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

How the heck is the civil in Syria Obama's fault. I suppose the entire Arab Spring is due to Obama. I think it had something to do with people wanting freedom from dictators.

Rise of Isis- Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq leaving a novice policing force or army, whatever you want to call that rag tag bunch, to be taken over due to a power vacuum. Syria- mobilized military and diplomatic aggressions arming anyone capable of wielding a weapon then sitting them with the spotlight on the global stage to watch non-actors try and dance. The US in some capacity has a military stake in every country in the middle east. We don't have to have bases there, its the banks that back our military that are actually invested. Making broad generalizations without actually paying attention to what is going on doesn't qualify you as an authority to reduce anyones credibility ;-)

It appears that you are the one that is not actually paying any attention to what is going on. ISIS has not pulled out of Iraq. That's ridiculous. The leader of the caliphate and ISIS's total leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi is currently in Mosul along with their explosives expert Fawzi Ali Nouimehi. Mosul is in Iraq. The battle for Mosul has just begun. How if the leader of all ISIS is there is there a power vacuum?

I've already answered that. Now please, I will ask you once again, respectfully to cease quoting my posts and allow me to ignore this thread. Further efforts to provoke a response from me will be reported as trolling.

I can see where you would get that I said ISIS pulled out of Iraq... I was meaning that WE pulled out of Iraq and that's the reason for the power struggle that gave rise to ISIS... As in, you said Obama had nothing to do with the creation of ISIS when in fact, that is not the case. "Rise of ISIS:" probably would have been a better way to word that I suppose. well not to mention all their fancy US armory and US propaganda and advertising. Our government has done nothing but cater to ISIS while having the news be all like, "the boogey man is at your front door." It was edited so that is more clear, I definitely didn't think anyone would have thought that I was saying that ISIS pulled out of Iraq, thats kinda sillly.

No no no no. Pulling out of Iraq didn't lead to ISIS. Invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam created ISIS. And if you didn't leave when we did, when do you want to leave? Stay there forever? We never should have invaded.

While perhaps the Electoral College is undesirable due to it not being a direct popular vote, I just have one simple case for it. If America were to do a straight popular vote, I would fear for the discrimination and under-representation of smaller states, who do not have as much population to further their claims and beliefs as a state. The Electoral College in a way provides everyone an equal playing field, whether you come from a large state or not.

Watched the debate. I thought Hillary did a better job. I thought she spoke more concisely and made more of her points. Trump had some openings but didn't really take advantage of them. Trump tried to blame the hackings on China. The moderator put him in his place. It's errors like that he makes where I don't understand why he does it.

You're all right and wrong at the same time.

Iraq should have never been invaded but the fact is it was voted upon favorably by the US Congress and domestically had greater than 50% support at the time. It is also a fact that ISIS did not exist until US forces unilaterally pulled out without establishing some kind of continuing basing or security agreement. Ever heard of, "You break it, You buy it"?

The sensible and morally right thing to do in both cases was ignored in favor of policies which were set via focus groups and what polled well politically. Now the entire region is destabilized and nobody wants to accept any ownership of it.

PS- An ever increasing number of US troops have been steadily inserted back into Iraq over the last year or so and are quietly trying to tidy up the mess without attracting too much attention. There are now 5,000 of them in country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/world/middleeast/obama-troops-iraq.html?_r=0

Just wondering: Did Clinton violate national security (treason) with her 4 minute time stamp on 4 minutes between nuclear order and nukes flying?

The whole "four minute warning" thing goes back to the cold war and is a common expression. From what I understand it came from the time it took for the Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons at Great Britain. But, she certainly put it out there as reality. I don't know if it is or not anymore. Obviously, you would be a bit time constrained if you saw missiles coming towards the US.

A few minutes of Googling yielded this information:

I could not find the date he said it, but this quote from the book, "An American Life: Ronald Reagan" probably would have come from sometime in the 80's : "Six minutes to decide how to respond to a blip on a radar scope and decide whether to unleash Armageddon! How could anyone apply reason at a time like that?"

Most of the references I saw also referred to reaction time. There are 6-30 minutes of reaction time depending on where they are launched from and where their targets are. This means that, if we ever intend to use our arsenal in a retaliatory strike, the minimum time to make a decision and launch is less than six minutes.

I did find this Politico article written in June 2015. It indicates that it takes about 4 minutes from the President's decision to launch: https://goo.gl/4wn2QJ (Start reading at the second occurrence of "inauguration").

Clinton actually said "about four minutes" anyway rather than a definite time suggesting that she really doesn't know anything more than what the rest of the world knows or can figure out for ourselves. Since it is the President's duty rather than the SoS', she likely has not been provided the actual details, and as we've never actually launched nuclear missiles in a modern scenario, any time is an estimate.

I think a reasonable person could deduce the four minute estimate without any help from Clinton. A lot of people are looking for something that makes her definitively ineligible for the Presidency. They'll have to keep looking as this is not it.

Current candidate status:

Clinton - Won the election.

Trump - Tried to help himself, but dug himself into a deeper hole.

(The only thing that can change this is if some new, shockingly-horrific scandal got released on Clinton within the next 18 - 19 days...)

from every nerds favorite CIA/MI6 hacker propaganda group:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FSD4pECZ9I

So basically, there is this group of people that control everything and we know nothing about them. They pull the strings and we just jump around like puppets but no one knows anything about any of it. Wow, that's great that Trump has let me know about this devious conspiracy that only he can save us from. I mean he was right about all the other conspiracy theories. It reminds me of something from a Kinks song, "paranoia will destroy ya". I don't make decisions based on fear mongering and conjecture. I make decisions based on facts. Sorry.

obviously you read what I wrote *rolls eyes*

Hillary won this election and Trump lost, terribly.

Better luck next time, eh republicans?

In no other first world country besides the UK have I heard threats of civil war from the losing part of a population in a democratic (in the most questionable sense of the word) vote.

The American alt-right have outdone the hardcore British Brexiteers/Eurosceptics in the 'saying stupid shit' contest. Didn't think that was possible. Well done.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ers-warn-of-another-revolutionary-war-if-hil/