Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Trump and Hillary --- BAD FOR AMERICA!

Trump and Hillary --- BAD FOR AMERICA!

+3
Sal
2seaoat
Wordslinger
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

One is anxious to start new wars and the other is anxious to start new wars too. Either of these two egoists in the White House and we lose big.

Fuck Hillary and fuck Trump.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/03/sanders-clinton-yes-trumps-foreign-policy-ideas-are-scary-so-are-yours

Guest


Guest

It seems with each election cycle that the candidates for potus are getting worse and worse and more alike.

It's as if the course is set and the outcome of the election will really change it very little. We the people are screwed.

2seaoat



Hillary is a good choice. President Obama was a good choice. I made the mistake of not voting for President Obama because I thought Romney and Obama were bad for America.....so I voted for Johnson. I will never make a mistake like that when somebody like Trump is in the race. If you do not vote for Hillary, you are voting for Trump. If you vote for Trump, you are putting the nation at risk.

Guest


Guest

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/10306592.html

Hillary Clinton’s recent foreign policy speech was an attack on Donald Trump but was also a reminder that Clinton is a deeply flawed and worrisome candidate. Her record as Secretary of State was one of the worst in modern US history; her policies have enmeshed America in new Middle East wars,rising terrorism,and even a new Cold War with Russia. Of the three leading candidates,only Bernie Sanders has the sound judgment to avoid further war and to cooperate with the rest of the world.

Clinton is intoxicated with American power. She has favored one war of choice after the next: bombing Belgrade (1999); invading Iraq (2003); toppling Qaddafi (2011); funding Jihadists in Syria (2011 till now). The result has been one bloodbath after another,with open wounds until today fostering ISIS,terrorism,and mass refugee flows.

In her speech,Clinton engaged in her own Trump-like grandiose fear mongering: “[I]f America doesn’t lead,we leave a vacuum - and that will either cause chaos,or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety - and trust me,the choices they make will not be to our benefit.”

This kind of arrogance - that America and America alone must run the world - has led straight to overstretch: perpetual wars that cannot be won, and unending and escalating confrontations with Russia,China,Iran and others that make the world more dangerous. It doesn’t seem to dawn on Clinton that in today’s world,we need cooperation,not endless bravado.

Clinton professed her belief “with all my heart that America is an exceptional country - that we’re still,in Lincoln’s words,the last,best hope of earth.” Yet surely President Lincoln was speaking in moral terms,not in Clinton’s militaristic terms. Lincoln did not mean that the last best hope of earth should send NATO bombers into Libya,the CIA into Syria,and Special Ops forces into countless other countries. Surely Lincoln would have been more prudent than to push NATO expansion to Russia’s very doorstep in Ukraine and Georgia,thereby triggering a violent response from Russia and a new Cold War.

Clinton lacks all self-awareness of how poorly she performed as Secretary of State. She trumpets her “successes” as follows:

"Unlike [Trump],I have some experience with the tough calls and the hard work of statecraft. I wrestled with the Chinese over a climate deal in Copenhagen,brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, negotiated the reduction of nuclear weapons with Russia,twisted arms to bring the world together in global sanctions against Iran,and stood up for the rights of women,religious minorities and LGBT people around the world."

Pure braggadocio. While Clinton “wrestled with China” over a climate deal, she failed to achieve one. While she “brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas,” she failed to head off the disastrous Gaza War in the first place. While she “negotiated the reduction of nuclear weapons with Russia,” she championed a remarkably confrontational approach with Russia based on NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia and a new nuclear arms race that will cost American taxpayers more than $355 billion over a decade. While she claims to have “stood up for the rights of women [and] religious minorities,” her Syrian adventurism left Syria devastated,displaced 10 million people,and destroyed the religious minority communities she claimed to defend.

Clinton declared that she has a plan to defeat ISIS,but ISIS wouldn’t even exist were it not for Clinton’s “regime change” policy in Syria. ISIS emerged as a result of the US policy to partner with Saudi Arabia to topple Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. This mistaken policy created the chaos in which ISIS gained ground and weaponry,including US weaponry that was diverted from American-backed jihadists.

Clinton rightly accused Trump of being unpredictable,yet Clinton is dangerously predictable. She is always trying to prove how tough she is, how tough America is,how exceptional is America’s power. Trump is unqualified to be President because he lacks both the necessary experience and good judgment. Clinton,by contrast,has the extensive experience that proves that she too lacks the good judgment to be President.

Bernie Sanders,by contrast,not only offers a vastly better economic program than Clinton,but also a foreign policy based on wisdom,decency, and especially restraint. As a result,the American people trust Sanders rather than Clinton. She wins the closed primaries while he wins the open ones,that is,primaries that include the independent voters who will decide the November elections.

The Democrats would be foolhardy to accept Clinton as the “inevitable” nominee; she is the voice of foreign policy failure,while Sanders is the voice of hope,the young,and the future,and who is far more likely to beat Trump this fall.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

My gosh Pkrbum -- you and I agree about Hillary. But don't you think Trump is just as dangerous?

Sal

Sal

Perhaps you missed it because you're too focused on sound bites and talking points, but if you had actually taken the time to listen and digest Secretary Clinton's foreign policy speech last week, you might take note that she began her speech by addressing domestic concerns, rebuilding infrastructure, education, and investing in research and development.

This indicates sound judgement and good policy before turning to foreign policy concerns.

And, when she did turn to foreign policy, none of her proposals were outside the norms and boundaries of traditional American foreign policy discourse.

In Secretary Clinton, the US has a potential president with extensive, highest level diplomatic experience.

This is not insignificant, as has been demonstrated by some of our more recent Presidential blunders.

Secretary Clinton is responsible for the development and implementation of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

If you really want to understand where Secretary Clinton stands on foreign policy, this is a very good place to start.

I would suggest a careful and thoughtful perusal.

Or, you could studiously examine whatever Trump pulls out of his ass today.

Your choice, seeing how everything is the same.

Rolling Eyes

Oh, and the spectacle of our glibertarian hero quoting Jeffrey Sachs of all people is certainly deserving of a ...

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:My gosh Pkrbum -- you and I agree about Hillary. But don't you think Trump is just as dangerous?

Easily as bad. The worst choice so far imo.

Sal

Sal

So stupid.

Comparing Hillary to Trump is like comparing an apple with a small bruise to a hand grenade with the pin pulled.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


I'm tired of the Hillary bashing. Just stop it. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are NOT ALIKE. As for the Iraq War vote, the entire Congress was not only misled by the lies of Bush et al, some of them received anthrax in the mail...that could only have originated at Ft. Detrich.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Salinsky wrote:Perhaps you missed it because you're too focused on sound bites and talking points, but if you had actually taken the time to listen and digest Secretary Clinton's foreign policy speech last week, you might take note that she began her speech by addressing domestic concerns, rebuilding infrastructure, education, and investing in research and development.

This indicates sound judgement and good policy before turning to foreign policy concerns.

And, when she did turn to foreign policy, none of her proposals were outside the norms and boundaries of traditional American foreign policy discourse.

In Secretary Clinton, the US has a potential president with extensive, highest level diplomatic experience.

This is not insignificant, as has been demonstrated by some of our more recent Presidential blunders.

Secretary Clinton is responsible for the development and implementation of the  Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

If you really want to understand where Secretary Clinton stands on foreign policy, this is a very good place to start.

I would suggest a careful and thoughtful perusal.

Or, you could studiously examine whatever Trump pulls out of his ass today.

Your choice, seeing how everything is the same.

Rolling Eyes

Oh, and the spectacle of our glibertarian hero quoting Jeffrey Sachs of all people is certainly deserving of a ...

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


Sal, you make a number of very good points about Hillary. However, everything she touched as a Secretary of State ended a disaster for the U.S. -- She was for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for a no fly zone in Syria, and for overthrowing Gaddafi. Surely most of these disasters were okayed by Obama -- but so what? Hillary is too quick to engage troops and use generals, with absolutely NO preparation for what comes after we've overthrown a dictator. Hillary is sane however, just addicted to establishing American hegemony. Trump is insane.

Bernie is still best in my book.

Sal

Sal

Wordslinger wrote:


Sal, you make a number of very good points about Hillary.  However, everything she touched as a Secretary of State ended a disaster for the U.S.  --

This is hyperbole.

She was instrumental in developing and implementing the sanctions which brought Iran to the negotiating table and led ultimately to the nuclear deal.

That could've gone much differently.

And, that is hardly the only success she has on her resume.

She was for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for a no fly zone in Syria, and for overthrowing Gaddafi.  Surely most of these disasters were okayed by Obama -- but so what?  Hillary is too quick to engage troops and use generals, with absolutely NO preparation for what comes after we've overthrown a dictator.  

It would be best to take these case by case.

Everyone was for a military response in Afghanistan and had it not been so badly bungled by the Bush administration, it could've been an effective and noble effort.

She was wrong regarding Iraq, but she was hardly alone. Many were misled by the Bush administration's deceptions and obfuscations. She has acknowledged her mistake.

Who the fuck knows what the best thing to do was/is in Syria. It's a complete cluster fuck and a direct result of our actions in Iraq. Could a no-fly zone have been an effective tool? I don't pretend to know. There was/is no good options there.

Your best case for criticism is Libya. But, let's not forget what happened there. There was imminent genocide on the horizon, and our allies were begging us to do something. We led from behind with a promise from those same allies that they would bear the brunt of the aftermath. Libya was coming apart at the seams before we did anything, and when that support didn't materialize in the aftermath of the military response, the results we now see were inevitable.

Bernie is still best in my book.

Bernie has no foreign policy/diplomatic experience other than Hoovering up all the cash he can for the MIC in his state and ambushing the Pope in the lobby of a hotel.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Salinsky wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:


Sal, you make a number of very good points about Hillary.  However, everything she touched as a Secretary of State ended a disaster for the U.S.  --

This is hyperbole.

She was instrumental in developing and implementing the sanctions which brought Iran to the negotiating table and led ultimately to the nuclear deal.

That could've gone much differently.

And, that is hardly the only success she has on her resume.

She was for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for a no fly zone in Syria, and for overthrowing Gaddafi.  Surely most of these disasters were okayed by Obama -- but so what?  Hillary is too quick to engage troops and use generals, with absolutely NO preparation for what comes after we've overthrown a dictator.  

It would be best to take these case by case.

Everyone was for a military response in Afghanistan and had it not been so badly bungled by the Bush administration, it could've been an effective and noble effort.

She was wrong regarding Iraq, but she was hardly alone.  Many were misled by the Bush administration's deceptions and obfuscations.  She has acknowledged her mistake.

Who the fuck knows what the best thing to do was/is in Syria.  It's a complete cluster fuck and a direct result of our actions in Iraq.  Could a no-fly zone have been an effective tool?  I don't pretend to know.  There was/is no good options there.

Your best case for criticism is Libya.  But, let's not forget what happened there.  There was imminent genocide on the horizon, and our allies were begging us to do something.  We led from behind with a promise from those same allies that they would bear the brunt of the aftermath.  Libya was coming apart at the seams before we did anything, and when that support didn't materialize in the aftermath of the military response, the results we now see were inevitable.

Bernie is still best in my book.

Bernie has no foreign policy/diplomatic experience other than Hoovering up all the cash he can for the MIC in his state and ambushing the Pope in the lobby of a hotel.

These are Senator Sanders' remarks when voting to oppose an invasion of Iraq:

Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution.

One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, “An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.”

Fourth, at a time when this country has a $6 trillion national debt and a growing deficit, we should be clear that a war and a long-term American occupation ofIraq could be extremely expensive.

Fifth, I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists? Will the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority be exacerbated? And these are just a few of the questions that remain unanswered.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/why-isnt-hillarys-hawkishness-a-dealbreaker/433887/

***************

Now it's time to stop the Bernie bashing, too, Sal. Who was right on Iraq? And, more important, who took a principled stand?

Sal

Sal

Floridatexan wrote:

Now it's time to stop the Bernie bashing, too, Sal.  Who was right on Iraq?  And, more important, who took a principled stand?  

There is no debate.

Sanders was correct regarding Iraq, and Clinton was wrong.

She's acknowledged as much.

Hillary is less than 30 delegates away from sewing this up.

Bernie has about 24 hours.

If he continues to campaign against Hillary after tomorrow, or worse, tries to contest the will of the people at the convention, the bashing will have only just begun.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Salinsky wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:

Now it's time to stop the Bernie bashing, too, Sal.  Who was right on Iraq?  And, more important, who took a principled stand?  

There is no debate.

Sanders was correct regarding Iraq, and Clinton was wrong.

She's acknowledged as much.

Hillary is less than 30 delegates away from sewing this up.

Bernie has about 24 hours.

If he continues to campaign against Hillary after tomorrow, or worse, tries to contest the will of the people at the convention, the bashing will have only just begun.

The will of which people, Sal? I support Bernie, and if he believes he should contest the convention, if and when it comes to that, so be it. I realize California will be make or break, but I have such admiration for this man, to have come so far with only grassroots donations and with such sparse coverage from the media. You might call me an idealist; I've certainly been called much worse. I lived through the '60's. I'd like to see this country move forward, not backward. My children and grandchildren mean a lot to me.

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:One is anxious to start new wars and the other is anxious to start new wars too.  Either of these two egoists in the White House and we lose big.

Fuck Hillary and fuck Trump.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/03/sanders-clinton-yes-trumps-foreign-policy-ideas-are-scary-so-are-yours


I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

You, and a few other Socialists would only be happy with someone far further to the left than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

Someone to the left of your idol.

Trump and Hillary --- BAD FOR AMERICA! AdolphHitlerandSocialist_zps33c21341

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:One is anxious to start new wars and the other is anxious to start new wars too.  Either of these two egoists in the White House and we lose big.

Fuck Hillary and fuck Trump.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/03/sanders-clinton-yes-trumps-foreign-policy-ideas-are-scary-so-are-yours


I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

You, and a few other Socialists would only be happy with someone far further to the left than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

Someone to the left of your idol.

Trump and Hillary --- BAD FOR AMERICA! AdolphHitlerandSocialist_zps33c21341


Hitler was lying to gain support, very much like Trump. No Markle, Bernie is right for me and millions of other Americans. Live with it boobie .... stop sniveling.

Telstar

Telstar

Here's another comparison but of course Adolphe couldn't brag about being a member of the wrasslin' hall of fame.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Salinsky wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:

Now it's time to stop the Bernie bashing, too, Sal.  Who was right on Iraq?  And, more important, who took a principled stand?  

There is no debate.

Sanders was correct regarding Iraq, and Clinton was wrong.

She's acknowledged as much.

Hillary is less than 30 delegates away from sewing this up.

Bernie has about 24 hours.

If he continues to campaign against Hillary after tomorrow, or worse, tries to contest the will of the people at the convention, the bashing will have only just begun.

The will of which people, Sal? I support Bernie, and if he believes he should contest the convention, if and when it comes to that, so be it. I realize California will be make or break, but I have such admiration for this man, to have come so far with only grassroots donations and with such sparse coverage from the media. You might call me an idealist; I've certainly been called much worse. I lived through the '60's. I'd like to see this country move forward, not backward. My children and grandchildren mean a lot to me.

Hillary wasn't just wrong on iraq... she is serially wrong on almost all major foreign policies... including trade agreements.

Iraq war, astan war, russian reset, china, egypt, syria, iran, libya, yemen, somalia... etc.

What result do you realistically expect from a hillary presidency?

Sal

Sal

In 2008, we gave you the first non-white President.

Now, we are on the cusp of breaking the 229 year testicular lock on the Oval Office.

Go, Democrats!!

cheers cheers cheers

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

For Telstar


Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Also for Telstar

Sal

Sal

Floridatexan wrote:
The will of which people, Sal?  I support Bernie, and if he believes he should contest the convention, if and when it comes to that, so be it.

The will of a large majority of Democratic primary voters.


Bernie Sanders may win California today, but whether or not he does, he won’t have enough delegates to deny the nomination to Hillary Clinton. But Sanders says he is going to carry the fight to the convention, and his campaign talks of prying loose super-delegates and waging platform battles. I voted for Sanders in the primary, so perhaps I can offer advice that rises above the partisan clamor: drop out of the race, give Clinton your full support, and train your sights on Donald Trump, who thinks a judge whose parents were from Mexico, and who was born in Indiana, is not an American.

Sanders had a commendable political agenda, and he can return to it with some authority after November if Clinton wins and he becomes the Budget Chair. But a convention


battle over delegates and platform won’t help him or her. The clearest precedents are 1976 and 1980. In 1976, Ronald Reagan took the nomination with Gerald Ford to the convention in Kansas City; and in 1980 Ted Kennedy battled Jimmy Carter at the Democratic convention in New York. Ford lost in November, and so did Carter. They might well have lost anyway, but the convention battles certainly did not help their campaigns.

I was at the 1980 convention. Kennedy dominated it. Kennedy had staged a late comeback in the primaries and had won California and New Jersey, but Carter had won the majority of delegates. At the convention, Kennedy tried to get the Rules Committee to allow delegates to repudiate their own voters on the first ballot. He predictably failed. Then Kennedy’s supporters staged a 17-hour marathon battle over the platform, winning support for federal funding for abortions and $12 billion in jobs spending. Then after Carter gave his acceptance speech, Kennedy snubbed him on the stage. What did it accomplish? Well, Carter came out of the convention with less of a bounce than he might have, and after he lost the election to Ronald Reagan, the platform planks for which Kennedy’s supporters fought—and which I had to explore the internet to recall -- became footnotes in a doctoral thesis on party conventions.

Fractious conventions can definitely hurt a nominee. I certainly can’t think of an example where a bitter convention battle helped the nominee. And a well-run convention that puts the candidate forward and gets the campaign’s message across can help. Think of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992, George W. Bush in 2000, and Barack Obama (thanks to Hillary Clinton’s concession after the primaries) in 2008. After the results come in tonight, the Sanders’ campaign can rejoice in whatever success the candidate achieves. But then it will be time to move off the stage and move on.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/--100724

Markle

Markle

Salinsky wrote:In 2008, we gave you the first non-white President.

Now, we are on the cusp of breaking the 229 year testicular lock on the Oval Office.

Go, Democrats!!

cheers cheers cheers

THANK YOU!

My Progressive good friend Salinsky boldly states that Democrats consider ABILITY, EXPERIENCE, POLICIES, GOALS, to be irrelevant, unimportant and extraneous to the race, color, religion, sex or ethnicity of the candidate.

Thank you again, my good friend had I accused Democrats of the same, as I have many times, few would take it seriously!

Sal

Sal

Markle wrote:ABILITY, EXPERIENCE, POLICIES, GOALS, to be irrelevant, unimportant

A very good description of Trump humpers like yourself.

Markle

Markle

Salinsky wrote:
Markle wrote:ABILITY, EXPERIENCE, POLICIES, GOALS, to be irrelevant, unimportant

A very good description of Trump humpers like yourself.

Your words, not mine.

Salinsky wrote:In 2008, we gave you the first non-white President.

Now, we are on the cusp of breaking the 229 year testicular lock on the Oval Office.

Go, Democrats!!

cheers cheers cheers

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Trump and Hillary --- BAD FOR AMERICA!

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum