Hillary Clinton to Launch 2016 Campaign

[The Black Forrest]

and those people will never vote for Hillary Clinton anyway. it is their dislike of her that make them believe things that the REPUBLICANS showed aren't true.

So it doesn't really matter anyway. There are plenty of better reasons not to vote for Hillary than her involvement/lack the thereof in Benghazi.

Well? Maybe to a teapartier and or fox drone.

So what are these reasons?

[Dyakovo]

and those people will never vote for Hillary Clinton anyway. it is their dislike of her that make them believe things that the REPUBLICANS showed aren't true.

So it doesn't really matter anyway. There are plenty of better reasons not to vote for Hillary than her involvement/lack the thereof in Benghazi.

And what, according to you, are those reasons?

[Blakk Metal]

I find the argument about Benghazi to be a complete and total waste of time. No matter how it went down, it was still the Obama regime's fault that Libya and Iraq are filled to the brim with jihadis today, a failure far more pathetic than anything that could have occurred in Benghazi.

"Obama regime"

Are seriously saying his government isn't 'a government in power'?

Also, no, it is not the fault of the Obama administration that Libya and Iraq are "filled to the brim with jihadis".

Yes it is. It was Obama who withdrew the troops from Iraq to gain status points, it was Obama who helped destroy the rightful government of Libya, and it was Obama who supported the violent traitors in Syria, who then supported IS and Al-Qaeda.

[Myrensis]

Yes it is. It was Obama who withdrew the troops from Iraq to gain status points, it was Obama who helped destroy the rightful government of Libya, and it was Obama who supported the violent traitors in Syria, who then supported IS and Al-Qaeda.

Obama withdrew troops from Iraq because those were the terms Bush left him, and al-Maliki was more colossally stupid than anybody could have foreseen and as a precondition for an ongoing SOFA demanded that US Troops be subject to Iraqi law and courts. Please tell me about how if Obama had agreed to those terms Republicans and conservatives would be hailing his courageous commitment to finishing the job.

Saddam was the 'rightful government' of Iraq.

I agree about Syria, but then again it's a meaningless distinction, because Republicans have been screaming about Obama not doing enough to support those 'violent traitors'.

[Ashmoria]

"Obama regime"

Are seriously saying his government isn't 'a government in power'?

Also, no, it is not the fault of the Obama administration that Libya and Iraq are "filled to the brim with jihadis".

Yes it is. It was Obama who withdrew the troops from Iraq to gain status points, it was Obama who helped destroy the rightful government of Libya, and it was Obama who supported the violent traitors in Syria, who then supported IS and Al-Qaeda.

do you really wish we had stayed in Iraq at the same troop levels? do you really wish we had propped up qaddafi? do you think we should have come in to support bashar al assad?

why would anyone have wanted us to be doing those things?

[Dyakovo]

"Obama regime"

Are seriously saying his government isn't 'a government in power'?

I'm saying regime has other implications, which you know.

Also, no, it is not the fault of the Obama administration that Libya and Iraq are "filled to the brim with jihadis".

Yes it is. It was Obama who withdrew the troops from Iraq to gain status points¹, it was Obama who helped destroy the rightful government of Libya², and it was Obama who supported the violent traitors in Syria³, who then supported IS and Al-Qaeda.⁴

1: Our reason for being in Iraq was done, so no, it wasn't for "status points". It was because our ill-conceived mission was done.
2: As part of a NATO task Force, at the request of our allies. Also, calling Khaddafi's government "the rightful government" of Libya is a bit of a stretch.
3: So you're saying that Obama should have supported Assad?
4: Source that all the people fighting against Assad supported Daesh and Al-queda?

[Myrensis]

do you really wish we had stayed in Iraq at the same troop levels? do you really wish we had propped up qaddafi? do you think we should have come in to support bashar al assad?

why would anyone have wanted us to be doing those things?

I agree about Iraq.

Libya we should have stayed way from. Not only do we have the issue of violence and ongoing civil war, but it also complicated things with Iran. Qaddafi after all cooperated with the West to dismantle his WMD program...and then we cheerfully facilitated a bit of regime change the minute the opportunity presented itself, kind of gives Iran good reason to be wary of any security promises made in the context of their own program.

Because realpolitik and the fact that Bashar is/was the least terrible option? Most of the "freedom fighters" are as bad if not worse than he is, and in the meantime while they fight to put their own strongman on the throne the country is torn apart and ISIL finds a fertile breeding ground.

[Caltarania]

Eh, there aren't any bloody popular leftist candidates in the States, but I guess Hillary is a decent enough lass.

-retreats back to the UK general election thread-

[Ashmoria]

do you really wish we had stayed in Iraq at the same troop levels? do you really wish we had propped up qaddafi? do you think we should have come in to support bashar al assad?

why would anyone have wanted us to be doing those things?

I agree about Iraq.

Libya we should have stayed way from. Not only do we have the issue of violence and ongoing civil war, but it also complicated things with Iran. Qaddafi after all cooperated with the West to dismantle his WMD program...and then we cheerfully facilitated a bit of regime change the minute the opportunity presented itself, kind of gives Iran good reason to be wary of any security promises made in the context of their own program.

Because realpolitik and the fact that Bashar is/was the least terrible option? Most of the "freedom fighters" are as bad if not worse than he is, and in the meantime while they fight to put their own strongman on the throne the country is torn apart and ISIL finds a fertile breeding ground.

and how would you have felt when qaddafi slaughtered tens of thousands in Benghazi when we could have stopped it? plenty of people would have been very upset for very good reason. you cant see whats going on today and forget what was going on back then.

we have no reason to be in Syria on either side. they weren't our friends in the past, aren't now and wont be in the future. that is why the president has declined to follow john mccains call to help the rebels. now we feel we have to fight against isis. we try to do the minimum while getting the rest of the area to put in the real fighting. its slow but its working.

the only place where we really fucked over a "friend" was in Egypt when we refused to help out Mubarak. that was a very dangerous thing to do that could have gone very badly if the winners of the revolution had refused to honor the agreement with Israel.

[Ashmoria]

Eh, there aren't any bloody popular leftist candidates in the States, but I guess Hillary is a decent enough lass.

-retreats back to the UK general election thread-

we don't have a real left. at least not one that is more popular than, say, the libertarian party on the right.

[Caltarania]

Eh, there aren't any bloody popular leftist candidates in the States, but I guess Hillary is a decent enough lass.

-retreats back to the UK general election thread-

we don't have a real left. at least not one that is more popular than, say, the libertarian party on the right.

I know, it's rather a shame in my opinion, but eh, there's that whole thing "socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and that.

-shrug-

[Myrensis]

and how would you have felt when qaddafi slaughtered tens of thousands in Benghazi when we could have stopped it? plenty of people would have been very upset for very good reason. you cant see whats going on today and forget what was going on back then.

we have no reason to be in Syria on either side. they weren't our friends in the past, aren't now and wont be in the future. that is why the president has declined to follow john mccains call to help the rebels. now we feel we have to fight against isis. we try to do the minimum while getting the rest of the area to put in the real fighting. its slow but its working.

the only place where we really fucked over a "friend" was in Egypt when we refused to help out Mubarak. that was a very dangerous thing to do that could have gone very badly if the winners of the revolution had refused to honor the agreement with Israel.

Kind of undermines your argument from morality when you then turn around and criticize our decision not to save a 'friendly' dictator in Egypt. Saddam was our friend once upon a time too.

[Ashmoria]

and how would you have felt when qaddafi slaughtered tens of thousands in Benghazi when we could have stopped it? plenty of people would have been very upset for very good reason. you cant see whats going on today and forget what was going on back then.

we have no reason to be in Syria on either side. they weren't our friends in the past, aren't now and wont be in the future. that is why the president has declined to follow john mccains call to help the rebels. now we feel we have to fight against isis. we try to do the minimum while getting the rest of the area to put in the real fighting. its slow but its working.

the only place where we really fucked over a "friend" was in Egypt when we refused to help out Mubarak. that was a very dangerous thing to do that could have gone very badly if the winners of the revolution had refused to honor the agreement with Israel.

Kind of undermines your argument from morality when you then turn around and criticize our decision not to save a 'friendly' dictator in Egypt. Saddam was our friend once upon a time too.

you think I should ignore the complexity of our relationships in the middle east?

[Blakk Metal]

Yes it is. It was Obama who withdrew the troops from Iraq to gain status points, it was Obama who helped destroy the rightful government of Libya, and it was Obama who supported the violent traitors in Syria, who then supported IS and Al-Qaeda.

Obama withdrew troops from Iraq because those were the terms Bush left him, and al-Maliki was more colossally stupid than anybody could have foreseen and as a precondition for an ongoing SOFA demanded that US Troops be subject to Iraqi law and courts. Please tell me about how if Obama had agreed to those terms Republicans and conservatives would be hailing his courageous commitment to finishing the job.

So? Did anybody force Obama to do what al-Maliki or Bush wanted?

Saddam was the 'rightful government' of Iraq.

I agree about Syria, but then again it's a meaningless distinction, because Republicans have been screaming about Obama not doing enough to support those 'violent traitors'.

I love how you assume that if Obama is stupid, Bush must smart. Nothing in this was a defense of Obama, only a criticism of the Republicans.

Are seriously saying his government isn't 'a government in power'?

Yes it is. It was Obama who withdrew the troops from Iraq to gain status points, it was Obama who helped destroy the rightful government of Libya, and it was Obama who supported the violent traitors in Syria, who then supported IS and Al-Qaeda.

do you really wish we had stayed in Iraq at the same troop levels?

Are you seriously saying IS was better?

do you really wish we had propped up qaddafi? do you think we should have come in to support bashar al assad?

why would anyone have wanted us to be doing those things?

No one needed propping up. The only reason the traitors in Libya and Syria had a fighting chance was because of Western support.

[Kermana]

The options were somewhat vague. I will support Hillary Clinton if she and Martin O'Malley are the only two Democratic candidates. However, if Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders announce their candidacies, I would definitely sway my vote their way. Out of the four candidates (Paul, Rubio, Cruz, and Clinton), Hillary Clinton would absolutely get my vote.

[Kermana]

Also, I have a question. Would the Benghazi attacks be considered a foreign policy issue? That will certainly be an issue the Republicans will run on along with the "failure" of the Affordable Care Act.

[Dyakovo]

Also, I have a question. Would the Benghazi attacks be considered a foreign policy issue? That will certainly be an issue the Republicans will run on along with the "failure" of the Affordable Care Act.

Seeing as it was determined that nothing was done wrong regarding Benghazi, no, it would not be a foreign policy issue.

[Dyakovo]

Obama withdrew troops from Iraq because those were the terms Bush left him, and al-Maliki was more colossally stupid than anybody could have foreseen and as a precondition for an ongoing SOFA demanded that US Troops be subject to Iraqi law and courts. Please tell me about how if Obama had agreed to those terms Republicans and conservatives would be hailing his courageous commitment to finishing the job.

So? Did anybody force Obama to do what al-Maliki or Bush wanted?¹

Saddam was the 'rightful government' of Iraq.

I agree about Syria, but then again it's a meaningless distinction, because Republicans have been screaming about Obama not doing enough to support those 'violent traitors'.

I love how you assume that if Obama is stupid, Bush must smart. Nothing in this was a defense of Obama, only a criticism of the Republicans.

do you really wish we had stayed in Iraq at the same troop levels?

Are you seriously saying IS was better?²

do you really wish we had propped up qaddafi? do you think we should have come in to support bashar al assad?

why would anyone have wanted us to be doing those things?

No one needed propping up. The only reason the traitors in Libya and Syria had a fighting chance was because of Western support.³

1: Yes. It's called honoring treaty obligations.
2: So you do think that we should, as certain Republicans proclaimed, have stayed in Iraq for the next century...
3: So you support despots... Good to know.

[Blakk Metal]

So? Did anybody force Obama to do what al-Maliki or Bush wanted?¹

I love how you assume that if Obama is stupid, Bush must smart. Nothing in this was a defense of Obama, only a criticism of the Republicans.

Are you seriously saying IS was better?²

No one needed propping up. The only reason the traitors in Libya and Syria had a fighting chance was because of Western support.³

1: Yes. It's called honoring treaty obligations.

Which were based on lies and therefore were invalid.

2: So you do think that we should, as certain Republicans proclaimed, have stayed in Iraq for the next century...

No, I believe that Iraq shouldn't have been invaded in the first place, since the possession of weapons is not a valid casus belli, something Hilary Clinton was too stupid to know.

3: So you support despots... Good to know.

Stop pretending to support democracy.

[The Black Forrest]

1: Yes. It's called honoring treaty obligations.

Which were based on lies and therefore were invalid.

2: So you do think that we should, as certain Republicans proclaimed, have stayed in Iraq for the next century...

No, I believe that Iraq shouldn't have been invaded in the first place, since the possession of weapons is not a valid casus belli, something Hilary Clinton was too stupid to know.

3: So you support despots... Good to know.

Stop pretending to support democracy.

1) What lies were those exactly?

[The United Territories of Providence]

The options were somewhat vague. I will support Hillary Clinton if she and Martin O'Malley are the only two Democratic candidates. However, if Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders announce their candidacies, I would definitely sway my vote their way. Out of the four candidates (Paul, Rubio, Cruz, and Clinton), Hillary Clinton would absolutely get my vote.

The question is basically, do you have a favorable opinion of Clinton. Not necessarily will you vote for her, although I suppose you could interpret it that way....Also you forgot Walker and Bush....who are leading in the polls.

[Dyakovo]

1: Yes. It's called honoring treaty obligations.

Which were based on lies and therefore were invalid.

2: So you do think that we should, as certain Republicans proclaimed, have stayed in Iraq for the next century...

No, I believe that Iraq shouldn't have been invaded in the first place, since the possession of weapons is not a valid casus belli, something Hilary Clinton was too stupid to know.

3: So you support despots... Good to know.

Stop pretending to support democracy.

1: That's not how treaty obligations work, nor were they based on lies.
2: Actually, the existence of a stockpile of WMDs contrary to treaty terms is a casus beli for war. As far as "we shouldn't have invaded in the first place", that's a moot point since we did invade.
3: What? How is that in any way a rational response?

[The United Territories of Providence]

So? Did anybody force Obama to do what al-Maliki or Bush wanted?¹

I love how you assume that if Obama is stupid, Bush must smart. Nothing in this was a defense of Obama, only a criticism of the Republicans.

Are you seriously saying IS was better?²

No one needed propping up. The only reason the traitors in Libya and Syria had a fighting chance was because of Western support.³

1: Yes. It's called honoring treaty obligations.
2: So you do think that we should, as certain Republicans proclaimed, have stayed in Iraq for the next century...
3: So you support despots... Good to know.

I think you're misrepresenting the GOP with #2. We'd have a military presence in Iraq, like we have had in Japan since the Second World War. Which may have prevented the Islamic terror from ravaging the country like we've seen since our withdrawal. I don't know, hindsight is 20/20. Although President Bush, while he was president (post-troop urge) suggested that full withdrawal would leave a void that could be filled with extremism. But when you say "stay", it sounds like you're implying active combat. Which I don't recall being a popular position in America at the time, not even in the GOP.

[Dyakovo]

1: Yes. It's called honoring treaty obligations.
2: So you do think that we should, as certain Republicans proclaimed, have stayed in Iraq for the next century...
3: So you support despots... Good to know.

I think you're misrepresenting the GOP with #2. We'd have a military presence in Iraq, like we have had in Japan since the Second World War. Which may have prevented the Islamic terror from ravaging the country like we've seen since our withdrawal. I don't know, hindsight is 20/20. Although President Bush, while he was president (post-troop urge) suggested that full withdrawal would leave a void that could be filled with extremism. But when you say "stay", it sounds like you're implying active combat. Which I don't recall being a popular position in America at the time, not even in the GOP.

I said nothing about the GOP in general.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm stumped. Honestly, I'm completely fucking stumped. How on Earth are you reading all of this and getting that the bone of contention is 'if'? I understand that you are proposing a hypothetical...I cannot for the life of me understand why you think I don't get that. I am questioning the logic of your hypothetical, which as I have stated, makes no damn sense.

None of this makes sense. I have to ask again, is this a prank?

How on earth are you reading all I've said, attacked the poster and not the post, realize it is hypothetical, and claim a hypothetical makes no sense when, as you've said, is hypothetical?

Let me ask you this, knowing full well it's an ad hominem, can you at least reply to a poster without sounding like a child at a grocery store not getting his candy and screaming down the aisle?

Okay, I'll try to make this as simple as I can because there are some concepts (among them what an ad hominem actually is) that you seem to be having trouble understanding and it's causing a bizarre hitch.

You, somehow, seem to believe that I have been arguing this entire time against the 'if' part of Kashkari running. Again, I am confounded that this is your conclusion, but here we are.

But you did not ask a hypothetical question, "What if Kashkari ran?" and then encounter someone going, "He's not going to run." That would be someone not understanding that your situation was hypothetical. Again, this is not what happened.

You presented a hypothetical with a predicted outcome: If (again, not the part in contention) Kashkari ran then the you'd wish Democrats luck (established earlier, this use of the phrase indicates that Kashkari would be a legitimate threat against Clinton in the general election).

This is predicted outcome in a hypothetical, the 'then' part...that's up for debate. Just like "If I got a rocket pack, then I would fly to the moon." Now, someone would go, "Well, look dude, you're going to need more than just a rocket pack to get to the damn moon" I cannot refute that statement with, "I could get to the moon if NASA had done more about STEM education funding" or "Rockets take people to the moon" or "It's a hypothetical, how can it be wrong?" It's wrong because, legitimately, I do need more than a rocket pack to go to the moon. Even if I had the rocket pack there are other factors that my hypothetical didn't correctly take into account.

Much like your hypothetical. If Kashkari ran there is no reason to think he'd make it to Iowa much less the Republican nomination nor be a threat to Clinton. I have accepted your hypothetical 'if', I am rejecting your 'then' conclusion because it is not founded on anything that could or would happen.

Now. Here's the thing. If you think me disagreeing with you or thinking that your arguments are nonsensical and do not follow is somehow an attack on you as a person, report them. There is a subforum dedicated solely to that purpose and posters whose job it is to police that behavior. Take your case to them. I do not need to hear how mean you think I'm being to you, it does not forward the conversation, nor does it cow me into hedging my response, nor does it make me feel bad for calling a bad argument a bad argument. It does not interest me. If you think I'm misbehaving, report it. If you do not think what I'm doing is actionable, shut up about it and play on.