2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

It should be remembered that for a vast majority of Republicans and Democrats, that voting for the other side is like asking an Irish person to vote for SF when they have many issues with the party whether it is policy or their history.

With Hillary Clinton you are voting for war.
With Trump, there are question marks but he seems to be now against invading countries/bombing leaders out of power.

Christy42 wrote: »

Bombing terrorist's families will of course not involve invading other countries.

Then going onto other policies we have increasing instability in Eastern Europe by potentially backing out of agreements to protect them from Russian expansion.

Or the increased hostility that will happen after they try and ban everyone from an entire religion from the country. Random unimportant point. Will international sports competitions not be able to take place in the US as too many athletes won't be able to get visas?

No one who supports Hillary here wants to take on the fact she has always chosen war and bombing as the solution.

She is not going to become a pacifist, Obama had lots of faults and from everything I have read, he regrets going with Hillary's advice to bomb Libya, so he ignored her when it came to Syria.

Obama or Putin have not invaded Syria by bombing ISIS.

If she becomes president, there is nothing to stop this proven warmonger.

Christy42 wrote: »

Why did you quote me? You didn't refer to my post?

Because nowhere did you address Hillary being a proven warmonger.

Do you agree Hillary Clinton is a proven warmonger, and if not, why not?

RobertKK wrote: »

Because nowhere did you address Hillary being a proven warmonger.

Do you agree Hillary Clinton is a proven warmonger, and if not, why not?

I challenged part of your post stating that Trump wouldn't be a destabilising force in the world. You ducked, dived and dodged. Just like on Trump being a racist or Trump not destroying the healthcare system or Trump destroying the economy with isolationist policies.

However I will not duck and dive. Yes Hillary satisfies the technical definition of a warmonger. I have an issue with the lack of a follow up that the US has had in its various involvements. I have 0 issue with actually going into Libya. Gaddaffi was a horrific human being that was horrible to his citizens. I have no issue with his or Sadam's death. Sadam has attempted genocide in the past. Remember there was already a revolution going on in Libya. It isn't like there was complete peace there at the time.

Christy42 wrote: »

I challenged part of your post stating that Trump wouldn't be a destabilising force in the world. You ducked, dived and dodged. Just like on Trump being a racist or Trump not destroying the healthcare system or Trump destroying the economy with isolationist policies.

However I will not duck and dive. Yes Hillary satisfies the technical definition of a warmonger. I have an issue with the lack of a follow up that the US has had in its various involvements. I have 0 issue with actually going into Libya. Gaddaffi was a horrific human being that was horrible to his citizens. I have no issue with his or Sadam's death. Sadam has attempted genocide in the past. Remember there was already a revolution going on in Libya. It isn't like there was complete peace there at the time.

It was only in Benghazi which was a terrorist haven. But Hillary came to the assistance of the terrorists so now all the country has thousands of ISIS members based there.

The removal of Saddam and Gaddafi have led to the rise of ISIS, the Syrian war and countless dead and the world is less safe, that is the destabilising force Hillary has brought, and she wants more of it.

RobertKK wrote: »

No one who supports Hillary here wants to take on the fact she has always chosen war and bombing as the solution.

I support Hillary. I have done since the early 90's too.

First of all I assume you mean in her role as secretary of state? Plainly she wasnt always choosing war as new york senator or arkansas laywer?

If you take any secretary of state's record and isolate out the military actions that were taken at the time (its not always the sec of state's decision), you could always point at them and cry warmonger.

So to say she's "always chosen" war is not correct right? Its untrue.

I dont know whether its a lie because I dont know if you know anything about her record as secretary of state beyond Libya/Syria/Eqypt that you seem to base all your negativity about her on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton%27s_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Your the one that brought up articles about Donald Trump not me and I looked through the articles and Bill Clinton came up straight away so Clinton himself was involved with the same person that Trump was. I don't know nor I do I want to know about the scandal of any of nominees but your the one bringing them up. If you look at Congress you will find many Democrats and Republicans have colourful pasts yet they still got elected.

Donald Trump is religiously tolerant since his enemy is ISIS not the Muslim religion. Trump is not a friend of the Wahhabis cult that resides in many Islamic country indeed an ally of the US pre 2009 was Pakistan which was a belligerent towards India, Afghanistan & Iran so you tell me who is the sectarian. Another disaster to visit the American worker is the Mexican crisis and what has the Democrats said about the outsourcing. Have the Democrats stopped the outsourcing of jobs, no please tell me instead of reading the thrashing articles focus on issues. The Mexican crisis is still a big deal and workers are fed up.

Trump said muslims not isis. His words not his critics. Mexican workers are not damaging the economy nor does he have a viable plan to deal with it even if they were.

InTheTrees wrote: »

I support Hillary. I have done since the early 90's too.

First of all I assume you mean in her role as secretary of state? Plainly she wasnt always choosing war as new york senator or arkansas laywer?

If you take any secretary of state's record and isolate out the military actions that were taken at the time (its not always the sec of state's decision), you could always point at them and cry warmonger.

So to say she's "always chosen" war is not correct right? Its untrue.

I dont know whether its a lie because I dont know if you know anything about her record as secretary of state beyond Libya/Syria/Eqypt that you seem to base all your negativity about her on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton%27s_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State

She did as New York senator, where the Senate had to give permission to go to war and she voted for it, and was a very vocal proponent for the invasion.
She was no different to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, but she was against a troop surge when there was the insurgency which helped Iraq.
She was not required as Senator be to for it.

Hillary is heading for a conflict with Russia, she wants to get involved in Syria and implement a no-fly zone to hinder Assad.
Given Russia and Syria are working together - just this week they opened up a safe passage for people to flee Aleppo.
Obama was pragmatic and knew doing more would cause very serious problems with Russia, and make the situation in Syria worse like in Libya.
Hillary will not get UN approval for a no-fly zone.
Hillary had wanted to arm Syrian rebels and this to me makes her a hypocrite, she talks about wanting to control guns in the US, but sure arms the Syrians so they can shoot eachother.
In Libya thousands are dead from this failed policy and the weapons have ended up in the possession of terrorists..
Leon Panetta made it clear on CNN that Hillary wants to get far more actively involved in Syria.

Hillary as Secretary of State enabled a coup in Honduras. A coup the UN, the EU and others but not the US condemned. Turns out Hillary had her fingers in that pie.
As the Huffington post says, Hillary enabled it and it caused a refugee problem with people going to the US, only to be hunted down by Homeland security to be deported back.
There are emails that implicate Hillary.

I was not a fan of Hugo Chavez, but here again there is evidence she tried to depose him. This when publicly she was saying about building a friendship with the Venezuelan president. Her emails shows of how covert operations were to be taken against leftist governments in the Americas by driving a wedge between them and their regional partners.
The problem for the US was losing regional power to leftist governments who were shutting them out. So Hillary was all for undermining these governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia...
The democratically elected government in Honduras was a leftist government, I am no fan of leftist governments and unless an elected government is choosing to kill people, I do not back a coup, Hillary supported a coup against Honduras for the same reasons as given above.

John Pilger says it was under Bill Clinton that regime change in Iraq became US policy.

He says this about Hillary:

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife - a murder made possible by American logistics - Clinton gloated over his death: "We came, we saw, he died."

One of Clinton's closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting "Hillary". This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as "worth it"

In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism.

Trump's views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.

According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is "unleashing the dark forces of violence" in the United States. Unleashing them?
This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.

No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as "a world substantially made over in [America's] own image". The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.

Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn't want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted "exceptionalism" is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies - just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about "hope". And the drool goes on.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence-

The full article says we are building towards a world war.

The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.

A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, "Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable."

In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two -- led by the United States -- is taking place along Russia's western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.

Ukraine - once part of the Soviet Union - has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.
This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.

In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia -- next door to Russia - the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world's second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.

What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.

Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a "threat". According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is "building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea".
What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines - a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called "freedom of navigation".
What does this really mean? It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.

I made a film called The War You Don't See, in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.

All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.

The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western "mainstream" -- a Dan Rather equivalent, say --asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.
The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear -armed bombers.
This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.

In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China's access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

Now add a warmonger like Hillary Clinton to the mix...

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Islam is a billion people and according to the Democrats it is perfectly fine for all these Muslims to be allowed enter Europe & America regardless of their violent beliefs.

It is a billion people. Do they all have violent beliefs?

Or you know should we just keep out those with violent beliefs.

Christy42 wrote: »

You can't see how banning an entire religion from entering the country would be considered sectarian? It is close to the definition of sectarian. You are treating people differently on the basis of their religion. I really don't know how much clearer it can be. I have no idea how you can interpret that in a non sectarian fashion.

I also note we have another claim of Trump's honesty by Aph2016. I love how that gets mentioned and debunked only for it to be mentioned with no backing a few pages later. Can we please stop with it.

Please point me in the direction of said 'debunking'. Honesty is a word more associated with Trump than Clinton. By a long shot.

Aph2016 wrote: »

Please point me in the direction of said 'debunking'. Honesty is a word more associated with Trump than Clinton. By a long shot.

Here's a starting point. Note the bit which says that 70% of Trump's statements are AT LEAST "mostly false".