Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Hillary Clinton

hoops2
hoops2
Aug 14, 2015
2:50am
Block User

"And this has been the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans since 2002."

From the supporter of the guy who had the largest deficits in history, with trillion dollar deficits forecasted for the future. Obama thinks investment is more food stamps.

forkushV
forkushV
Aug 14, 2015
3:13am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh

Its a matter of asking the question of where you want taxdollars invested...into America or Baghdad ? And this has been the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans since 2002.

Hillary voted to spend all those dollars in Baghdad, right? Democrats and Republicans not so different.
A majority of congressional Democrats opposed it, while almost all congressional Republicans supported it. Big difference, huh?

And virtually all liberals (like me and Bernie) opposed it. Even some moderates like Obama opposed it. Big difference, huh?

And all of Hillary's foreign policy advisors condemn the invasion, while most of Jeb!'s advisors are his brother's retreads who seem to want to do it again. Big difference, huh?
forkushV
forkushV
Aug 14, 2015
3:42am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: CowboyKell
So, lets put the idea of the war itself aside, you don't like it and that's fine. However, of all that money spent on the war, how much do you think stays in Iraq and how much is actually circulated in the US economy?

Since the beginning of time on Earth the greatest motivators of growth and prosperity have been war and exploration.
Which is why Obama inherited such a booming economy from President Bush, right?

Of course it's government spending that can spur the economy (John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946). There is nothing magical about spending it on bombs and bullets that makes it super special for our joint prosperity.

But here's the thing. When the government spends money on bombs and bullets, you end up with blown up stuff and dead people - and an improved economy. When the government spends money on infrastructure and health care, you end up with better roads and healthy people - and an improved economy.

I like option B.
alanleroy
alanleroy
Aug 14, 2015
4:18am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh

Its a matter of asking the question of where you want taxdollars invested...into America or Baghdad ? And this has been the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans since 2002.

Hillary voted to spend all those dollars in Baghdad, right? Democrats and Republicans not so different.
A majority of congressional Democrats opposed it, while almost all congressional Republicans supported it. Big difference, huh?

And virtually all liberals (like me and Bernie) opposed it. Even some moderates like Obama opposed it. Big difference, huh?

And all of Hillary's foreign policy advisors condemn the invasion, while most of Jeb!'s advisors are his brother's retreads who seem to want to do it again. Big difference, huh?

Well this is a thread titled "Hillary Clinton". She is the Democratic Front Runner. She supported the War. The Republican Front Runner opposed the war...Back when it really counted. Big difference, huh? Of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat, I like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders take on the war and our Military. Hillary...not so much. Jeb is now polling in 5th place as a Republican. He certainly isn't guaranteed to be the nominee...but it's nice to be able to pick a candidate to attack. Maybe we should find out what Jim Webb or Lincoln Chafee thought about the war....Oh...they were both against it. I can see why Hillary might want to avoid debating them.


pjstroh
pjstroh
Aug 14, 2015
4:23am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh

Its a matter of asking the question of where you want taxdollars invested...into America or Baghdad ? And this has been the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans since 2002.

Hillary voted to spend all those dollars in Baghdad, right? Democrats and Republicans not so different.


Which explains why Hillary lost in 2008.
Obama's platform of diplomacy and domestic investment was called "appeasing terrorists...and communism" by his not so different opponents in the Republican party. And the country made its choice.

Hillary's 2016 platform centers on domestic investment....and Republicans have ignored that topic in their first debate....while promising a very hard line in the MIddle East with massive military budget expanions.

I understand you fail to see a difference. Cant help you with that.
alanleroy
alanleroy
Aug 14, 2015
4:28am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: pjstroh

Its a matter of asking the question of where you want taxdollars invested...into America or Baghdad ? And this has been the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans since 2002.

Hillary voted to spend all those dollars in Baghdad, right? Democrats and Republicans not so different.


Which explains why Hillary lost in 2008.
Obama's platform of diplomacy and domestic investment was called "appeasing terrorists...and communism" by his not so different opponents in the Republican party. And the country made its choice.

Hillary's 2016 platform centers on domestic investment....and Republicans have ignored that topic in their first debate....while promising a very hard line in the MIddle East with massive military budget expanions.

I understand you fail to see a difference. Cant help you with that.

You said: "Its a matter of asking the question of where you want tax dollars invested...into America or Baghdad". Hillary voted to invest those dollars in Baghdad. But now you think that's ok because her new platform 'centers on domestic investment'. I'm not sure which side of your mouth or Hillary's we should listen to.

hoops2
hoops2
Aug 14, 2015
4:37am
Block User
According to pj & forky domestic investment = more free stuff with other people's money even though within a few years 100% of the tax revenue will be spent on interest, ss & Medicare.
pjstroh
pjstroh
Aug 14, 2015
5:49am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy

You said: "Its a matter of asking the question of where you want tax dollars invested...into America or Baghdad". Hillary voted to invest those dollars in Baghdad. But now you think that's ok because her new platform 'centers on domestic investment'.


BINGO!

Apparently you struggle distinguishing verbs in future tense vs past. Hillary's platform for 2016 does not include an escalation in the Middle East, does it? Please make a coherent point by citing that policy or admit you are being purposefully obtuse.

My voting record speaks for itself. I voted for the anti-Iraq investment platform in 2008....and I will do the same 2016.

What candidate are you voting for Alan?..you know, the one that never changed a position on any policy ?
pjstroh
pjstroh
Aug 14, 2015
5:51am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: hoops2
According to pj & forky domestic investment = more free stuff with other people's money even though within a few years 100% of the tax revenue will be spent on interest, ss & Medicare.


I defiitely dont support spending other peoples' money to bomb and rebuild Baghdad...and then cowardly blame the resulting deficit on food stamps. Know anybody like that?
hoops2
hoops2
Aug 14, 2015
6:42am
Block User
The US spends almost $400b per year on social welfare excluding ss& medicare with no end date. So what do you think costs more?
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now