djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 19:59:17 GMT -5
“Ross Perot's surge in the polls is drawing somewhat more support from Bill Clinton than from George Bush, and the third party candidate seems poised to make more gains that might further narrow Bill Clinton's nationwide margin.” Polling Report is a very good site.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 20:17:51 GMT -5
The Powers That Be in the Republican and Democratic Parties might in the depths of their souls late at night fear the electorate voting in a candidate not of their parties but I don't think that they think that it will ever happen. If the American voters even just gave them a good scare, I think that would be a positive. bills- doesn't it seem to you like if somewhere between 20 and 50 people in the House and 3 to 5 in the Senate were independent or 3rd party that they could control things pretty well, given the strong divisions in the two major parties? neither party would hold a majority, so the third party would constitute part of a "coalition government", and could set the agenda, right? It is much more complex than that. It would take 50 independent Senators to guarantee that a party did not hold a majority. For example, there are currently 44 Democrats. If all lost their seats to 3rd parties or independents, Republicans would still have their majority. It is also unlikely that different third parties plus independents would form a consistent voting block. This is not to say that conditions could not form the "perfect storm" you suggest. Just not that likely without much higher numbers.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 21:17:33 GMT -5
bills- doesn't it seem to you like if somewhere between 20 and 50 people in the House and 3 to 5 in the Senate were independent or 3rd party that they could control things pretty well, given the strong divisions in the two major parties? neither party would hold a majority, so the third party would constitute part of a "coalition government", and could set the agenda, right? It is much more complex than that. It would take 50 independent Senators to guarantee that a party did not hold a majority. For example, there are currently 44 Democrats. If all lost their seats to 3rd parties or independents, Republicans would still have their majority. It is also unlikely that different third parties plus independents would form a consistent voting block. This is not to say that conditions could not form the "perfect storm" you suggest. Just not that likely without much higher numbers. i was figuring that if the GOP had 49 and the Dems had 49, and, say, the Libertarian Party had two, that they could effectively decide things in the Senate. no?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 22, 2015 22:20:23 GMT -5
... This is not to say that conditions could not form the "perfect storm" you suggest. ... i was figuring that if the GOP had 49 and the Dems had 49, and, say, the Libertarian Party had two, that they could effectively decide things in the Senate. no?[/quote] Yes, that would be an excellent example of what I was talking about in my post.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 22, 2015 22:50:35 GMT -5
Tami Stainfield
Occupation: Computer Scientist, Political Studies Expert
Platform: Anti-Globalist
Profile: 2016.presidential-candidates.org/Stainfield/
Campaign Website: tamistainfield.com/Major Platform Features:- Combat Globalist Influences
- Encourage "Buy America"
- Radically Reform US Immigration
- Eliminate the Patriot Act
- Eliminate All "Predictive Analytics Programs" Relating to Crime Prediction
Social Stance: Libertarian Note: Holds some nonstandard views on technology that may be of concern to some voters.
You forgot to add the part where she is crazy as all get out. Everyone please watch this video, it is awesomely hilarious (or sad because she is probably seriously mentally ill). If you get bored or confused, just forward to 4:55
ROTFLMAO!! Holy crap!! She should be in restraints. Thanks for that!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2015 0:44:15 GMT -5
... This is not to say that conditions could not form the "perfect storm" you suggest. ... i was figuring that if the GOP had 49 and the Dems had 49, and, say, the Libertarian Party had two, that they could effectively decide things in the Senate. no? Yes, that would be an excellent example of what I was talking about in my post. [/quote] ok. still not understanding the original post, but that's cool.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 23, 2015 8:07:14 GMT -5
Maybe the people in the white house know something we don't and military action in the mid-east is necessary. Maybe patching up things on the border is an expensive waste of money. Maybe a third party candidate wouldn't be able to overpower congress and get anything changed. Maybe a third party candidate will implement things opposite of what they indicated they would, and they really have no one to answer to. It isn't like "the party" will convince them to stick to the plan. Third party seems like a big unknown. Probably just as much a risk to the country as status quo. Well, we KNOW the status quo doesn't work. Do we? We sure know that nothing is perfect - but we are an extremely stable country, and even a relatively stable economy. Looking at the history of all countries, we are above average. I know there are blissful countries out there, but they are places like Norway who don't have some of the challenges we have. Maybe this is as good as we can do. Don't get me wrong - I hate our two party system too. They are all pompous windbags - but after watching a "revolutionary leader" nearly put my company out of business and take down thousands of people in his wake, I'm wondering if change has to be a little more grassroots and gradual. If we can start getting third party and independents into congress, they can start affecting the country without completely upending it and possibly making a huge mess that would put us in a worse situation than ever before.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2015 9:17:57 GMT -5
Well, we KNOW the status quo doesn't work. Do we? We sure know that nothing is perfect - but we are an extremely stable country, and even a relatively stable economy. Looking at the history of all countries, we are above average. I know there are blissful countries out there, but they are places like Norway who don't have some of the challenges we have. Maybe this is as good as we can do. Don't get me wrong - I hate our two party system too. They are all pompous windbags - but after watching a "revolutionary leader" nearly put my company out of business and take down thousands of people in his wake, I'm wondering if change has to be a little more grassroots and gradual. If we can start getting third party and independents into congress, they can start affecting the country without completely upending it and possibly making a huge mess that would put us in a worse situation than ever before. What you need is some hope and change. It seems to me I've heard that somewhere before.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2015 10:04:36 GMT -5
Do we? We sure know that nothing is perfect - but we are an extremely stable country, and even a relatively stable economy. Looking at the history of all countries, we are above average. I know there are blissful countries out there, but they are places like Norway who don't have some of the challenges we have. Maybe this is as good as we can do. Don't get me wrong - I hate our two party system too. They are all pompous windbags - but after watching a "revolutionary leader" nearly put my company out of business and take down thousands of people in his wake, I'm wondering if change has to be a little more grassroots and gradual. If we can start getting third party and independents into congress, they can start affecting the country without completely upending it and possibly making a huge mess that would put us in a worse situation than ever before. What you need is some hope and change. It seems to me I've heard that somewhere before. mocking hope and change is politically very dangerous. don't think Team Blue doesn't know that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2015 10:21:39 GMT -5
What you need is some hope and change. It seems to me I've heard that somewhere before. mocking hope and change is politically very dangerous. don't think Team Blue doesn't know that. I'm not mocking hope and change. I'm lamenting Hope and Change™.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2015 11:20:31 GMT -5
mocking hope and change is politically very dangerous. don't think Team Blue doesn't know that. I'm not mocking hope and change. I'm lamenting Hope and Change™. fair enough. hard to tell the difference sometimes.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Apr 23, 2015 11:26:43 GMT -5
Well I have repeatedly heard from the cacophonous magpies on the right that "Obama is fundamentally changing America", so which is it?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 23, 2015 11:45:04 GMT -5
Well I have repeatedly heard from the cacophonous magpies on the fight that "Obama is fundamentally changing America", so which is it? America is always changing. I think the expectation was that Pres. Obama (in 2008) would change the way it was changing. For example, a country sliding ever further into police statehood is changing, and Pres. Obama overturning the Bush-era terrorism laws and arresting that change was the change (of the change) Americans were hoping for when they elected him. The 2008 US federal election was special. I really got the impression it was an election where Americans were voting for a candidate, rather than voting against the other guy. (Of course, the fact that Sarah Palin was on the Republican ticket didn't hurt.) The delusions were over by the 2012 election, and they may not even bother with the pretense of change in 2016. All the more reason for Americans to step out of their comfort zone and make 2016 the year that the Third Party revolution finally got started.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Apr 23, 2015 11:50:56 GMT -5
There is political sloganeering and then there is reality. The reality I saw was an America that was battered and bruised by 8 years of repo rule...war, debt, economic dislocation. A vote for McCain was for continuance of that. Obama was simply offering something different. It hasn't been different enough, however.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Apr 23, 2015 13:30:00 GMT -5
Well I have repeatedly heard from the cacophonous magpies on the fight that "Obama is fundamentally changing America", so which is it? America is always changing. I think the expectation was that Pres. Obama (in 2008) would change the way it was changing. For example, a country sliding ever further into police statehood is changing, and Pres. Obama overturning the Bush-era terrorism laws and arresting that change was the change (of the change) Americans were hoping for when they elected him. The 2008 US federal election was special. I really got the impression it was an election where Americans were voting for a candidate, rather than voting against the other guy. (Of course, the fact that Sarah Palin was on the Republican ticket didn't hurt.) The delusions were over by the 2012 election, and they may not even bother with the pretense of change in 2016. All the more reason for Americans to step out of their comfort zone and make 2016 the year that the Third Party revolution finally got started. I will confess that is the second time I voted independent in a presidential race. Even though I knew I was throwing my vote away I couldn't get behind either candidate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2015 18:23:33 GMT -5
America is always changing. I think the expectation was that Pres. Obama (in 2008) would change the way it was changing. For example, a country sliding ever further into police statehood is changing, and Pres. Obama overturning the Bush-era terrorism laws and arresting that change was the change (of the change) Americans were hoping for when they elected him. The 2008 US federal election was special. I really got the impression it was an election where Americans were voting for a candidate, rather than voting against the other guy. (Of course, the fact that Sarah Palin was on the Republican ticket didn't hurt.) The delusions were over by the 2012 election, and they may not even bother with the pretense of change in 2016. All the more reason for Americans to step out of their comfort zone and make 2016 the year that the Third Party revolution finally got started. I will confess that is the second time I voted independent in a presidential race. Even though I knew I was throwing my vote away I couldn't get behind either candidate. people need to stop saying that. throwing your vote away is voting for someone you don't support. everyone else threw their vote away, cap. you voted your convictions, which is ALWAYS better. one vote won't decide an election, generally speaking. so, vote your convictions, people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2015 18:34:12 GMT -5
Sort of. If just 1,001 people who voted green party in Florida in 2000 had voted for their version of the lesser of two evils Bush would have never been president. The guy they actually voted for had 0 chance of winning. All their vote accomplished was putting a right wing war criminal in office who went on to let his cronies wreck the economy while involving us in a decade long war in the middle east that we're still feeling the ramifications of. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is a way better choice than voting your convictions. let's not get started on that election, SDG.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 20:13:12 GMT -5
Sort of. If just 1,001 people who voted green party in Florida in 2000 had voted for their version of the lesser of two evils Bush would have never been president. The guy they actually voted for had 0 chance of winning. All their vote accomplished was putting a right wing war criminal in office who went on to let his cronies wreck the economy while involving us in a decade long war in the middle east that we're still feeling the ramifications of. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is a way better choice than voting your convictions. Not necessarily. How do you know those "1,001" would have voted Gore as "the lesser of two evils"? Maybe they would have hated something about Gore that made him more evil to them than Bush.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 20:17:02 GMT -5
Sometimes a handful of votes makes all the difference. I think that's why the conservative leaning posters are pushing this whole vote independent thing. They saw the ass whooping they received in the last presidential election and are looking for any way to cost the dem votes in 2016. Don't fall for it again Florida. Bush III is the last friggin thing we need right now.I disagree... I'd say it's roughly tied with our "need" for Clinton II.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 23, 2015 21:51:18 GMT -5
Sort of. If just 1,001 people who voted green party in Florida in 2000 had voted for their version of the lesser of two evils Bush would have never been president. The guy they actually voted for had 0 chance of winning. All their vote accomplished was putting a right wing war criminal in office who went on to let his cronies wreck the economy while involving us in a decade long war in the middle east that we're still feeling the ramifications of. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is a way better choice than voting your convictions. Not necessarily. How do you know those "1,001" would have voted Gore as "the lesser of two evils"? Maybe they would have hated something about Gore that made him more evil to them than Bush. If you care enough about the environment to vote for the green party, then you're certainly not going to vote republican over democrat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 22:04:51 GMT -5
Not necessarily. How do you know those "1,001" would have voted Gore as "the lesser of two evils"? Maybe they would have hated something about Gore that made him more evil to them than Bush. If you care enough about the environment to vote for the green party, then you're certainly not going to vote republican over democrat. I wasn't asking "likely" though. What if there was that ONE issue about Gore that they just COULD. NOT. STAND.? and maybe Bush was on the other side of that one issue. Many people vote over a singular issue.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 23, 2015 22:17:24 GMT -5
If you care enough about the environment to vote for the green party, then you're certainly not going to vote republican over democrat. I wasn't asking "likely" though. What if there was that ONE issue about Gore that they just COULD. NOT. STAND.? and maybe Bush was on the other side of that one issue. Many people vote over a singular issue. Well we both agree it isn't likely, so then maybe we need 1300 to not vote for Nader. Then if 10% choose Bush, Gore still wins. I think the point still stands since most of those voters would have voted for Gore if they had realized their vote mattered.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 24, 2015 1:30:01 GMT -5
Sort of. If just 1,001 people who voted green party in Florida in 2000 had voted for their version of the lesser of two evils Bush would have never been president. The guy they actually voted for had 0 chance of winning. All their vote accomplished was putting a right wing war criminal in office who went on to let his cronies wreck the economy while involving us in a decade long war in the middle east that we're still feeling the ramifications of. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is a way better choice than voting your convictions. You'd have got war with or without Pres. Bush. He was just the salesman you got. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. I'm not apologizing for Pres. Bush, but the man was a 90-IQ hand puppet they put in to read "My Pet Goat", stand in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign while Bremer's EO's were being passed in Iraq, and give the voters something to throw rotten veggies at. TPTB are flexible. If Mr. Gore had gotten in, it's possible you'd have seen war four years later and carbon credits (another one of their great loves) a decade earlier, but I doubt even that. The sad fact remains that after 9/11, every American short of the Pacifist Party was so amped up for war, it was political suicide not to support it. It was just time. I don't know if it's "just time" for war with Iran, but if/when it is, you're going to get it regardless of which MPC makes it into the White House in 2016. I'm almost certain that will be Ms. Clinton, hence try not to marvel when it's her and not the other guy reading "My fellow Americans, the time has come for a decisive, measured response to the threat..." off the teleprompter. The time has come for the third party revolution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:17 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2015 4:41:12 GMT -5
I wasn't asking "likely" though. What if there was that ONE issue about Gore that they just COULD. NOT. STAND.? and maybe Bush was on the other side of that one issue. Many people vote over a singular issue. Well we both agree it isn't likely, so then maybe we need 1300 to not vote for Nader. Then if 10% choose Bush, Gore still wins. I think the point still stands since most of those voters would have voted for Gore if they had realized their vote mattered. If they voted for the person they thought was better suited... their vote DID matter. Your vote doesn't matter if you waste it by voting for the wrong (undeserving of it) person... whether the guy/gal you voted for loses OR wins. Think of it this way... if losing votes don't matter, then EVERYONE that voted for a "loser" wasted their vote... even the ones that voted for a losing Democrat or a losing Republican. I cannot believe that. I will not believe that.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 24, 2015 11:37:00 GMT -5
Well we both agree it isn't likely, so then maybe we need 1300 to not vote for Nader. Then if 10% choose Bush, Gore still wins. I think the point still stands since most of those voters would have voted for Gore if they had realized their vote mattered. If they voted for the person they thought was better suited... their vote DID matter. Your vote doesn't matter if you waste it by voting for the wrong (undeserving of it) person... whether the guy/gal you voted for loses OR wins. Think of it this way... if losing votes don't matter, then EVERYONE that voted for a "loser" wasted their vote... even the ones that voted for a losing Democrat or a losing Republican. I cannot believe that. I will not believe that. You may feel different, but I'd rather vote for my second choice than someone that doesn't have a chance of winning. I live in a swing state, so my vote could the difference between my second choice and the guy and the guy I dread being elected. I'll take second choice over worst fear any day.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Apr 24, 2015 11:55:33 GMT -5
Steve KerbelOccupation: Author, CEO Platform: Libertarian Profile: 2016.presidential-candidates.org/Kerbel/Campaign Website: stevekerbel2016.com/Major Platform Features:- Decriminalize Drug Use
- Draw Down US Foreign Engagements
- Ensure Border Identification for Every Person Entering the United States
- Eliminate Personal and Corporate Income Tax
- Eliminate the Federal Reserve
Social Stance: Libertarian
Tami Stainfield
Occupation: Computer Scientist, Political Studies Expert
Platform: Anti-Globalist
Profile: 2016.presidential-candidates.org/Stainfield/
Campaign Website: tamistainfield.com/Major Platform Features:- Combat Globalist Influences
- Encourage "Buy America"
- Radically Reform US Immigration
- Eliminate the Patriot Act
- Eliminate All "Predictive Analytics Programs" Relating to Crime Prediction
Social Stance: Libertarian Note: Holds some nonstandard views on technology that may be of concern to some voters.
Gonna have to go with "A" on this one. Mrs. Stainfield's statist compulsion to limit free trade, and immigration, and enact protectionist trade policies which would devastate our economy are of concern to me. I don't like our hodge-podge moral tapestry of trade and immigration policies; but the answer isn't a knee jerk closing of the borders. Mr. Kerbel on the other hand seems to be mainline libertarian. I don't know about "eliminate" the Federal Reserve Bank, but I would like to see transparency- why does Congress even have to pass legislation to audit the Fed? Should be pro forma. Automatic. And I'd like to see sane money policies- free market interest rates, more competition among banks, repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley, and Dodd Frank. Anyway- I like his paranoia on predictive analytics. A lot of people aren't aware this even goes on.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 24, 2015 13:45:36 GMT -5
... I'll take second choice over worst fear any day. I agree with this exactly how you wrote it. 2008, Pilot "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb Iran" McCain with Tailgunner Palin qualified as worst fear. 2012 Romney did not. I voted accordingly.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 24, 2015 16:57:13 GMT -5
You'd have got war with or without Pres. Bush. He was just the salesman you got. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. I'm not apologizing for Pres. Bush, but the man was a 90-IQ hand puppet they put in to read "My Pet Goat", stand in front of the "Mission Accomplished" sign while Bremer's EO's were being passed in Iraq, and give the voters something to throw rotten veggies at. TPTB are flexible. If Mr. Gore had gotten in, it's possible you'd have seen war four years later and carbon credits (another one of their great loves) a decade earlier, but I doubt even that. The sad fact remains that after 9/11, every American short of the Pacifist Party was so amped up for war, it was political suicide not to support it. It was just time. I don't know if it's "just time" for war with Iran, but if/when it is, you're going to get it regardless of which MPC makes it into the White House in 2016. I'm almost certain that will be Ms. Clinton, hence try not to marvel when it's her and not the other guy reading "My fellow Americans, the time has come for a decisive, measured response to the threat..." off the teleprompter. The time has come for the third party revolution. I have to seriously wonder if you are trolling here. We may have gotten war in Afghanistan- and that was appropriate. I said so at the time, and I say so now. War with Iraq? No freaking way. It took a real jumping of the shark as they say to somehow tie Iraq into the whole 9-11 scenario. The other party did not have the ties to the same industries to even think of it.
Had we not invaded Iraq, we could have at least given a half an effort to succeeding in the Afghan. (The Taliban spring offensive started this week, btw. Without the US and our NATO lackeys there expect some bad news out of Kabul)
Had we not invaded Iraq there would be no ISIL, at least not in its current status. Had we not invaded Iraq the Ayatollahs would probably have a strong and natural counterbalance right there, instead of the motley crew of warring tribes we see now.
I strongly reject your premise that this war would have come to pass had the other candidate (Gore) or even the other, other candidate (Nader) won. No way.
The US was certainly amped for retribution. A leader can take that in various directions. What we did, as has been mentioned before, was akin to attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor. We don't need that again with Rubio, thank you very, very much.
Believe what you want. You're going to get a war with Iran in reasonably short order, and you're going to get it regardless of who gets into the White House in 2016. Vote for Ms. Clinton if you think a vote for Ms. Clinton = a vote for no war with Iran, but as I said to Dark, don't look so betrayed when she's the one reading the teleprompter as you march off to war.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 24, 2015 17:14:42 GMT -5
You want to put some money on that? I don't bet money. Besides, the war might not come to fruition until 2018 or 2019, it might not be a war limited to Iran, and they might not call it a "war". Bookmark this thread and it will be my "Mittmentum" thread if I'm wrong. That's got to be worth something.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Apr 24, 2015 17:19:09 GMT -5
You want to put some money on that? I don't bet money. Besides, the war might not come to fruition until 2018 or 2019, it might not be a war limited to Iran, and they might not call it a "war". Bookmark this thread and it will be my "Mittmentum" thread if I'm wrong. That's got to be worth something. I thought you were some junior college teacher...put down the pipe and the absurd imagination.
|
|