If he had said nothing, you would be complaining about that. Angela Merkel's and Barack Obama's words have little effect on British domestic votes.
The proposal didn't pass Congress, of course, even though it was one of the few legal ones designed to save the US oil industry from collapse (it exempted oil for export).. What's your point? And what did H Clinton have to do with it?
"Who sent the memo out in Benghazi to not allow ammunition to be in the weapons at anytime"
That's simply a lie for political purposes. The longer this goes on the more desperate the Republicans get. Do some research.
You want to scatter hundreds of thousands of US troops across the Sand Trap and spend trillions over years because it would be the "manly" thing to do" ? Try out that one on your neighbors.
Scan for "Debunking the ‘Democrats Hate God’ Lie". Why are you so easy to con?
"Remember she ordered no ammunition to be in any weapon in Bengaszi."
That's a lie. You need to be more careful of your sources.
"Has no idea how to defend a nation "
H Clinton is fairly hawkish, actually. Her opponents are hot air. They claim to want ground war across the Sand Trap, but the only way Republicans would have to pay for it is to pull the plug on their strongest constituencies. They could also stop their "Trickle Down Economics" that pay off their Party funders. How likely is that? Zip.
Another Republican Congress would represent a complete triumph of the notorious US Pay-To-Play political system. The odds of fixing anything would decline considerably and the odds of terminal national decline would increase considerably. The Republic agenda of ground wars in the Sand Trap indefinitely would bankrupt the US which would be on a path to being a Tributary State to China.
Modi's strategy sounds like unite and conquer. if you will.
Trump's and the Republican strategy is divide and conquer. They are raising adversarial mobs Trump is also running as a misogynist candidate which is hard to understand if he wishes to win which seems an open question.
President Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii and was 12 years old when inductions for the Vietnam War stopped. He did register for the draft as was required. He is hardly a "draft dodger". Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar in the UK and George Bush was in the National Guard but apparently AWOL most of the time.
In Republican President Reagan's term (from Wiki): The 1983 Beirut barracks bombings were attacks that occurred on October 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon, during the Lebanese Civil War when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF)—killing 241 U.S. and 58 French servicemen, six civilians, and the two suicide bombers. An obscure group calling itself 'Islamic Jihad' claimed responsibility for the bombings and that the bombings were aimed to get the MNF out of Lebanon.
Two suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team - BLT 1/8), the death toll were 220 Marines, 18 sailors, and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Armed Forces since the first day of the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive, the deadliest single attack on American citizens in general prior to the September 11 attacks, and the deadliest single attack on American citizens overseas. Another 128 Americans were wounded in the blast. Thirteen later died of their injuries, and they are numbered among the total number who died...The explosives used were later estimated to be equivalent to as much as 9,525 kg (21,000 pounds) of TNT.
There was no retaliation for lack of a target and President Reagan withdrew US troops. A few other US troops were killed in action or wounded in Lebanon at the time.
Why don't you run for office as the Moon candidate as above? Among Republicans you would dominate a debate stage. You wouldn't need a lectern of course. You wouldn't have to say anything since no one else would anyway.
You could only lose to Rush Limbaugh.
"But nevertheless, it took the emergence of a station like Fox News before these tendencies could be fully activated—polarizing America not only over politics, but over reality itself."
You were turned down? That does seem strange.
Number 1 has a lot of truth in it. But number 2 seems less likely as the culprits in number 1 are mostly responsible for buying immigration and border policies in Congress through our infamous Pay-To-Play political system - our Founding Flaw.
Why do you feel that Trump could or would fix it? May I ask for an exchange without invective from anyone........
The Republicans killed President Obama's plan to save the US oil industry from the Saudi / OPEC attempt to bury it and leave the US dependent on foreign oil again with an unsustainable balance of payments from oil again - to restore the US to the financially disastrous days of 2001-2009.
Sounds more like the Saudi's own the Republicans.
"The Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit established by Bill Clinton to implement development programs in third-world countries, has received donations from countries including Saudi Arabia. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation between the time the foundation was created through 2014, according to Politifact, though it stopped giving when she was secretary of State."
You put that in your other post on this subject today. Cut and paste mistake?
by Chris Mooney.
"...Authoritarian people have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape factual challenges to their beliefs."
"..“highly authoritarian individuals, when threatened, attempt to reduce anxiety by selectively exposing themselves to attitude-validating information, which leads to ‘stronger’ opinions that are more resistant to attitude change.”" , ie Fox
"Authoritarians, Altemeyer concludes, “maintain their beliefs against challenges by limiting their experiences, and surrounding themselves with sources of information that will tell them they are right.”"
Regarding Fox: ".. “With all of the other media outlets, the more exposed you were, the less likely you were to have misinformation,” explains PIPA’s director, political psychologist Steven Kull. “While with Fox, the more exposure you had, in most cases, the more misinformation you had. And that is really, in a way, the most powerful factor, because it strongly suggests they were actually getting the information from Fox.”
Indeed, this effect was even present in non-Republicans--another indicator that Fox is probably its cause. As Kull explains, “even if you’re a liberal Democrat, you are affected by the station.”".
Some of the above is quoted from an article by the author on Alternet. But it's always been clear that Murdoch / Fox know exactly what they are doing.
I do think the book / article may be in error in overlooking the growing inability of many people in their thirties and older to assimilate to a changing world around them. It's reasonable that evolution would leave many people that way since through most of human evolution change was very slow. But change is accelerating while many people cannot. Less educated people especially have fewer tools available to deal with change. They have less context for perspective. If they are authoritarian, as above the combination is deadly.
Of course the truth is opposite, as usual with you.
Ted Kennedy was instrumental in getting college student deferments abolished. Universities were filling up with huge numbers of students majoring in nothing much majors under instructors who wouldn't flunk them out and pack them off to the wars. Losing their deferments got their middle class behinds in the street. Prior to that it was blue collar kids being packed off to the jungles for a cause few knew or cared about.
Colleges never did really recover from those times or recover normal academic values. Further, they discovered that students with heavy financial aid generally didn't participate. Keeping undergrad students under strong social control with debt has been one of the goals of high tuition ever since. Of course, another goal is to short-circuit the past assimilation process for immigrants leading us more and more into the Lords and Peasants society prized by the Right.