HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » I fear both an HRC and a ...

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:07 PM

 

I fear both an HRC and a Trump presidency

Last edited Sun May 15, 2016, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)

HRC will implement a hawkish PNAC inspired foreign policy.. I'd count on three or four "regirne changes", escalation in the ME, more mischief in Latin America, a good chance of war with Iran, and possibly WW3 as her and Putin will butt heads.

Trump is isolationist, but will focus his evil fascist tendencies inward. I see walls being built, possibly with prison labor, federal sanctioned discrimination and violence against immigrants, possiblly I fear, even "camps" for Muslims and other "enemies" of "American greatness"

Which would be worse? Both are nightmare scenarios IMO and it may come down to where you live and who you are. God help us in either case.

108 replies, 7652 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 108 replies Author Time Post
Reply I fear both an HRC and a Trump presidency (Original post)
jack_krass May 2016 OP
djean111 May 2016 #1
840high May 2016 #15
Baobab May 2016 #17
Ferd Berfel May 2016 #51
Smarmie Doofus May 2016 #2
Arugula Latte May 2016 #3
Vote2016 May 2016 #4
NewImproved Deal May 2016 #8
Purveyor May 2016 #5
MH1 May 2016 #6
bahrbearian May 2016 #47
smiley May 2016 #7
FlatBaroque May 2016 #21
Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #9
bjo59 May 2016 #10
loyalsister May 2016 #50
Progressive dog May 2016 #11
jack_krass May 2016 #16
Progressive dog May 2016 #18
jack_krass May 2016 #20
Progressive dog May 2016 #23
Karma13612 May 2016 #27
Progressive dog May 2016 #33
Karma13612 May 2016 #35
Progressive dog May 2016 #38
Karma13612 May 2016 #43
Progressive dog May 2016 #44
Voice for Peace May 2016 #66
Progressive dog May 2016 #71
artislife May 2016 #68
Progressive dog May 2016 #70
artislife May 2016 #79
Progressive dog May 2016 #83
JEB May 2016 #93
artislife May 2016 #98
jack_krass May 2016 #105
Progressive dog May 2016 #107
jack_krass May 2016 #54
Progressive dog May 2016 #108
Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #101
apnu May 2016 #12
jack_krass May 2016 #19
bvar22 May 2016 #22
leveymg May 2016 #32
jack_krass May 2016 #104
tralala May 2016 #13
cpwm17 May 2016 #14
Metric System May 2016 #39
cpwm17 May 2016 #57
Metric System May 2016 #63
cpwm17 May 2016 #65
seabeyond May 2016 #24
CorkySt.Clair May 2016 #25
timmymoff May 2016 #34
jack_krass May 2016 #55
CorkySt.Clair May 2016 #56
jack_krass May 2016 #58
CorkySt.Clair May 2016 #59
jack_krass May 2016 #60
CentralMass May 2016 #26
StayFrosty May 2016 #28
leveymg May 2016 #29
Karma13612 May 2016 #30
Feathery Scout May 2016 #31
timmymoff May 2016 #36
Feathery Scout May 2016 #40
timmymoff May 2016 #42
Feathery Scout May 2016 #46
timmymoff May 2016 #52
Dem2 May 2016 #37
amborin May 2016 #41
MFM008 May 2016 #45
jack_krass May 2016 #49
Yavin4 May 2016 #48
Thinkingabout May 2016 #53
jack_krass May 2016 #62
Thinkingabout May 2016 #64
JEB May 2016 #89
Thinkingabout May 2016 #90
JEB May 2016 #91
Thinkingabout May 2016 #92
JEB May 2016 #96
jack_krass May 2016 #95
BootinUp May 2016 #61
jack_krass May 2016 #73
BootinUp May 2016 #74
Thinkingabout May 2016 #94
JoePhilly May 2016 #67
jack_krass May 2016 #69
jack_krass May 2016 #72
bigtree May 2016 #75
rjsquirrel May 2016 #76
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #77
jack_krass May 2016 #84
DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #86
jack_krass May 2016 #87
DonCoquixote May 2016 #78
BootinUp May 2016 #81
DonCoquixote May 2016 #97
BootinUp May 2016 #99
seekthetruth May 2016 #80
Dems to Win May 2016 #82
tandem5 May 2016 #85
jack_krass May 2016 #88
eridani May 2016 #100
atty May 2016 #102
pampango May 2016 #103
CobaltBlue May 2016 #106

Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:10 PM

1. I feel the same way. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:51 PM

15. So do I.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #15)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:54 PM

17. They both support the part of trade deals that legalizes slavery

"movement of natural persons" or "Mode Four"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:50 PM

51. Agree. Wall Street, the Corporate elite and 1% win either way

The poor, middle-class, democracy, the future of this country and the Planet all loose - either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:12 PM

2. We know about Clinton. We don't know about Trump. Really.

 

It's hard to separate the media icon/enetertainer from the prospective president.

My jury... as to the question of "Who will be worse?" ... is still out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:14 PM

3. Same here. Both fill me with dread.

 

I can't imagine Trump really getting the giant wall built, though. It's so ludicrous and preposterous and it's just not going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:15 PM

4. Neither option causes me fear or enthusiasm. It disheartens me that Democrats would adopt that PNAC

 

agenda, but if this is no longer my party, than maybe it's time to choose a different path, it is not too late (for me) to correct this disastrous course - maybe we nominate Sanders, maybe its is Hillary-Warren, maybe we fix the party rules and platform. We'll see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vote2016 (Reply #4)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:36 PM

8. Yes, the Clinton Machine is loved by the bloodthirsty Neo-Cons..

 

...and will them back to dominate America's Foreign Policy.

[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:15 PM

5. Yes we have some dark and dangerous times ahead of us. Prepare accordingly while

 

enjoying these final few months.

Godspeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:33 PM

6. Fuck that noise.

If you seriously can't see how awful Trump would be, and that Hillary Clinton is far preferable as a President ...

(one might wonder what you are doing at Democratic Underground. Okay, not really wondering.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #6)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:21 PM

47. Which is Worse, War or Wall ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:35 PM

7. The thought of either one of them as POTUS makes me ill.

Neither has my best interest in mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smiley (Reply #7)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:05 PM

21. I'm glad we have the same avatar

because I agree 100% with what you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:39 PM

9. "Really bad" vs "not as bad".

 

1 tbsp of arsenic vs 1 tsp of arsenic.

No to both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:40 PM

10. They're both horrible scenarios to contemplate.

I think I fear the good chance of a war with Iran (which means Russia also) and the possibility of WWIII more than I fear xenophobic and bigoted tendencies fanned at home. Americans care a lot more about what happens at home than they do about what happens abroad (and would actively fight against the kinds of things that Trump proposes). Many do not understand the seriousness of what the US has been doing abroad in terms of their own (and the world's) well being. Your scenario about what would happen at home with a clown like Trump in office will not work to solidify the Globalist agenda but it would probably cause a majority of the population to rise up in protest. Again, both scenarios are terrible to contemplate; however, the continued US/NATO led evisceration of country after country abroad (violently, in the form of war, and more mildly, in the form of ghastly "free trade" agreements that will destroy what's left of national sovereignty) scares me more. A Trump presidency would last 4 years (if that); a Clinton presidency would continue down a global corporatist path already well plotted, could last 8 years, and would certainly be followed by a subsequent presidency that would continue the same agenda. An agenda that will be substantially harder to fight against in 4 or 8 years than it is now (which is already hard enough as the players and strategies undermining Bernie's campaign indicate). Benito Mussolini described Fascism as "the marriage of corporation and state" - the US is already well down that road. Global corporate totalitarianism is what I fear. We don't have to have a Trump presidency or a Clinton presidency. Bernie Sanders is the clear rational choice if you value peace, tolerance, social justice and economic justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bjo59 (Reply #10)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:44 PM

50. One candidate had his way there would be summary executions of immigrants in the US

If the other has her way she would limit the killing their countries of origin. It is very difficult to argue that the world would be better off with one over the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:46 PM

11. I would fear the candidate that people with that opinion

could support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #11)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:52 PM

16. I support candidates who consider war as a...

 

last resort, not as a policy tool.

who will fight for the dignity of every human life, here and abroad.

Who don't use their positons of power to make themselves filthy rich.

If that makes you fear me, then fear away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #16)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:56 PM

18. You don't want a President, you want magic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #18)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:58 PM

20. I think your expectations are too low

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #20)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:11 PM

23. I fear what you think of as expectations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #18)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:24 PM

27. Well, yes, I have heard Bernie equated to magic.

Look, we have a presidential candidate who fits the bill.

His name is Senator Bernie Sanders.

He is healthy, compassionate, not-for-sale, honest, trustworthy and currently running on the Democratic ticket for President of the United States.

I still can't understand the problem.

I only wish people would realize that he has come forward at the time we need him most.

If we, as a nation, squander this opportunity, then the older voters will have a very lean retirement and younger voters will look back on this election and realize what fools we were for not jumping at the chance to elect 'change' instead of 'self-destruction and more of the same'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #27)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:38 PM

33. We have a method for selecting Presidential candidates

and Bernie is losing by big margins. If your opinion was all that counted, I'm sure Bernie would have won.
I choose to squander the opportunity to have an angry old man as President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #33)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:41 PM

35. Well, the "angry old man' meme is lazy and inaccurate.

But go ahead and believe it at your peril.

I'm with him, the honest candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #35)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:45 PM

38. He's not young, he's a man, and he sure looks angry

when he is speaking. That's probably part of his appeal to some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #38)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:55 PM

43. He's fit, slender and

in great health.

I am more worried about Hillary and her health.

As far as Bernie being 'angry', he is angry. But, the look you are failing to acknowledge is not one of anger but of passionate concern for the people he wants to serve.

He KNOWS things are bad, and yea he is angry about how we have been treated.

But, you must not be around very passionate people. Maybe you have been sheltered from true compassion and emotion.

I find him emotional and energized to help the American people.

I find Hillary to be cold, calculated and very underhanded. (And I don't believe I cross any lines making this a sexist remark because the phrase "cold, calculated and very underhanded" fits both men and women).

To each his own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #43)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:58 PM

44. and old and angry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #44)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:16 PM

66. Weird bc it is Hillary who comes across to me as filled w barely concealed

 

seething anger. The unhealthy kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #66)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:59 PM

71. Bernie doesn't conceal his anger

It shows in his voice and his face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #44)


Response to artislife (Reply #68)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:57 PM

70. Saying it doesn't make it so

I've yet to see Hillary turn red during every speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #70)


Response to artislife (Reply #79)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:31 PM

83. With Bernie, I'm not talking about getting angry when

interrupted or confronted. He is angry giving speeches to his supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #83)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:32 PM

93. BS nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #83)


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #44)

Sun May 15, 2016, 10:54 AM

105. If you're going to talk like that you shouldnt complain when conservatives call HRC an old hag

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #105)

Mon May 16, 2016, 04:47 PM

107. I don't believe I have complained about that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Karma13612 (Reply #35)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:08 PM

54. Funny how sexism & ageism are perfectly ok if in defense of

 

Ms "My turn". Its Hill-pocracy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #54)

Mon May 16, 2016, 04:50 PM

108. Ageism and sexism- you left out the most important

Bernie trait, anger. Can you think of an ism for that? ha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #16)

Sun May 15, 2016, 03:41 AM

101. Last ones I saw were Eisenhower (before my time) and Kennedy.

Eisenhower had seen war up close as Supreme Allied Commander.

Kennedy did not want to expand the war in Vietnam which was a civil war and became imperialism when we got involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:47 PM

12. PNAC???

No way Hillary is involved in that.

She's pro-military and pro-American military strength and projection of that strength, but planning and waging a war of choice? Nope, don't see it. Never saw evidence of it in the 90s, and Bill Clinton certainly threw American military assets around, didn't see it when Hillary was SoS, don't see it now.

Hillary's not PNAC. Yes Syria, Yes Lybia, but those were not PNAC actions. The Project for a New American Century called for constant war and bringing capitalism to the world at the point of a sword. That's not in Hillary's M.O., she's not that bellicose.

Is she more bellicose than Obama? Yes. Is she more bellicose than Bernie, oh hell yeah. But she's not Bush or Cheney or Wolfowitz or Rumsfield level of warmongering? Certainly not.

People should judge Hillary for what she is and quit making her out to be the most craven evil thing in the world. She isn't a binary human being, nor is Sanders for that matter. There's shades of gray with them.

Its like people lost their minds around here. Everything is Black or White. We are all smarter than this, lets act smarter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #12)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:57 PM

19. "she's not Bush or Cheney or Wolfowitz or Rumsfield level of warmongerin"

 

I didnt think so, but her tenure at SOS changed my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #12)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:05 PM

22. You should review the destruction of Libya,

and the role SoS Hillary played in that one.
Also see the Coup in Honduras, and Hillary's role there.

THEN, go check the PNAC plan for the New America Century,
then get back to us.

Did you know that some of the signers of PNAC were also founding members of the DLC who, along with Koch Brothers money, helped get Bill Clinton elected?

No CT here. This is all documented publicly available History.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #12)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:35 PM

32. How are Libya and Syria not HRCs doing? How are these not consistent with PNAC

doctrine? You haven't read "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" a 1996 planning paper written for Netanyahu by a group of prominent neocons including Wurmser, Feith. The policy of serial regime change is right in there. Read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apnu (Reply #12)

Sun May 15, 2016, 08:41 AM

104. I've changed it to PNAC-inspired

 

While HRC may not be a card carrying member (the group is dissolved).
-her statements, actions, and demeanor seem inspired by the group.
-PNAC founder Robert Kagen has endorsed her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 03:50 PM

14. They are the world's two most dangerous people.

 

An unpredictable con-artist with fascist tendencies against a soulless, corrupt neocon: what's not to love

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #14)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:48 PM

39. The world is rooting for Hillary over Trump, including London's new Muslim mayor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #39)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:22 PM

57. I wouldn't doubt that, n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #57)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:00 PM

63. What does that mean? What do you have against London's new mayor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #63)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:16 PM

65. Don't read too much into what I wrote there.

 

Hillary seems like someone any politician would prefer over Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:13 PM

24. I think if you are fearful of Clinton, then you are simply one to buy the hype.

 

So, your discussion of your fear is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:20 PM

25. You must have missed the Bush years.

 

I fear people who can't see the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorkySt.Clair (Reply #25)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:40 PM

34. We didn't miss the Bush years

 

as a matter of fact we tell you daily how she was complicit in the Iraq war. She learned so much from that fiasco she decided it would be a good idea in Syria and Libya. So please bring up the Bush years so we can remind you how she gave an empassioned speech for war, helping Dubya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorkySt.Clair (Reply #25)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:19 PM

55. Nope, those years taught me to spot a PNAC evildoer in action

 

And Hillary as SOS set off alarm bells almost immediately. SOS was a great training grounds for her. A couple regieme change under her belt, some dirty business in Latin America. Expext much more wlth her at the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #55)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:21 PM

56. Yes, I'm quite sure you believe all of that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorkySt.Clair (Reply #56)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:34 PM

58. LOL yes, because she told me in her own words....

 


http://m.

This should make any normaal person's skin crawl, but i'm sure you'll rationalize it somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #58)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:36 PM

59. Ah, you're right. This is why Bernie is winning.

 



Nobody cares, Berner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorkySt.Clair (Reply #59)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:41 PM

60. Im under no illusions about his chances, which are practically zero

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:23 PM

26. Same here. The prospects are bleak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:25 PM

28. I don't want a revolution being led

By idiots who can't recognize that a Trump presidency would be FAR WORSE than a Clinton one is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:27 PM

29. Neither regime is moral. Neither is acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:31 PM

30. +100 I also fear, and have already lost sleep over this.

I am still not sure who I will vote for if Bernie is not the nominee.

I am hoping the convention will show me some sort of sign.

If we have a huge rally supporting Bernie, or some sort of upset, then maybe there is some sort of hope.

I wonder if Jill Stein will become more likely.

I just am not ready to color-in that circle for Hillary.

If Hillary becomes our President, I will be first in line to primary her in 2020. And I bet the line behind me will form VERY quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:31 PM

31. Hillary will carry Obama's vision forward


Trump's entire constituency are those who despise Obama.



The choice is easy for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feathery Scout (Reply #31)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:42 PM

36. His vision of TPP

 

or his vision of chained cpi regarding social security? Sure you want that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timmymoff (Reply #36)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:51 PM

40. Obama hasn't been perfect...


He hasn't been perfect, his vision doesn't match mine completely.

But I believe he is the best thing the nation and the Democratic Paty have had in decades.

I would gladly choose a new POTUS who travels his direction and general path, than one who turns away from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feathery Scout (Reply #40)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:52 PM

42. the weathervane is always turning

 

so who knows exactly what she will do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to timmymoff (Reply #42)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:11 PM

46. I don't feel that way about her...



To me it is not such an unknown. So my decision is much easier.


Good Luck on yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feathery Scout (Reply #46)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:53 PM

52. Mine's made

 

leave president blank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:42 PM

37. More stupid made-up b******* supposition

Whatever makes you happy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 04:51 PM

41. Hillary voted many times to build a border wall:

Whereas Trump says he wants to build a wall, Hillary has ALREADY voted many times to actually construct one to keep out "illegal immigrants."


http://www.latintimes.com/hillary-clinton-bragging-about-building-border-wall-keeping-out-illegal-immigrants-352631


Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s campaign denounced Hillary Clinton on Monday over comments she made in a New Hampshire Town Hall that highlighted her support of a U.S.-Mexico border as a tool to deter Latin American immigrants from entering the country illegally. The comments came after O’Malley himself blasted Clinton over her immigration record on Sunday at an immigration forum in Nevada which she did attend, a fact that the former Gov. was happy to underscore. Clinton’s border wall comments came in response to a question from an audience member who asked “What you think about securing the border with some of the illegal immigrants that come in?”

“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said “and I do think that you have to control your borders.



http://www.latintimes.com/hillary-clinton-bragging-about-building-border-wall-keeping-out-illegal-immigrants-352631


Hillary Flip Flops on Immigration (finger to the wind, as usual)

If something doesn't poll well, Hillary won't take a stand on it. She didn't want immigrants to be granted driver's licenses:

when immigrants needed her support, Clinton was always on the fence.

“It was a politically tough issue,” Elliot Spitzer told the Times. “It didn’t poll well, but there was no ambiguity about what was right. And if you look at where we are now as a nation on this very issue It’s the law of the land, I think, in California, a slew of states, and it’s not controversial because people know it’s right and it works. But at the time it was controversial. And because it was controversial she hemmed and she hawed.”


http://www.latintimes.com/hillary-clinton-immigration-flip-flops-criticized-martin-omalley-immigrant-activist-351341

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:08 PM

45. because the are both the same right?

exactly the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #45)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:34 PM

49. No, the whole point is that they're dangerous in different ways

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:26 PM

48. I fear a Bernie Sanders presidency

His inability to work with anyone who disagrees with his positions. The zealotry of his followers. His monumental tax increases for programs with little or no support. His naivete on foreign affairs.

His presidency would be a massive failure with the blame going to Democrats and progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 05:58 PM

53. I fear a Sanders or Trump presidency, neither has shown the ability to understand

Foreign nor the desire to become knowledgeable of the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #53)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:57 PM

62. Maybe someone with less foreign policy experience

 

Wouldnt be a bad thing necissarily.

In fact, maybe we should throw our playbook away and start over?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #62)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:00 PM

64. Not in a global world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #62)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:15 PM

89. I'd prefer someone with less blood on their hands.

 

But that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #89)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:20 PM

90. Well, then Sanders would not be the candidate to support, research his military action

He has been in Congress for twenty five years. If you are looking at IWR, then you need to include the deaths in the US from gun violence since he was elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #90)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:28 PM

91. Riiiiight.

 

The tables below summarize reports on Iraqi casualty figures.

Scientific surveys:
Source Estimated violent deaths Time period
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths March 2003 to June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths March 2003 to June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007
PLOS Medicine Survey[2] Approximately 500,000 deaths in Iraq as direct or indirect result of the war. March 2003 to June, 2011

Body counts:
Source Documented deaths from violence Time period
Associated Press 110,600 violent deaths March 2003 to April 2009
Iraq Body Count project 112,667–123,284 civilian deaths from violence. 174,000 civilian and combatant deaths[4][5][6][7] March 2003 to March 2013
Classified Iraq War Logs[4][8][9][10] 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths.[11][12] January 2004 to December 2009


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JEB (Reply #91)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:31 PM

92. Where is the counts for the military actions Sanders voted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #92)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:35 PM

96. Military actions that were not not wars of choice based on obvious lies.

 

Look it up yourself, if you have some kind of point to make other than your adoration of the Queen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #90)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:33 PM

95. Funny how HRC's defenders conveniently treat all wars equally

 

For example, the Bosnia action, that Bernie did vote for, was to stop a genocide. It cannot, in any stretch of the imagination, be compared to the PNAC monstrosity that was the 2004 Iraq war, which HRC casted her vote for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:50 PM

61. Firstly, we would have never invaded Iraq if she had been President

Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Secondly, Hillary believes in using all tools available meaning diplomacy, economic pressure/leverage, alliances, and war only as a last resort. She is backed by many people who believe this. She believes in advancing the cause of human rights around the globe.

We live in a complicated and dangerous world and we need to have a President that understands that. What better than to have a recent Secretary of State taking over in the white house. She is very plugged in on the situation in the middle east, especially regarding Iran and Israel and Syria.

She backed Obama pulling us out of Iraq and winding down in Afghanistan and negotiating with Iran. I am very confident that she is the right person for this job now.

You can look over her foreign policy page for more details on her philosophy.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #61)

Sat May 14, 2016, 08:06 PM

73. I'd prefer to judge her by her action as SOS than meaningless twaddle on her website...

 

-Regime change Libya

-Regine change Homduras

-Strutting, cocky, arrogent demeanor, laughing and boasting about torture and killing.

-endoresement by PNAC founderx Robert Kagen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #73)

Sat May 14, 2016, 08:35 PM

74. Its not meaningless. It frames how she will make decisions

We joined with other nations to go into Libya as part of a UN Security Council authorized action. From the Libya wiki page:


After the Arab Spring movements overturned the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya experienced a full-scale revolt beginning on 17 February 2011.[70] By 20 February, the unrest had spread to Tripoli. On 27 February 2011, the National Transitional Council was established to administer the areas of Libya under rebel control. On 10 March 2011, France became the first state to officially recognise the council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.[71][72]

Pro-Gaddafi forces were able to respond militarily to rebel pushes in Western Libya and launched a counterattack along the coast toward Benghazi, the de facto centre of the uprising.[73] The town of Zawiya, 48 kilometres (30 mi) from Tripoli, was bombarded by air force planes and army tanks and seized by Jamahiriya troops, "exercising a level of brutality not yet seen in the conflict."[74]

Organizations of the United Nations, including United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon[75] and the United Nations Human Rights Council, condemned the crackdown as violating international law, with the latter body expelling Libya outright in an unprecedented action urged by Libya's own delegation to the UN.[76][77]

On 17 March 2011 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973,[78] with a 10–0 vote and five abstentions including Russia, China, India, Brazil and Germany. The resolution sanctioned the establishment of a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya.[79] On 19 March, the first act of NATO allies to secure the no-fly zone by destroying Libyan air defences began when French military jets entered Libyan airspace on a reconnaissance mission heralding attacks on enemy targets.[80]

In the weeks that followed, American forces were in the forefront of NATO operations against Libya. More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega.[81] The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri on the continental United States.[82] Clearly the support provided by the NATO airforces was pivotal in the ultimate success of the revolution.[83]

By 22 August 2011, rebel fighters had entered Tripoli and occupied Green Square,[84] which they renamed Martyrs' Square in honour of those killed since 17 February 2011. On 20 October 2011 the last heavy fighting of the uprising came to an end in the city of Sirte, where Gaddafi was captured and killed. The defeat of loyalist forces was celebrated on 23 October 2011, three days after the fall of Sirte.

At least 30,000 Libyans died in the civil war.[85]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#2011_Civil_War


Regime change was not the goal, and this was not some US unilateral operation. You will not find sympathy from many for Gaddafi.

To say that Sec. Clinton was involved in "Regime change" in Honduras is to twist the human language until it no longer reflects reality as far as I know. I think you should explain why you are saying that.

Hillary recently received top popularity poll numbers from foreign countries as the best choice for President. She is very well regarded globally. Your description of her is ridiculous. I don't care what off hand remarks were made about Gaddafi's death, I already explained that sympathy for his death at the hands of rebels in his country is not to be found easily.

Hillary is known as a very strong supporter of Israel, in addition to her excellent knowledge and qualifications for President, and I can only assume that this is why she will get support from certain people whos views overall are not identical to hers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #61)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:33 PM

94. Very good point, she voted to get the inspections, Sanders voted against the inspections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:24 PM

67. I get the sense that you no idea who PNAC was, or how Bill responded to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #67)


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #67)

Sat May 14, 2016, 08:01 PM

72. I know their founder, Robert Kagen ENDORSED Hillary

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 08:41 PM

75. sure you do

...what a performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 08:47 PM

77. Please name one major leader beside Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin who prefer Trump over Clinton?

Thank you in advance.



Europe would elect Hillary Clinton by a landlide:





Why would the residents of European nations favor a woman who will start WW lll when l and ll were fought largely on their soil ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #77)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:42 PM

84. Clinton wins there because she's better known. Bernie wins Canada, which is closer

 

I've little doubt that Bernie would beat HRC in most European countries if both were allowed to campaign, as his brand of Democratic Socialism would feel familliar to them, and most would see HRC in a lesser light upon closer inspection and in contrast to Bernie.

Remember that Bernie was polling at around the same percentage here before people got to know him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Reply #84)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:54 PM

86. We are moving the goal posts.

Your original argument was Clinton is worse than Trump because she is more likely to start WW lll yet the people who had the two previous world wars fought on their soil prefer her over Trump by a huge margin.

The notion she is going to start a shooting war with a nuclear power like Russia is silly. Neither she, us, Putin, or them are that crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #86)

Sat May 14, 2016, 10:23 PM

87. Another thing: take polls where country B picks who

 

gets to rule country A with a massive boulder of salt. All sorts of ulterior motives there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:00 PM

78. as much as I do dread Hillary

whose support of as no fly zone in Russia might as well be the setting the tables for ww3, we know one thing about Trump, he is friends with people that will gladly do everything that Hillary will do, and then some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #78)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:26 PM

81. You meant no-fly zone in Syria, not Russia I assume. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BootinUp (Reply #81)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:35 PM

97. yes, although

I doubt Putin will draw that distinction as he is tryign to rpevent another repeat of Husssein and Gadaffis death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #97)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:49 PM

99. They need the port access there in Syria or so I have heard/read.

Russia is in no condition to fight ww3. And Clinton is not a fool like Dubya or even as likely to use the military as Bush I.

There are strategies worth looking at to increase pressure on Assad. The no-fly zone that was also suggested by Ret. Gen Wes Clark is one. They believe it would be a leverage for negotiations. Clinton suggested it would be done with Russia's cooperation, which means they would give something up in return of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:19 PM

80. Just came back from a march in Anacortes, Wa

 

.....to protest against a proposed oil pipeline through tribal lands. It amazed me how many people were for Hillary.

I then was amazed at the amount of people who supported Sanders.

The main difference? Age.

I don't mean to be against those people who have more years on this earth than me, but why are so many quick to dismiss real change? Didn't these people participate in the mass movements of the 1960s?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:31 PM

82. I agree with you. Very tough to discern the lesser of the two evils.

 

Trump has called the Saudis 'fat cows' and said we shouldn't be defending them. Hillary has accepted millions from the Saudis for her foundation, and I have no doubt would continue the US groveling to the Saudi royal family.

Trump is a belligerent clown, Hillary is very well-spoken and articulate. But I truly am afraid Hillary is more likely to get the US into more wars in more places. Her campaign is seeking Republican funders, telling them Hillary shares Bush foreign policy values.

Young people in particular will fiercely resist any racist initiatives from Trump, if he is president. But Americans won't really pay attention to foreign wars waged by the US military. So, a case could be made that the country would do less evil under Trump than under Clinton.

And, of course, looking at the pics from Trump's wedding, it is tough to imagine that one rich partygoer is any different from another. Hard to imagine anyone there was on my side.

Hell of a situation for my beloved country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 09:53 PM

85. I'm fearful of you

May 8th, 2000 -- http://www.gallup.com/poll/2929/little-difference-between-gore-bush-important-dimensions-election.aspx

September 28th, 2000 -- http://www.thenation.com/article/bush-or-gore-does-it-matter/

October 21st, 2000 -- http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/21/local/me-40021

Only instead of two indistinguishable moderates (one being an exaggerating stiff and the other I'd probably have a beer with) we have two right-wing extremists (one a ruthless corrupt megalomaniac and the other Donald Trump).

History has more reboots than a Spider-Man movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tandem5 (Reply #85)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:04 PM

88. Sometimes when walking my dog through a particular weedy area..

 

He will stop and scrath his arse for a few minutes at a time. Taking the long way around, hence avoiding the weeds can actually improve the overall transit time.

The above statement has as much relevance to the OP as the links you've provided, that is, absolutely none.

"I'm fearful of you"
I can assure you I'm harmless and you've nothing to fear , except my ideas growing on you if you keep an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sun May 15, 2016, 03:32 AM

100. I I have to, I'll pick corporatism over fascism n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Sun May 15, 2016, 03:51 AM

102. paraphrase from earlier, it really spoke to me...

In a democracy, when you vote, you are allowing someone else to represent your voice.

To 'vote blue no matter who' or the 'lesser of two evil' is to give the legitimacy of your voice over to that candidate. Everything they do from that point forward has your stamp of approval on it.

Powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atty (Reply #102)

Sun May 15, 2016, 08:03 AM

103. If my choice is between 'the lesser of two evils', I abstain and the 'greater evil' wins,

do I sleep better at night knowing that 'my hands are clean'?

I hope Bernie wins the nomination and the election, but sometimes life is about making choices between imperfect options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jack_krass (Original post)

Mon May 16, 2016, 06:33 AM

106. jack_krass—Surprisingly, a Lindsey Graham quote could be useful to describe Trump-vs.-Hillary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread