I love how short everyone's memory is after 9/11.

The Senator from New York voted for retribution a year after 3000 people died in the biggest city in her constituency? Noooooo. Do we have a representative democracy? What does everyone here think Hillary's constituency was telling her?

I'm all for calling the War in Iraq a major mistake, because it was. But lets not forget what the sentiment of this country was after 9/11.

(July 30, 2016 at 11:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 11:06 pm)wallym Wrote: How did nobody in Trumps team say "Hillary voted to send their child to die in an unnecessary war."  He legitimately could have pinned the death on her bad judgement. Instead he went with "The wife is just standing there quiet.  I wonder if she can talk."  This campaign...

Because in no way should a Presidential candidate belittle a veteran's final sacrifice for the sake of political points.

The real surprise is why no one on Trump's team said, "Sir, under no circumstances should you use his death as a bludgeon."

I'll have to talk to other vets before I can get any sort of pulse on veteran attitudes but I'd.certainly like to hear from the other veterans on the board.

Myself, I find it disgusting. Of course I was not going to vote Trump anyway, so I could well be biased ... but I think even if he were my candidate, I'd still find this angle of attack disgusting.

Of course it's disgusting, but it's what should be expected from a baboon of a man who can't seem to help but to give voice to every small minded thought that rattles around in his head.

The sonofabitch would have to hold a gun to my head to get my vote.

America is a strange place. We have a talking asshole that is saying everything possible to not get elected. Now he is in the top 2. Mass psychosis.

Public Policy Polling has Clinton ahead by five after both conventions, with her approval ratings going up by 9% as well. I imagine when the fallout from the last few days of Trump running his trap settles those numbers will be a little larger.

Of course he doesn't know what sacrifice means. It's a three syllable word.

He knows "sack", he knows "rice", but he don't know no "sacrifice".

Donald Duck Trump:

(July 30, 2016 at 11:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 11:06 pm)wallym Wrote: How did nobody in Trumps team say "Hillary voted to send their child to die in an unnecessary war."  He legitimately could have pinned the death on her bad judgement. Instead he went with "The wife is just standing there quiet.  I wonder if she can talk."  This campaign...

Because in no way should a Presidential candidate belittle a veteran's final sacrifice for the sake of political points.

The Clinton campaign dangling this couple and their dead kid in front of Trump on the national stage, giving the guy an attack speech, and then crossing their fingers that  Trump says something inappropriate about them belittled the sacrifice pretty strongly.

More so than pointing out it was Hillary who voted to send their kid over there unnecessarily.

--
Steel, politically, blaming Hillary for that vote works.  I don't think it's too relevant in reality, because almost everyone voted for it.  But then she pushed for Libya, which makes me think she's into that kind of thing.

The text of the resolution makes it quite clear what Hillary and the other 76 senators ( not to mention 296 members of the House ) were supporting.

Quote:SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

• (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

• (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

That Iraq was a "continuing threat" was true only in the warped minds of Bush and Cheney and the rest of the neo-con warmongers who had lied their fucking asses off but that was not apparent when the resolution passed.

Anyone remember how surprised we all were when there weren't any WMDs?

(July 31, 2016 at 12:21 pm)wallym Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 11:55 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Because in no way should a Presidential candidate belittle a veteran's final sacrifice for the sake of political points.

The Clinton campaign dangling this couple and their dead kid in front of Trump on the national stage, giving the guy an attack speech, and then crossing their fingers that  Trump says something inappropriate about them belittled the sacrifice pretty strongly.

What makes you think the guy was "given" an attack speech? Who do you think wrote his speech, and what's your source for that claim? Be specific, and provide links. According to the New York Times, he wrote the speech himself, refusing an offer of help. Why would you assume that he hadn't written the speech? The man's a Harvard-educated lawyer.

I myself think that Mr Khan appearing at the convention to remind whites that Muslims can be loyal Americans is a reminder that's obviously fucking needed. When you have a Presidential candidate espousing religious discrimination, asking him if he's read the Constitution he might swear to uphold is apt. And pointing out that his bigotry has been protected to the death by the victims of his bigotry is just as apt. Hillary's using the tragedy of Cpt Khan's death is distasteful -- but I think it serves a larger purpose than simple politics, it serves as a reminder to all Americans that bigotry is bullshit, especially when promulgated by a Presidential candidate.

(July 31, 2016 at 12:21 pm)wallym Wrote: More so than pointing out it was Hillary who voted to send their kid over there unnecessarily.

I agree. I marched against that war before it started.

It was a bad vote from her and 373 other Congresspersons. But I would rather see her in office that Trump; at least I can hope she's learnt from the experience ... compared with Trump having no experience at all in making such decisions.

Hillary voted and supported for the war that killed his son.