2016 elections - because it's never too early

[alfred russel]

Just checked Paddy Power, they're laying 4/9 on Clinton and 5/2 on Trump.  I agree Hillary is clearly odds-on, but those are some crazy odds.

Those odds imply about a 70% chance Hillary will win a heads up matchup. That doesn't seem crazy. I think I'd still bet on Hillary with those odds.

[Martinus]

Something for Mihali:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/03/21/hillary-hits-trump-at-aipac-israels-security-is-non-negotiable/

With specific reference to the U.S.-Israel relationship she argued, "the alternative is unthinkable," adding: "We need steady hands, not a president who says he is neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday because 'everything's negotiable'!"

"Israel's security is non negotiable," she roared, stating that whoever does not think so "has no business being our President".

Trump. Trump. Trump. 

[Valmy]

That's ok. The American Malthus vote will carry us through. 

Oh and hi Zoupa! Good to see you as always 

[Capetan Mihali]

Indeed, no "roar[ing]" Zionist will carry my vote.  AIPAC.

[DGuller]

Where is she wrong? 

[Capetan Mihali]

Where is she right?  It's not an assertion of fact, it's a message of relentless support for Israel whatever the circumstances.  Israel's "security" is certainly negotiable as far I'm concerned; the use, for instance, of American troops or American taxpayer money to defend the "security" of newly-built West Bank settlements should be very much negotiable.

[DGuller]

Where is she right?  It's not an assertion of fact, it's a message of relentless support for Israel whatever the circumstances.  Israel's "security" is certainly negotiable as far I'm concerned; the use, for instance, of American troops or American taxpayer money to defend the "security" of newly-built West Bank settlements should be very much negotiable.

I don't think settlements are considered part of Israel.

[Valmy]

I don't think settlements are considered part of Israel.

Well not by the United States anyway.

[Capetan Mihali]

Where is she right?  It's not an assertion of fact, it's a message of relentless support for Israel whatever the circumstances.  Israel's "security" is certainly negotiable as far I'm concerned; the use, for instance, of American troops or American taxpayer money to defend the "security" of newly-built West Bank settlements should be very much negotiable.

I don't think settlements are considered part of Israel.

Funny the IDF defends them then.

[Martinus]

Where is she right?  It's not an assertion of fact, it's a message of relentless support for Israel whatever the circumstances.  Israel's "security" is certainly negotiable as far I'm concerned; the use, for instance, of American troops or American taxpayer money to defend the "security" of newly-built West Bank settlements should be very much negotiable.

I don't think settlements are considered part of Israel.

It doesn't matter - it's just odd that one country's politician not only considers security of another country non-negotiable - but considers anyone who thinks differently to be unfit for an elected office. It smacks of treason.

[DGuller]

Where is she right?  It's not an assertion of fact, it's a message of relentless support for Israel whatever the circumstances.  Israel's "security" is certainly negotiable as far I'm concerned; the use, for instance, of American troops or American taxpayer money to defend the "security" of newly-built West Bank settlements should be very much negotiable.

I don't think settlements are considered part of Israel.

Funny the IDF defends them then.

Their business what they defend.  We're talking about what American politicians understand to be Israeli security.

[Eddie Teach]

Seoul isn't part of the US either.

[Capetan Mihali]

I don't think settlements are considered part of Israel.

Well not by the United States anyway.

Yet we pay to defend them regardless.

[Capetan Mihali]

Their business what they defend.  We're talking about what American politicians understand to be Israeli security.

So if the security of Jewish colonists in the West Bank is threatened, that would be negotiable?  Since American politicians supposedly understand Israeli security to hew to the pre-1967 borders exclusively?

[Valmy]

I don't think settlements are considered part of Israel.

Well not by the United States anyway.

Yet we pay to defend them regardless.

Yes indeed. Don't know why, it certainly gives us no leverage with them.

The only reason we pay is a bribe that came out of that Camp David Accord thing right? I know we also give/gave a shit load to Egypt for no particular reason as well.