming" I think you mean "was out last month". By "Micheal" I think you mean "Michael". By "what happened in Benghazi" you have to remember that it takes artistic licence with the truth, as do many action films. It's not a documentary.
Boots that were actually on the ground say different:
With Michael Bay’s “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” set to premiere Thursday, the five surviving members of the six-man Benghazi security team have blitzed the airwaves to promote the film and renew their assertion that a top CIA officer delayed them from immediately answering State Department distress calls. Three even testified to the same before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last spring, several sources have confirmed to POLITICO.
“There is no sensationalism in that: We were told to ‘stand down,’” said former Special Forces Officer Kris Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who fought that night, in an interview with Politico. “Those words were used verbatim — 100 percent. … If the truth of it affects someone’s political career? Well, I’m sorry. It happens.”
Source

Chairman on the House Select Committee on Benghazi confirms that witnesses have testified to that effect:
Rep.Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Wednesday that a number of witnesses had confirmed a stand-down order was given to military assets in proximity to Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack, while others said no one issued such an order.
Source
 
Source

Chairman on the House Select Committee on Benghazi confirms that witnesses have testified to that effect:

Which, in all, says that rather than send a single team immediately the commanders were also trying to raise local Libyan units in assistance. That context is undisputed on a bipartisan basis, or so I thought. The words' usage is disputed by the commander and, for Paronto;

Washington Examiner
he doesn’t necessarily believe the “stand down” he heard was nefarious

As also noted in your link, no deployment of any speed would have saved the Ambassador.

Finally, Paronto has a significant dog in the fight - he's the one who wrote 13 Hours with Zuckoff, the book about the attack which took place while he was a private Blackwater contractor.

As a personal opinion I feel more inclined to trust members of the US military in their version of events.
 
Which, in all, says that rather than send a single team immediately the commanders were also trying to raise local Libyan units in assistance. That context is undisputed on a bipartisan basis, or so I thought. The words' usage is disputed by the commander and, for Paronto;

As also noted in your link, no deployment of any speed would have saved the Ambassador.

Finally, Paronto has a significant dog in the fight - he's the one who wrote 13 Hours with Zuckoff, the book about the attack which took place while he was a private Blackwater contractor.

As a personal opinion I feel more inclined to trust members of the US military in their version of events.
Everyone involved has a dog in the hunt. Assuming for a moment it is a cover up, your career is on the line if you step out of line and if you take a look around you and realize you'll be going it alone or nearly so, not a lot of people have that kind of courage. Again, assuming the allegations are true, it would be quite similar to how Watergate unfolded. Facts come to light, denial, denial, denial by official sources, investigation, the whole thing falls apart on the testimony of a handful of people involved directly in the crime and in the cover up.

If you want to know how powerful a motivator personal interest is to keep quiet you need look no further than the Tobacco industry and cancer.
 
American foreign policy does not change, it's the reason people like Ron Paul cannot be elected and it's most likely going to be the reason Hillary will be chosen over Bernie.

Well, I see little difference between say Bush Jr and Obama, maybe one enjoys the toy planes more that the other lol. I see what you are saying however.

This is a really unhelpful point of view IMO - typical of the libertarian perspective: anything short of perfection is basically worthless. It does seem that foreign interventions have been a constant in American foreign policy ever since the Second World War, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been important differences in degree & approach under different administrations. If the hanging chads had gone the other way, I don't think it's likely that a Gore administration would have launched a full-scale war in Iraq. Would a Republican administration have come to an nuclear agreement with Iran?

Ron Paul wasn't elected because only a small minority of the American population supported his positions. If he had been elected I think the chances are he would have ended up with some continued entanglement in foreign interventions, just like Obama has, in spite of his anti-war stance prior to election ... & the same way Sanders would if he were elected. This doesn't mean that electing Sanders over Hillary, or Hillary over Jeb, Rubio or Cruz wouldn't result in significantly different foreign policy outcomes.
 
If you want to know how powerful a motivator personal interest is to keep quiet you need look no further than the Tobacco industry and cancer.
Especially when Suspicious behaviour like this occurs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony_n_2308153.html

Lets also keep in mind(as @TenEightyOne says 1 of those investigations wasn't congressional and classed as ''independent'') : http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-libya-clinton-panel-idUSL1E8KKBDP20120920
(please correct me if this indeed congressional, but your unlinked source did say one wasn't congressional).

Go to September 20 on the timeline and it does say it is separate from the FBI investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...on_into_the_2012_Benghazi_attack#cite_note-33


Finally, Paronto has a significant dog in the fight - he's the one who wrote 13 Hours with Zuckoff, the book about the attack which took place while he was a private Blackwater contractor.

As a personal opinion I feel more inclined to trust members of the US military in their version of events.

Does making a Movie and Books(Both things that help spread the message of His events) Discredit him simply because he can and has made money off them, what about all of the Remaining witness's supporting those accounts as well?
 
Last edited:
This is a really unhelpful point of view IMO - typical of the libertarian perspective: anything short of perfection is basically worthless. It does seem that foreign interventions have been a constant in American foreign policy ever since the Second World War, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been important differences in degree & approach under different administrations. If the hanging chads had gone the other way, I don't think it's likely that a Gore administration would have launched a full-scale war in Iraq. Would a Republican administration have come to an nuclear agreement with Iran?

Ron Paul wasn't elected because only a small minority of the American population supported his positions. If he had been elected I think the chances are he would have ended up with some continued entanglement in foreign interventions, just like Obama has, in spite of his anti-war stance prior to election ... & the same way Sanders would if he were elected. This doesn't mean that electing Sanders over Hillary, or Hillary over Jeb, Rubio or Cruz wouldn't result in significantly different foreign policy outcomes.
If Democrats had been in charge in the 60's would America have gone into Vietnam? If a Democrat was in the White House do you think the U.S. would have went into war in Korea? Ooops...

Republicans held the White House for 12 years from 1980-1992, the years in which the Soviet Empire collapsed. Would that have happened under Democrat rule?
 
Republicans held the White House for 12 years from 1980-1992, the years in which the Soviet Empire collapsed. Would that have happened under Democrat rule?
Yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut

(one of the known final straws of the Soviet Economy crumbling)

Reagans Action on Jimmy Carters Bill certainly helped though(however likeliness of a Democrat doing the same would of been high since it was a Democrat Executive Order in the first place).
 
Does making a Movie and Books(Both things that help spread the message of His events) Discredit him simply because he can and has made money off them, what about all of the Remaining witness's supporting those accounts as well?
We don't have a federal whistleblower protection law, otherwise a lot of those books that are/were discredited by the government on the basis of the whistleblower having some financial gain would gain a lot more credibility if they went through legal channels first.
 
If Democrats had been in charge in the 60's would America have gone into Vietnam? If a Democrat was in the White House do you think the U.S. would have went into war in Korea? Ooops...

Republicans held the White House for 12 years from 1980-1992, the years in which the Soviet Empire collapsed. Would that have happened under Democrat rule?

Yes, that's exactly the point I was making - both Democrat & Republican administrations have had continuing involvement in foreign interventions. This was particularly the case during the Cold War where opposition to Soviet influence wherever & however it showed up was an obsessive concern ... and Democrats felt particular pressure domestically not to be seen as "weak" on Communism.

However, it's hard to imagine that the election of Robert Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy in 1968 wouldn't have had led to a significantly different outcome in Vietnam than the election of Nixon. The election of Carter in 1976 certainly changed the stance of the US on foreign policy & the election of Reagan in 1980 resulted in another big shift in US foreign policy.
 
This is a really unhelpful point of view IMO - typical of the libertarian perspective:


Since when is a point of view supposed to be helpful? I'm not a libertarian so I'll simply call your response a typical bleeding heart lol.

American foreign policy does not change, Al gorey or not.
 
You care to substantiate this bit at all?

Polling data from 2012 pretty much had Obama on the ropes however the GOP basically handed him a re-election by essentially running on the Bush foreign policy. Essentially voters saw Obama as the lesser of two evils and if you actually follow Ron Paul(like I do) even he alluded to this.

@Biggles The election of Carter in 1976 certainly changed the stance of the US on foreign policy & the election of Reagan in 1980 resulted in another big shift in US foreign policy.

Not it didn't, if anything Carter like those that came before and after him was was a foreign interventionist. In regards to Reagan the only thing he did was expand the warfare state and we're now paying for it in the form of an ever expanding military footprint and debt.

In the end, truth politicians on both sides aren't living in a reality but a fantasy.
 
Last edited:
You're right: everything is the same, nothing ever changes, nothing we or anyone else says, or does, has any meaning & we all live on a dust-shrouded conveyor belt on a path to oblivion.
 
Many people fail to realize the rewards they reap from governments outlandish behavior. I once saw a bumper sticker on a huge suv, soccer mom driving, and it said "no more blood for oil"

LMAO

EDIT; had a bit to add...

As far as foreign policy goes, our leaders protect our interests and preserve our way of life, it's not a dirty little secret it's simply something most put a blind eye to. The one's who speak out against it usually fail to lead by a better example. Of course the politicians know this and pander to those few with an occasional token such as wind power.

We should all always consider the alternatives because they could be much worse.

__________

I think there is exactly one Hollywood type who does practice what he preaches, his name is Ed @Biggles or something ;). Na, Begley? whatever it is, I have a ton of respect for that guy.

The reason I bring it up is because you cannot find more people in such a small industry that preach one thing while doing the exact opposite, they make a politician seem a saint :lol:
 
Last edited:
Outstanding news. Looks like we're going to keep the white house, just need to take back congress, or at least the senate. Will have to exorcise that room he died in though.
 
Last edited:
Outstanding news. Looks like we're going to keep the white house, just need to take back congress, or at least the senate. Will have to exorcise that room he died in though.
That could be hard to do for more than 2 years as Republicans have recently come out in force during the mid-terms.
 
So, we now celebrate someone's death? That is just, well...

aapmickeyhb.gif
 
I have considerable doubt that Obama can make an appointment and have it confirmed by the senate before his term expires.
Well David Souter resigned in June of 2009 and Sonia Sotomayor took office in August of that year. However, that was with a Democrat majority.
 
Outstanding news. Looks like we're going to keep the white house, just need to take back congress, or at least the senate. Will have to exorcise that room he died in though.
Have some bloody dignity man. A supreme court justice just died. Let the nation mourn a bit before you spout that garbage.
 
Have some bloody dignity man. A supreme court justice just died. Let the nation mourn a bit before you spout that garbage.
Please... Fox News has already gone through a list of people they think are "suitable replacements" for a republican controlled Senate/House, and presidency...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back