[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

I do indeed think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there was a quid pro quo. As for your order of operations, you have that completely backwards. These types of things are primarily driven by the Executive Branch. Notice to Congress of proposed arms sales usually comes very late in the process. Sometimes arms deals will have been in the works with customer governments for months or years by the time Congress is let in on it. Controversial deals are usually argued for by whatever administration happens to be in power on the notion that failure of Congress to approve would damage bilateral relations, national security, and/or the prestige of the office of the President. It is the job of Congress to approve budgetary allocations but it is explicitly the job of the State Department to review such transfers for final approval. They are the overseeing authority for all international arms brokering controls.

http://www.state.gov/strategictrade/practices/c43181.htm

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Here's a CNN article about a $30 billion dollar sale of F-15s to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/world/meast/u-s--saudi-fighter-sale/

It comes on the heels of a State Department report which slams that country for its human rights violations.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm

Has this kind of activity occurred before Hillary time as Secretary of State? Absolutely. But she's equally complicit in it.

The not-so-subtle implication, of course, being that I am a Republican and should be ignored out of hand because of that. I am unaffiliated and have been so for many, many years. If there were not privacy concerns of posting my personal information to strangers on a public site I would happily share evidence of such with you. I have not so much offered a single bit of support for Donald Trump or any Republican in this entire thread. Trump is a clown and he does a sufficient enough job of discrediting himself without my help. I AM NOT VOTING FOR HIM. What I have taken issue here with are people such as yourself who are more interested in making appeals to emotion than logically examining hard evidence at face value.

You want to vote for Hillary? Be my guest. I for one am not into selling out my soul for false narratives. I'm done with this thread.

He's done with this thread. However he dropped a lot down and I reviewed it. What I get out of it:
1. Strategic trade practices - technical on brokering items to other countries. It has nothing related to the issue at hand. Except it does specify to broker items you must be registered and have a license or other authorization. No relevance.
2. Two articles. First from IBTimes. A highly conservative publication. Speculations that try to make a connection between the Obama administration selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and a 10 million donation to the Clinton Foundation are somehow connected. Article makes you think that maybe the Clintons were trying to skirt the regulations but should be taken with a grain of salt considering the agenda of the writers.
3. The second is from CNN. I think we all know how conservatively biased CNN is. Similar to the first one. Both trying to draw a connection between the donation and the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. Both extremely biased.
4. The forth is related to Saudi Arabia and human rights violations. I don't think that is any surprise. Particularly when it comes of women. But the truth of the matter is it is not only the Obama administration that has sold arms to Saudi Arabia it is also republican administrations going back for years too.

I do not trust Rush Limbaugh. Nor, do I trust other highly conservative or liberal sources to get the full truth. I understand there are many with their own agendas that want me to believe their biased ideas. Why can't something be provided by a large news agency like one of the big networks, the Wall Street Journal, or even like the BBC. It is because these news organizations require hard facts before they can make accusations like that. And there is only speculation. Don't get me wrong, the Clinton Foundation should have never taken funds from foreign countries. It was not prudent but it doesn't mean she did all the horrendous things it is inferred she did. Again, I don't like her for president but she is 100 times better than Trump.

Wow guys, no need to get too heated, save your energy for election day, that way you can live a good life until then.

Until then, Bernie Sanders would have made a great president, I'm sad he didn't get too far in the race... :\

Debating is a good thing. It lets you discuss your reasoning and ideas with other members. Personally I mostly keep my politics to myself until somebody directly asks me, but I totally understand why people like to discuss their views

yeahhh.. but when somebody says something like
"I for one am not into selling out my soul for false narratives"

things might need to cool down

Back in the day when the nominees were determined by the people, I don't really think anybody really wanted Hillary and kind of the same for Trump. But now comes the time that the presidential election must determine the lesser of the two evils. I don't think there is any way that there could be a re-election, if there is then can somebody tell me how it can happen, it would honestly make my day to know that something is possible.

[fully serious] Some crazy ridiculous person could assassinate both of them and their vice candidates. [/fully serious]

[disclaimer] That is a terrible idea and I do not endorse anyone willing to do this whatsoever. [/disclaimer]

Well, something similar had sort of happened before, interesting how it might be his fault we're stuck with the two horrible candidates to vote for. Mostly because we ended up with Nixon.

When did somebody assassinate all of the presidential candidates and their vice running mates?

I have nothing wrong with debating, but when it gets really heated to where it looks like fighting, that's where I think it's being taken too far. That's just me however...

I was really bad with my wording, I kind of meant to refer to the JFK assasination

I think you guys should go dig up RFK and let him have his turn.

I see it came out today that Trump and his campaign manager have a connection to $12.7 million received from Russia. That goes a long way to explain Trump's bromance with Putin. I also saw a interview with Trump recently where he was asked about his apparent love affair with Putin and why he would be that way considering Russia had invaded and annexed part of an independent nation. He appeared completely unaware of this. OMG. Then he said that he would tell Putin to leave Crimea and he would leave. Wha...

I think something that not many people think about:

I hope that the 3rd party candidates don't steal votes from Hillary, 'cause that'll just hand the election to Trump if she loses too many. Sounds impossible? We have 3 months left...

3 months ago, Trump was leading Hillary in the polls.

And 3 months before that, Trump was being a big baby and complaining about Cruz stealing the New Hampshire primary from him...

All I care about is that Trump loses, anyone else can win and I wouldn't care; I just don't want Trump to be handed the election become of careless voters...

If only voting ballots had a "neither candidate" option.

She will lose to like the Green Party but Trump will be the biggest loser in that way to the Libertarian Party. That's my take on it.

This 'leave Crimea' point confuses me.

The issue isn't with Crimea. The people of Crimea are pro-Russian, so it makes sense for Ukraine to cede Crimea to the the Russian Federation. The US backed Kosovo's independence back in 2008 because the people had been oppressed by their government, yet that's the situation in Crimea right now and they refuse to acknowledge that. I get that it's giving land to the United States' 'worst enemy' and gives them increased naval abilities in the black sea, but who even cares. They have access to it anyway.

The issue is with Russia funding pro-Russian rebels in the civil war that has begun following the events of Euromaiden. That's the thing that needs to be stopped by the US and EU.

They do. Johnson, Stein, write-in, or don't vote.

Wow. Conservatives in America need to stop denying climate change.

Caution: May contain language unsuitable for children.

Doesn't matter to them because they will end up losing currency if they do take climate change into consideration, there's no other reason for them to deny climate change, unless if they use the excuse of religion, trying to debunk why they deny climate change would be like going through the winchester mystery house alone. If you don't know what it is, it's a huge house that's a maze for some reason. Also, please take my 1st statement with a grain of salt as it may or may not be true, but to me it just seemed like the most logical reason for them to do so. But even if I'm wrong targeting the conservatives, this doesn't mean that my statement is wrong if you apply it to a different scenario. Just like puzzle pieces, if it doesn't fit there, maybe it will fit in another piece.