Trump 2016 Or Hillary?

[Torpedo]

Now please in a non bi-partisan, and objective way explain to me how the Obama Administration was worse than what was all listed above? I get it, people are out of work but the labor market shifts in the US happened because of Globalization and Automation which occurred way before Obama and even Bush. Trump is not bringing any of those manufacturing jobs back -thats a pipe dream and if people want them that bad then they need to move to Mexico, China or go back to school and get a degree in Mechanical Engineering and robotics.

How is Obama worse? Looking at the jobs for starters, there are less people in the U.S. workforce today than when president Obama took office. Most of the jobs that were created during his tenure were low paying part time jobs. This is largely due to the policies and things like PPACA that made it more economical to hire part time people than full time. A lot of people are working 2 or 3 part time jobs now instead of a single well paying job. You already tell us what Trump can't do. He convinced Carrier to keep a thousand jobs in the U.S. and he hasn't even assumed office. Name a company that Obama has convinced to remain in the U.S. The avalanche of new rules and regulations, over 230,000 pages published since Obama took office have certainly furnished an impetus for businesses to leave the U.S. Market Shifts and Globalization? Another failure, we should have lead the way but instead the government regulated many businesses right out of the market

 

[Bliss]

I am from Eastern Europe and I believe that for the outside world, Trump is a better option than Hillary and those behind her (including those paying her money - Qatar, Saudis and so on).
I am not found of Trump, but he promissed less American involvement abroad, meaning less wars in the Middle East and so on. Democrats supported terorrists in Syria, terroists there have latest US weapons. Better way to fight terrorism is by stopping supporting them.

 

[Torpedo]

Bush Sr. was smart enough to know he had to leave things alone to stabilize the region... not Jr.... he had to prove something and he did

Bush Sr. made the same mistake that leaders have made in nearly every conflict. There was no exit strategy. All the thought and planning goes into winning the conflict but there is little or no thought about what to do after.

The mess in the Mideast really goes back to the hatchet job the French and British did with national boundaries at the end of WWI. Lines were drawn with no thought about who they were throwing together

 

[subhub174014]

The national debt has went from around 10 trillion to nearly 20 trillion under Obama's watch and you tell me the right can't manage money

AGAIN.... he had to do it alone.... could not work with the obstructionist party!... Your party voted down a lot of things that coud have helped to include to different package to small biz.... but you defend them and then cry about nothing working!

 

[subhub174014]

Bush Sr. made the same mistake that leaders have made in nearly every conflict

Bush Sr. knew that Saddam Hussain kept iran in check!... look at it now!

 

[subhub174014]

The Democratic party has diminished to the point that it really can't effect policies much of any place

that seems to be your only response to the problem in politics... the left is shrinking.....just like with your hero Reagan... trump had the gift to gab and brought in a bunch with him.... a lot of people just vote straight party..... and your obstructionist party managed to bring gov to a halt and instead of looking at who was behind it... the shut down and on and on... they just blamed Obama!
just like with this election here.... they wanted the swamp drained.... but instead added more alligators to support the ones already there... we will see in a couple years just how things go
hopefully he lives up to his promise about jobs... and giving away the bank to save one company is not really the answer... but lets see how well he does... he might puill it off....but all the people he has put in positions so far... are NOT going to help middle America at all

 

[Alanm]

AGAIN.... he had to do it alone.... could not work with the obstructionist party!... Your party voted down a lot of things that coud have helped to include to different package to small biz.... but you defend them and then cry about nothing working!

Luckily they did obstruct him or the debt might be 30 or 40 Trillion

 

[subhub174014]

Luckily they did obstruct him or the debt might be 30 or 40 Trillion

this from a guy who has his head up glen becks ass!?

 

[Alanm]

this from a guy who has his head up glen becks ass!?

Hahahaha....still have not gotten over this Trump win i see. Bitter as always.

 

[BigBlackBull76]

You really need to use up to date numbers Obama has increased the national debt nearly 10 Trillion dollars

The TARP, TWIST and Bank bailout programs were a large part of the national debt run-up which occurred at the end of Bush's term. The numbers provided were recent. Doesn't matter anyway, it wasn't Obama who increased it on his own, it was 535 members of US Congress who majorily agreed to keep passing a continuing resolution to raise the debt ceiling and not pass a balancing budget nor work with the sitting President to help the nation for their own politcal agenda.

Both Iraqi wars could have been prevented if Saddam has complied with U.N. resolutions. To jog your memory here are some of the keys events between the the first and second Gulf Wars. As you can easily see Saddam had many opportunities to prevent war. The first war was caused by Saddam invasion of Kuwait, the second was caused by Saddam's refusal to comply with the terms of his surrender.

Key Dates: From the end of the First Gulf War to the beginning of the second
April 3, 1991—The Security Council passes Resolution 687, allowing Saddam to stay in power but demanding he destroy all weapons of mass destruction. Until he does, economic sanctions are to remain in place. Iraqi officials begin hiding weapons and data.

April 14, 1993—As former President Bush visits Kuwait, police arrest 14 people in a plot to assassinate the ex-President. President Clinton orders a retaliatory strike against Iraqi intelligence headquarters.

January. 26, 1998—After nearly seven years, Iraq has not disarmed and continues to obstruct the disarmament process. On this date, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others send an open letter to Clinton calling for him to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

August 5, 1998—Iraq suspends all cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. After four months of fruitless Security Council negotiations, Clinton orders four days of air strikes beginning December 16. Weapons inspectors do not return to Iraq. The U.S. shifts to a strategy of containing Saddam.

October 31, 1998—President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act.

December 2, 1999—In a New Hampshire primary debate, George W. Bush is asked about Saddam. Bush responds, "If I found out he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take him out." After taking office, Secretary of State Powell tries to develop "smart" U.N. sanctions.

September 15, 2001—President Bush signs a directive for the Afghan campaign and instructs the Pentagon to develop plans for a possible war in Iraq.

January 29, 2002—In his State of the Union speech, Bush calls Iraq, North Korea and Iran an "axis of evil" and says, "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather." In the next few months Bush will tell Condoleeza Rice to begin planning a strategy for Iraq, and General Tommy Franks begins giving monthly briefings to Bush on plans to topple Saddam.

June 1, 2002—Addressing graduates at West Point, Bush declares that America should be ready to use pre-emptive action against possible threats.

September 12, 2002—President Bush addresses the U.N. General Assembly and challenges it to hold Iraq to its promise to disarm. The following week the Administration discusses possible resolutions and stresses that Iraq will have "days and weeks, not months," to comply.

October 10, 2002—Congress authorizes Bush to use ******* against Iraq.

November 8, 2002—After two months of diplomacy and three proposals, the Security Council passes Resolution 1441 by a 15-to-0 vote. The first UNMOVIC teams arrive in Baghdad 17 days later. Iraq does not give inspectors full cooperation and refuses to acknowledge stockpiles of chemical weapons.

January 1, 2003—The first 25,000 U.S. troops start deploying to the Persian Gulf region.

January 19, 2003—Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector for the UN, carries a message to Saddam Hussein warning him of the "seriousness of the situation". Blix states, "Inspection is not a prelude, it is an alternative to war, and that is what we want to achieve." But, Blix, adds, “There has not been sufficient co-operation. They need to have a sincere and genuine co-operation."

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets around the world to show their support for the dictator of Iraq. This was not lost on Saddam. "They are supporting you because they know that evil-doers target Iraq to silence any dissenting voice to their evil and destructive policies," Saddam told senior military officers and his ******* Qusay, commander of Iraq's elite Republican Guards, Reuters reported.

January 20, 2003—One week before Hans Blix's first major report to the council, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin blindsides the United States at a U.N. press conference, saying France will oppose any move toward war.

February 5, 2003—In an address to the Security Council, Colin Powell presents the case for ******* against Saddam Hussein's regime. America's former allies are unmoved.

March 5, 2003—More than 200,000 U.S. troops, five carrier groups and 1,000 aircraft are in place or en route to the Middle East. France and Russia pledge to veto any resolution authorizing *******. Two days later, the British begin a final effort at diplomacy.

March 16, 2003—Bush, Blair and Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar convene for a summit in the Azores. They announce the next day will be the Security Council's last chance to act. The Council does nothing.

March 17, 2003—President Bush issues an ultimatum to Saddam, giving him 48 hours to leave the country or face war.

March 19, 2003—Cruise-missile and bomb salvos hit Baghdad an hour after the deadline passes. Operation Iraqi Freedom begins.

Bush and his cabal conspired to engage Iraq in war and were going to trump up some charges to go regardless of if Sadam complied or not. I'm surprised you even fell for that. Why did they make up all that INTEL and ******* Colin Powell to present that false narrative and case in front of the U.N. to make their case to goto war.

Also like my boy Kayne asked, who gave Sadam the Anthrax to begin with?

Ok let the Truth speak for itself:

Iraq War Resolution

President George Bush, surrounded by leaders of the House and Senate, announces the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 2, 2002.
The October 2002, U.S. congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military ******* against Iraq:

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "******* repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of Al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

Throughout late 2001, 2002, and early 2003, the Bush Administration worked to build a case for invading Iraq, culminating in then Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2003 address to the Security Council.[4] Shortly after the invasion, the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies largely discredited evidence related to Iraqi weapons as well as links to Al-Qaeda, and at this point the Bush and Blair Administrations began to shift to secondary rationales for the war, such as the Hussein government's human rights record and promoting democracy in Iraq.[5][6] Opinion polls showed that people of nearly all countries opposed a war without UN mandate and that the view of the United States as a danger to world peace had significantly increased.[7][8] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council."[9]

Accusations of faulty evidence and alleged shifting rationales became the focal point for critics of the war, who charge that the Bush Administration purposely fabricated evidence to justify an invasion that it had long planned to launch.[10] Supporters of the war claim that the threat from Iraq and Saddam Hussein was real and that it had later been established. The U.S. led the effort for "the redirection of former Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) scientists, technicians and engineers to civilian employment and discourage emigration of this community from Iraq.

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

 

[TwoBiFour]

The TARP, TWIST and Bank bailout programs were a large part of the national debt run-up which occurred at the end of Bush's term. The numbers provided were recent. Doesn't matter anyway, it wasn't Obama who increased it on his own, it was 535 members of US Congress who majorily agreed to keep passing a continuing resolution to raise the debt ceiling and not pass a balancing budget nor work with the sitting President to help the nation for their own politcal agenda.

The Bank bailouts would not have been needed if the Democrats worked with Bush in his last term. Then, the party of NO, blocked him. Mainly becasue the bubble was caused by Democrats.

Look at the number of bailouts in 2008 alone, vs other years
https://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts


Ever stop to think that maybe the "Two Party System" is - in fact - working VERY well together? They both sure seem to give a large amount of money to the top 1% in one form or another. I don't believe in "To large to fail".

I find it ironic that the Left continues to blame the Right for not working with Obama, but yet continues to maintain that the worlds problems are caused by the Right. So do you want the Right involved or don't you?

 

[MacNfries]

it wasn't Obama who increased it on his own, it was 535 members of US Congress who majorily agreed to keep passing a continuing resolution to raise the debt ceiling and not pass a balancing budget nor work with the sitting President to help the nation for their own politcal agenda.

....One reason I withdrew from jousting in these political threads was because of the rhetorical responses & comments one gets back when posts, like yours, are tossed in their face. You'll get no direct response to your factual comments, just more rhetorical comments and questions and denying the facts. Unless you just don't have anything better to do, its basically a recycling of old "finger pointing" topics over and over and over, not that either side is blameless.
....I've convinced myself to simply take a seat in the bleachers this coming year and watch Trump (who has now lost the popular vote of the country by an approaching 3 million and still counting votes) & his minions who have their own diverse track records. Democrats lost a majority of elections simply because they lacked the spine to reciprocate an equally intense challenge & attack at their opponents. They lost again to negative & deceiving ads that they failed to promptly challenge, and unorthodox voting strategies, as they felt that "right" was on their side ... maybe it was, but it still didn't win them elections. I was wrong about Trump's chances of winning the election under the same premise, that "right" would prevail and I was just as wrong. Trump openly admits he did what he did, during the campaigns, necessary to win ... to him its what it is all about, winning at all cost. Now its time for him to focus on HIS REAL AGENDA as he begins retracting his campaign promises. I can say this, if Wednesday's "Carrier" negotiations is his example of his approach at "keeping jobs in America", this country can't possibly give the major tax cuts he's already promised to give AND then buy jobs back from other countries with bribes that the tax payers will end up paying.
....I suspect we'll see a lot of "past won rights" for a lot of people weakened in the future year(s) ... and by the time Democrats get another chance at the POSTUS, this country will be right back to the post-Bush, Jr. mess magnified by ten, and we'll be right back into having to fix the crap the last administration left again. I just hope Democrats are a bit more selective in how they choose their next leader. We lost a lot this election ... mainly control of the SCOTUS, which if Trump follows through, will take liberalism 30+ years to recover. I have a good seat ... mid-court, lower level, and I have plenty of popcorn. There's still seats available.

 

[subhub174014]

Hahahaha....still have not gotten over this Trump win i see. Bitter as always.

i'm not bitter over anything.... I have been through enough elections to know you win some and you lose some.... unlike you I get involved and VOTE!
I can live with trump... although I don't really have a choice anymore... but it was and still is not really about Trump... it's what and who he brings!
regretfully a lot of people just voted straight republican.... filling the swamp with more alligators!
trump may or may not be able to bring more jobs back... have to see.... and first job at that... is not quite what it seems.... but we will just have to wait and see how it all plays out... take a year or so... might be great might be people will regret their decision

But what does bother me is people's lack of understanding about the swamp!... the middle class I feel now is being fed to the alligators... and even Trump's new appointee's are going to help with that regard!
I understand that the carrier jobs he saved will cost the taxpayers in Ind about $7,000.00 for each employee... not counting the gov tax benefits they will get... AND those jobs will not be $20.00 ph jobs anymore... ( funny there is a company not far from carrier announced it is moving to Mexico now... what door did he open?)
even if he brings jobs back... will they be like the ones Reagan created?.... low pay?... and now with them wanting to do away with the ACA and medicare and social security.... how far will those low paying jobs go to make ends meet?
More Wal_Mart type employees?
I think Trump does believe he can bring jobs in and will work on it..... but his own track record for paying people is not good... and he has surrounded himself with vulchers just waiting for the chance to do away with anything to help those in need

 

[subhub174014]

They lost again to negative & deceiving ads and unorthodox voting strategies as they felt that "right" was on their side ... maybe it was but that still didn't win them elections

that about sums it up!

 

[TwoBiFour]

They lost again to negative & deceiving ads that they failed to promptly challenge, and unorthodox voting strategies,

They lost becasue America is sick of the Man Bunn!!!

 

[TwoBiFour]

I can say this, if Wednesday's "Carrier" negotiations is his example of his approach at "keeping jobs in America", this country can't possibly give the major tax cuts he's already promised to give AND then buy jobs back from other countries with bribes that the tax payers will end up paying.

If he doesn't, there will be no tax payers left.

I'm on the fence about his "deal", but what is the immediate best for the people? Saving the 1000 jobs or letting them go? There are long term downfalls to either. I think a lot more needs to happen with Import and Export and Companies based overseas before we can start to threaten them, again, something the Obama administration could easily have handled - Like you said. ...

its basically a recycling of old "finger pointing" topics

I know there are things in place now that Trump could have pulled, Good'ol Bernie has the answers don't he? Those obviously weren't enough to keep them from leaving in the first place. I'll give the man some time, Who knows, He might just be the best presid...... LOL, I can't say that with a straight face. Time will tell.

which if Trump follows through, will take liberalism 30+ years to recover.

God, lets hope so. (Maybe it will push back to what liberalism actually use to stand for.)

 

[itiswhatitis]

This election

 

[MacNfries]

They lost becasue America is sick of the Man Bunn!!!

....I know it sucks when the sarcasm you dish out isn't understood by the person you're directing it ... its happened to me, too. Personally, I enjoy good sarcasm. That said, I don't get the "Man Bunn" comment. Maybe you can explain it so I'll understand your sarcasm and feel insulted as you want me to be. LOL, thanks.
Mac

 

[TwoBiFour]

....I know it sucks when the sarcasm you dish out isn't understood by the person you're directing it ... its happened to me, too. Personally, I enjoy good sarcasm. That said, I don't get the "Man Bunn" comment. Maybe you can explain it so I'll understand your sarcasm and feel insulted as you want me to be. LOL, thanks.
Mac

Well I didn't't think it would insult you, unless maybe you have a man bun???
Wasn't really sarcasm, just a silly comment. HOWEVER, now that I think about it, most I know that have a man bun also has a "Safe Place", sooo......

But seriously,

 

[irinne]

Ha ha

Yeah trump!