Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: But, hey... keep trying to hang that Trumpian Albatross around my neck... I'll be bob'n weaving outside of your reach.
There's saying what moves like a duck and quacks like a duck...
You keep helping Trump toward white house whether you intend it or not. So either consciously or sub-consciously you are Trump fan. Otherwise why are you doing your hardest to be #TrumpForTheWhiteHouse?
Just face it. Every action anybody makes regarding us elections is #ForClinton or #ForTrump attached to it. Can be others but ultimately it's 100% impossible to do something that ISN'T for #ForClinton or #ForTrump.
Your actions are #ForTrump all over the place. Whatever your other goals might be one is #TrumpForTheWhiteHouse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 05:47:01
whembly wrote: But, hey... keep trying to hang that Trumpian Albatross around my neck... I'll be bob'n weaving outside of your reach.
There's saying what moves like a duck and quacks like a duck...
You keep helping Trump toward white house whether you intend it or not. So either consciously or sub-consciously you are Trump fan. Otherwise why are you doing your hardest to be #TrumpForTheWhiteHouse?
Just face it. Every action anybody makes regarding us elections is #ForClinton or #ForTrump attached to it. Can be others but ultimately it's 100% impossible to do something that ISN'T for #ForClinton or #ForTrump.
Your actions are #ForTrump all over the place. Whatever your other goals might be one is #TrumpForTheWhiteHouse.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I rarely agree with Whembly, but he has a point here. He doesn't want to support Trump, he doesn't want to support Hillary. By voting third party he denies either of them a vote while not reducing the overall total of votes cast. Because third party candidates aren't going to win anyway, one can safely vote for them regardless of how bad they are. If a third party gets, say, 10% of the national vote this year it means nothing in terms of electoral college or political power. But it sends a message to the big parties that if they continue to present options like these that 10% can keep increasing.
The attitude that a vote for a third party is a vote wasted is, somewhat ironically, the main factor in keeping those parties irrelevant. As Ouze said earlier, the only vote wasted is the vote you never cast.
But he's helping Trump.
It's really simple. There's 2 candinates that can win the election. ANY action you do therefore benefits one or the other. It's flat out impossible to have decision that doesn't help one of them. Vote that is not cast or cast to somebody who cannot win always help protest candinate. Which Trump is.
You do know that vote can be #forX for TWO things? If you vote for 3rd party it can be #for3rdparty and #fortrump at the same time.
His action helps trump. Therefore his action is(regardless of what other goals it has) also #fortrump. Making his #nevertrump statement lie.
Any action you make is #forX for EVERY thing that helps from your action. So trying to claim it's not for some of them when it is is just flat out deluding yourself.
And it still isn't true, because of the way elections in the US work. I tried explaining this two weeks ago:
And I know I have stressed this before, but the voting system in the US is very different and whembly is not actually voting for president. He's just voting to decide who the 10 electors representing Missouri are going to vote for. And whoever wins the state, that person will get all 10 votes regardless of how many people actually vote for them. If Trump wins with 48% or with 98%, he will get all 10 votes for Missouri. And Trump WILL win Missouri, that's not even a question. So honestly it doesn't matter one bit who whembly votes for. If he votes for Trump it won't affect the outcome, and it doesn't matter if he votes for Hillary, if he votes for Johnson, if he votes for Stein, or if he spends the entire day in the bathroom sick and throwing up because he knows Trump or Hillary will be president.
There are a handful of states where your vote matters when it comes to electing the next POTUS, for the vast majority of us our votes don't make an impact. So whembly voting for Johnson honestly isn't any more or less #NeverTrump than any other alternaive. But he's not voting #ForTrump (at least that we know off).
Kilkrazy wrote: If you vote for Trump or Clinton, you help them and hurt the other side. If you don't vote, you hurt both Trump and Clinton by not helping them.
He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
ulgurstasta wrote: But as someone living relatively close to Russia I dont want to see these powers escalate into a real conflict.
And there's no reason to believe that they will. In the Cold War we had much more serious conflicts and still managed to avoid having a shooting war. Sure, it sucked to be a country chosen to host a proxy war, but in the end everyone understood that MAD is a thing that neither side wants. And the thing about being the establishment is that you understand the rules of the game. You understand how to push and provoke and get your piece where you can without escalating to nuclear armageddon. So sure, implement a no-fly zone. Either the US will back down and be a bit embarrassed, or Russia will back down and be a bit embarrassed. And if someone screws up badly and a Russian (or US) plane gets shot down then both sides understand that, for all the big public show of outrage they're going to make, you make a quiet deal to resolve the incident because neither side wants to end civilization as we know it over Syria.
If you're worried about a real conflict with Russia then Trump is the one to worry about. Trump is a raving lunatic who seems to be proud of his ignorance about how the game is played. And that's the real threat, the clumsy amateur who doesn't know when they're crossing the line from saber-rattling to serious danger of starting a war until it's too late to stop the shooting.
I would prefer it if we didn´t have to new cold war in the first place, as there where several times in the first cold war where we were a button press from nuclear war.
But yes, none of the two candidates are good in this matter, one is a warhawk and the other a clueless showman.
sure, yet on the other hand, russia is also a willing participant of the cold war, they also have a button, and right now they're sending their only carrier and escorts to syria to set up a permanent base. They want to solidy assad and drive out the rebels before the new president can take office, so whoever wins really has no choice but to accept russias control over syria.
So the real question seems to be, does america roll over and let russia expand unchallenged (trumps plan)? or is a bit of saber rattling in order(clintons plan)?
As I said in an earlier post, Both the US and Russia are imperialist power and they are both willing to use that power to their advantages, I dont regard any of them as the "Good guys" in this scenario.
Regarding Syria, The US already have established military bases in Syria, which is allied with Iran and Russia so you can expect them to react. So the question is to me, do we get a president that is willing to fight for the regime change they have planned in Syria or do we get a president that is willing to work out an diplomatic solution?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
After witnessing how she was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone, I have no faith in the woman's Middle East policies.
Yes, it was Clinton's doing!!!! Go do some reading!
The articles you show do nothing but armchair quarterback the aftermath of the NATO action in Libya. Your comments, to which I replied, incredulously stated that Clinton "...was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone."
First a little backdrop: Libya is a kleptocracy run by a terrorist sponsoring dictator, Gaddafi, who is known for his brutal repression of any internal dissention within the country and the use of violence against his own people. Unemployment is running in double digits and over a third of the country lives below the poverty line. Nice, stable backdrop there, right? Probably Clinton is behind it.
Now, let's take a look at the time line for some fact checking, shall we?
December 2010: Arab Spring breaks out right next door in Tunisia and quickly spreads across the Arab world, affecting 16 Arab countries that manifest the phenomenon in ways ranging from peaceful protests to Civil War. A major slogan of the demonstrators in the Arab world is Ash-sha`b yurid isqat an-nizam ("the people want to bring down the regime"). One of Clinton's speechwriters must have come up with that.
January 2011: Protests break out across Libya over issues ranging from housing to political corruption with calls from the Islamic hardliners for an overthrow of the government.
February 2011: Gaddafi tells the protesters, journalists and activists that they will be held responsible for any unrest. Later that month, protests in Benghazi erupted into violence as Gaddafi orders security forces to fire upon the protestors. This action acted as the spark which caused uprising across the country. Mercenaries and death squads are hired and funded by Gaddafi to hunt down activists and scourge the country of dissent. The International Federation for Human Rights concluded on 24 February that Gaddafi was implementing a scorched earth strategy and settling "old scores" as well against known opposition and journalists. Sounds like things are already getting pretty violent, like a "warzone" that not only targets the military, but outright seeks the death of civilians. Obviously, early signs of Clinton responsibility.
March 2011: NATO coalition forces, in response to UN 1973 passed by the Security Council without dissent, respond militarily to the Libyan conflict to suppress Gaddafi's prosecution of the war against civilians. The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians. 19 countries are actively involved in this action. The UN and those 19 countries are obviously just Clinton puppets and not at all concerned by the torrent of reports coming out of Libya that Gaddafi has begun a murdurous cleansing of any and all civilian, as well as military, opposition.
October: Gaddafi is killed by rebel forces. The National Transitional Council "declared the liberation of Libya" and the official end of the war on 23 October 2011.
Over the next few months, militia groups and tribes begin infighting as strife and disagreements over the power structure of a post Gaddafi Libya erupt. Yeah, Clinton advisors must have stirred up the kettle between those groups. It couldn't be the fact that you've got ancient tribal rivalries, Islamic extremists, factions sponsored by different foreign entities with their own agendas and just plain power politics causing this. No, it's Clinton.
I guess by that logic, you don't blame Bush for Iraq.
Two more weeks to go. Hang in there...you can do this...you're not going to go mad and eat your own hands....
Two more weeks...little steps...one day at a time...breathe in...breathe out...
You're a winner: you're Rommel, You're Monty, you're Tony Montana
News that the postal votes are rolling in fills my heart with joy. This campaign seems to have go on for the last two years...
and the next campaign will probably start again in January
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Witness the awesome journalistic talents of the rightwing USA media there
Believe it or not the guy they're actual referring to in fact used to edit/work for/write for the Weekly World News.
something something barrel scrape....
Or --being fair -- this is the scoop of the decade.
Certainly throws a different light on things that have happened in the UK.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 11:32:46
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Ed Miliband is circled in that picture...WTF x 1000
Why is Ed Miliband in that picture? Why American dakka members? Why?
And as for you reds8n, you'll be hearing from my solicitor - my ribs are severely damaged from laughter, so I want money for damages
Seriously, America, why are you dragging poor Ed Miliband into this...
He lost last year's British election. The poor man's suffered enough...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Who can we trust anymore, anyone could be a Clinton Hitman...
Exactly! Sweet baby Jesus - what the has happened to American media?
Ed Miliband a hitman?
The guy nearly got lost in the House of Commons once
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Who can we trust anymore, anyone could be a Clinton Hitman...
Exactly! Sweet baby Jesus - what the has happened to American media?
Ed Miliband a hitman?
The guy nearly got lost in the House of Commons once
Sounds like the perfect cover. "Me, murder someone? I'm just trying to find the bathroom!"
Yeah, but when that's been your work place for 10 years, it's a different story
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
NinthMusketeer wrote: He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
To be fair to Whembly, he has stated he's also voting third party down ballot, as well. So he's not just blindly supporting the Republican party that created the situation that allowed for Trump to happen. So, at least Whembly is walking the walk when it comes to the whole protest vote thing, whereas others are just talk because they're still otherwise good little party members down ballot.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
NinthMusketeer wrote: He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
To be fair to Whembly, he has stated he's also voting third party down ballot, as well. So he's not just blindly supporting the Republican party that created the situation that allowed for Trump to happen. So, at least Whembly is walking the walk when it comes to the whole protest vote thing, whereas others are just talk because they're still otherwise good little party members down ballot.
I think the point is that he's only doing this now, after it already reached the end point, rather than earlier when this situation could have been avoided. So it is like people deciding that climate change and the greenhouse effect actually are real only when our atmosphere has become that of Venus.
He supported the rhetoric and actions of the Republicans which led to this situation (and still does, just look at his opinions on the supreme court hearings mess and republican obstructionism in general). Suddenly saying "No, I dislike Trump and won't vote for him or other republicans" is trying to wash your hands of the situation which you helped create due to your support of the behaviour that directly caused it.
It is good that he is actually no longer supporting the people espousing that kind of behaviour at this moment in time but he was perfectly happy with that behaviour right up until it gave the republicans Trump as their candidate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 13:43:23
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
d-usa wrote: And it still isn't true, because of the way elections in the US work. I tried explaining this two weeks ago:
You might still disagree but that just means you are still wrong.
Me and d-usa don't see eye-to-eye very much in the OT subforum.
But here? He's 100% correct.
Keep in mind, he's sorta in the same boat as me living in Oklahoma. He's likely voting for Hillary (certainly not Trump), but it isn't going to do a damn thing as far as the outcome is concerned.
NinthMusketeer wrote: He isn't helping Trump by voting for him, he has indirectly helped Trump by supporting the Republican attitudes which led to his candidacy. Even if Trump gets 100% of the electoral votes him winning those by 48% sends a very different message than if he wins with 90%. Accordingly voting for/against him (or any candidate) may not change the outcome but does matter. But at this point I am looking past this election and making light of the fact that the Republican outlook created Trump's candidacy (among other issues) and continuing that outlook will rather predictably continue to produce the same results. Whembly isn't going to like those results which is why I draw such amusement from his part in making them happen.
To be fair to Whembly, he has stated he's also voting third party down ballot, as well. So he's not just blindly supporting the Republican party that created the situation that allowed for Trump to happen. So, at least Whembly is walking the walk when it comes to the whole protest vote thing, whereas others are just talk because they're still otherwise good little party members down ballot.
Yeah... the biggest issue is that there's not enough 3rd party options around here...
I lucked out that I have a libertarian (which I'm voting for) in my Congressional District.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
Fix the primary system?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 13:44:51
jmurph wrote: On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
Fix the primary system?
That will not fix the real problem, which is the republican party members themselves.
Trump didn't win the nomination through some weird rule in the primary system. He won by getting more votes than any other candidate, by being supported by more republican party members who voted in those primaries.
The GOP needs to look at themselves very hard and figure out how the messages they have been putting out have affected their voter base and whether that is the direction they want their party to go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 13:52:31
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
jmurph wrote: On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
Fix the primary system?
That will not fix the real problem, which is the republican party members themselves.
Trump didn't win the nomination through some weird rule in the primary system. He won by getting more votes than any other candidate, by being supported by more republican party members who voted in those primaries.
The GOP needs to look at themselves very hard and figure out how the messages they have been putting out have affected their voter base and whether that is the direction they want their party to go.
Trump wouldn't have had his success if he didn't have the clown car of 17 candidate, $2 billion of free media attention drowning out the oxygen of the room and an inconsistent primary system that allowed non-party members to vote.
Those are major (not only) factor to Trump's rise.
The GOP party does need an overhaul, but the main grievance against the establishment GOP party is the fact that the GOP voters weren't appreciated.
jmurph wrote: On the other hand, straight ticket voting is probably going to destroy a lot of moderate Republicans as Dems turn out against Trump. Meanwhile, extremists will retain their offices is heavy red areas. Any guess as to what message that will send the party?
Fix the primary system?
That will not fix the real problem, which is the republican party members themselves.
Trump didn't win the nomination through some weird rule in the primary system. He won by getting more votes than any other candidate, by being supported by more republican party members who voted in those primaries.
There's really no saving the republican party at this point. They've pushed their base so far to the right, that their next candidate could only be Fred Phelps. Anyone other than him is just to far to the left. Their base is now seeing the party as just being another part of the corrupt system so the base will probably split off to form it's own party, the deplorable party.
"Class differences among whites are pronounced. A majority (56%) of white college-educated Americans say American society is generally better now than it was in the 1950s, while nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans say things are now worse."
"About seven in ten likely voters supporting Donald Trump (72%) say American society and way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while seven in ten likely voters supporting Hillary Clinton (70%) say things have changed for the better."
who knew Polio, chrome finishing and racial segregation was such an attractive proposition ?
"More than six in ten (61%) Americans say neither political party represents their views anymore. Dissatisfaction with America’s two major parties has risen significantly since 1990, when fewer than half (48%) of Americans believed neither political party represented their views.
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to have historically low favorability ratings with fewer than half of the public viewing each candidate positively (41% vs. 33%, respectively). Clinton is viewed less favorably than the Democratic Party (49%), but Trump’s low favorability rating is more consistent with the Republican Party’s low favorability (36%).
The public is more likely to attribute a number of positive qualities to Clinton than to Trump. The public is divided over which presidential candidate is more honest and trustworthy (45% Clinton, 44% Trump) and over who is a stronger and more decisive leader (47% Clinton, 47% Trump). But on every other attribute, Clinton has a substantial advantage over Trump, including having “the right temperament and personality” (61% Clinton, 33% Trump) and having “the right background and experience” (64% Clinton, 31% Trump)."
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
"Class differences among whites are pronounced. A majority (56%) of white college-educated Americans say American society is generally better now than it was in the 1950s, while nearly two-thirds (65%) of white working-class Americans say things are now worse."
"About seven in ten likely voters supporting Donald Trump (72%) say American society and way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while seven in ten likely voters supporting Hillary Clinton (70%) say things have changed for the better."
who knew Polio, chrome finishing and racial segregation was such an attractive proposition ?
"More than six in ten (61%) Americans say neither political party represents their views anymore. Dissatisfaction with America’s two major parties has risen significantly since 1990, when fewer than half (48%) of Americans believed neither political party represented their views.
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to have historically low favorability ratings with fewer than half of the public viewing each candidate positively (41% vs. 33%, respectively). Clinton is viewed less favorably than the Democratic Party (49%), but Trump’s low favorability rating is more consistent with the Republican Party’s low favorability (36%).
The public is more likely to attribute a number of positive qualities to Clinton than to Trump. The public is divided over which presidential candidate is more honest and trustworthy (45% Clinton, 44% Trump) and over who is a stronger and more decisive leader (47% Clinton, 47% Trump). But on every other attribute, Clinton has a substantial advantage over Trump, including having “the right temperament and personality” (61% Clinton, 33% Trump) and having “the right background and experience” (64% Clinton, 31% Trump)."
Now you understand how boned 'Murrica is?
We're going to have possibly the most unpopular President in modern times.
Democrats better hope to recover both the House and Senate... if not, get used to MOAR partisan gridlock ya'll.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/25 14:07:44
This conversation about Republican Primaries and non member voters reminds me of a situation from my side of the pond - the nomination of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still don't get describing Clinton as a "warhawk". Especially when compared to the Republican" glass 'em all" stratagy.
Liberal hawk would be the right descriptive. She definitely buys into the idea of using violence for democracy and free trade. As per her M.O. only stops supporting violence when it becomes politically expedient to do so. Clinton's policy for Syria is actually equally as "badong" as Trump's. So while it isn't as firey as your typical Republican candidate, in practice she isn't much better.
After witnessing how she was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone, I have no faith in the woman's Middle East policies.
Yes, it was Clinton's doing!!!! Go do some reading!
The articles you show do nothing but armchair quarterback the aftermath of the NATO action in Libya. Your comments, to which I replied, incredulously stated that Clinton "...was instrumental in turning Lybia into a warzone."
First a little backdrop: Libya is a kleptocracy run by a terrorist sponsoring dictator, Gaddafi, who is known for his brutal repression of any internal dissention within the country and the use of violence against his own people. Unemployment is running in double digits and over a third of the country lives below the poverty line. Nice, stable backdrop there, right? Probably Clinton is behind it.
Now, let's take a look at the time line for some fact checking, shall we?
December 2010: Arab Spring breaks out right next door in Tunisia and quickly spreads across the Arab world, affecting 16 Arab countries that manifest the phenomenon in ways ranging from peaceful protests to Civil War. A major slogan of the demonstrators in the Arab world is Ash-sha`b yurid isqat an-nizam ("the people want to bring down the regime"). One of Clinton's speechwriters must have come up with that.
January 2011: Protests break out across Libya over issues ranging from housing to political corruption with calls from the Islamic hardliners for an overthrow of the government.
February 2011: Gaddafi tells the protesters, journalists and activists that they will be held responsible for any unrest. Later that month, protests in Benghazi erupted into violence as Gaddafi orders security forces to fire upon the protestors. This action acted as the spark which caused uprising across the country. Mercenaries and death squads are hired and funded by Gaddafi to hunt down activists and scourge the country of dissent. The International Federation for Human Rights concluded on 24 February that Gaddafi was implementing a scorched earth strategy and settling "old scores" as well against known opposition and journalists. Sounds like things are already getting pretty violent, like a "warzone" that not only targets the military, but outright seeks the death of civilians. Obviously, early signs of Clinton responsibility.
March 2011: NATO coalition forces, in response to UN 1973 passed by the Security Council without dissent, respond militarily to the Libyan conflict to suppress Gaddafi's prosecution of the war against civilians. The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians. 19 countries are actively involved in this action. The UN and those 19 countries are obviously just Clinton puppets and not at all concerned by the torrent of reports coming out of Libya that Gaddafi has begun a murdurous cleansing of any and all civilian, as well as military, opposition.
October: Gaddafi is killed by rebel forces. The National Transitional Council "declared the liberation of Libya" and the official end of the war on 23 October 2011.
Over the next few months, militia groups and tribes begin infighting as strife and disagreements over the power structure of a post Gaddafi Libya erupt. Yeah, Clinton advisors must have stirred up the kettle between those groups. It couldn't be the fact that you've got ancient tribal rivalries, Islamic extremists, factions sponsored by different foreign entities with their own agendas and just plain power politics causing this. No, it's Clinton.
I guess by that logic, you don't blame Bush for Iraq.
And I'll just file that "response" in the ridiculously irrelevant attempt at diversion file. Those are facts, not logic. If it helps, I do blame Roberto Goizueta for the New Coke debacle. I mean, it's about as relevant as your comment.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/25 14:43:02
has happened to American media?
