Trump vs Clinton Round 2. Bigger debate than the last one.

[claig]

Round 2, Monday morning 2 am UK time.

Will "the real Trump" show up?

Trump is down in some polls (four mummy posted an interesting analysis of one pro-Clinton pollster) partly because people won't say they'll vote for him. Not because they won't vote for him.

It seems that he wants Hillary to have a drugs test before the next debate.
If they both have one, will all the sniffing stop, you think?

I think the administration's red line on Assad has always been damaging. It wanted Assad gone (as a sop to Israel over the Iran deal - not humanitarian reasons) and was immovable on this. But it wasn't prepared to back that up militarily at a time when it could have done with less devastation, much earlier in the conflict. It should have either done it, or removed its Assad red line so that diplomacy had more of a chance.

Assad is a pig. But taking the moral high ground is hardly beneficial to the people of Syria here. The war needs to stop now. Diplomacy, sanctions, rebuild money, UN presence after a truce/ ceasefire - all this can help protect people from Assad's worst. And stop arming rebels if Russia stops backing Assad militarily. Just like in Afghanistan, we're sending arms to people who will one day come to kill us instead.

No, because it's not caused by drugs.

Free speech is a wonderful thing.
So.is debate.
If you can't stand by your statements and answer the questions put forward about what you wrote don't write it.

And stop arming rebels if Russia stops backing Assad militarily.

You've hit the problem there.
Assad has always been backed by Russia. Syria is a huge country with a big army. The US couldn't just go in and take him down. Not to mention that's illegal.
If you have any suggestions on how to get Putin to back away from Syria, I'm sure Obama would appreciate them.

The war won't end because there's ISIS there and Putin and Assad are more worried about the rebels. It will end internally when all rebels are crushed, which would be great.
Still not clear how Hillary's hawkish behaviour relates to maintenance of the war.

My suggestion would be to remove the Assad red line. I just said my suggestion.

No the war won't end - the rebels and ISI will continue to fight and Assad will continue to fight them. But we take a step back from the US-Russia abyss, we get the UN involved, we get safe corridors for civilians set up, we get more and more attempts at breaks in the bombardment, temporary truces and ceasefires. That's very different to what is going on now.

Did you report Amalfi's post for deletion? Why would you do that?

We should take our dog out of the fight: Hillary is a hawk, and won't do that. Jake Sullivan, who gave birth to the Iran deal, has been instrumental in bringing HC to the 'Assad must go' position and she will not shift from that.

Did you report Amalfi's post for deletion? Why would you do that?

What Amalfi's post? And why would you think it was me?
In any case, if it was deleted it must have broken talk guidelines.
If so, why shouldn't anyone report it?

Because it was a response to your question. Did you not report it then?

What you are proposing it to let Assad and Putin run wild.
If the US backs down they will have even less pressure to comply to cease fires and allow refugees to escape.
The whole problem to start with is that people are having to flee.
And flee where?
Hillary's proposals that the US receives more people are being dismissed. The usual suspects, such as Turkey will have to take the brunt of crime laden refugee camps that it can't support. Where disgruntlement for the West grows.

Look at what Obama has done for peace in many regions, including the new relationships with Cuba. In many cases behind the scenes.

Then ask yourself why it maintains a stronger position in relation to Putin and Assad.

Obviously not. They wouldn't have to run wild. They wouldn't want to run wild. Assad cannot be removed by the rebels or by Isis. If the west was not arming and protecting the rebels the war would have been by now reduced to isolated skirmishes and terrorism.

Did you not report it then?

You still have to ask? And what if I had? If it broke guidelines it should have been reported.
Btw, I don't usually report nasty posts against me, but report many in relation to other posters.

Assad cannot be removed by the rebels or by Isis. If the west was not arming and protecting the rebels the war would have been by now reduced to isolated skirmishes and terrorism.

Not while Putin protects Assad. He was very close to being outed.
You would have preferred to see entire regions and populations killed, then?

After all, as you've brought up Cuba, he's legitimised the illegitimate rule of Castro. His red line about Assad is not humanitarian. It is a power play.

Amalfi admitted on another Trump thread that she is in this debate to goad, and she has put up some posts with personal attacks. I suspect that is why her post was deleted.

Well, I don't have to ask, I am asking. You don't have to answer, no pressure. But just say 'i'd rather not answer that'. I'm picking that up, if I'm honest with you.

But Lweji has answered your question, WW.

Entire regions and populations have been killed

Any serious danger to Assad was because of western support for the rebels. Which prompted Russian intervention.

She hasn't answered actually. She doesn't have to, of course. And I'm awfully sorry if she's upset by being asked.

Zuleika did you report her then? As you're lurking, maybe looking for an opportunity?

Lweji
Since when is asking you to explain a statement you made breaking the rules? Or are you a special snowflake with a seperate set of rules?

ZuleikaDobson

no actually what I said was that if you are a GF I will answer you in an equally GF way. Don't twist words as it makes you our to be a spiteful person unable to debate.

viva la libertè

The new opening to Cuba didn't legitimise any regime. It recognised a new good will by Raul Casto, and removed Cuba from the list of terrorist countries.
The embargo came from the threat with Russian missiles. It's not likely that Cuba still poses a threat to the US.

Did you know that Trump invested in Cuba in the late eighties while claiming publicly that investing in Cuba amounted to treason (or something like that)?

At this point in history, opening to Cuba is the right thing to do.

Nope, WW. And repeatedly interrogating people about reporting is bullying, as is the tone of your post. Personal attacks aren't allowed under MN rules. Get over it.

You're doing it again, Amalfi. It really is incredibly obvious. Guess what, disagreeing with you and pointing out facts isn't goading.