Clinton ‘more dangerous’ than Trump

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jun 4, 2016.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
  2. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
  3. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #3
    Sarandon is more stupid than dangerous.
     
  4. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #4
    Typical demeaning liberal response. If I don't agree with you I'm stupid.
     
  5. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #5
    Rather typical US partisan heck response.....
     
  6. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #6
  7. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    No problems with your statement
     
  8. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #8
    Hillary R. Clinton, the female George W. Bush. Both should be already in prison for life.
     
  9. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9
    Susan Sarandon is a liberal loon. (Yeah, liberals have them as well as conservatives. Its just we aren't afraid to call them out.) She also happens to be an actor. A fairly accomplished one, and probably a decent human being.

    But as far as her political judgement? Her ability to predict the future? To accurately and wisely assess foreign policy risks? Who cares?

    Sarandon is basing her statement on her belief that Hillary Clinton is more likely to adopt an "interventionist" stance in her foreign policy. More likely than who, exactly? More likely than Bernie Sanders? Maybe. More likely than Donald ("bomb the hell out of them") Trump? Probably not.

    But its worth taking a look at what "intervention" actually means. Because sometimes intervention is a good thing. If it isn't, you've really got to ask yourself why we spend a trillion dollars a year on our military.

    The United States recently "intervened" in Liberia. We sent an army medical unit, along with teams from the CDC and NIH, to help deal with the Ebola outbreak there. And while most of the US troops arrived after the epidemic had peaked; the fact remains that before leaving they managed to train and equip a large number of Liberian healthcare workers. They left medical supplies and equipment, and several permanent treatment centers. Meaning that the chances of a future outbreak of the disease are vastly diminished. Number of US troops killed in the Liberian "intervention"? Zero. Number of Liberians killed or injured? Also zero.

    We sent 3000 troops to intervene in Liberia. They did their job, professionally and effectively. And when the job was done, they came home. The Liberian people were glad of the assistance then. They'll be glad of the training and resources they got for decades to come.

    Sometimes intervention is a good thing. Only imbeciles pretend otherwise.
     
  10. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #10
    That was humanitarian intervention. I think the intervention that Sarandon is talking about is military intervention to facilitate regime change. I do agree that its bad and we shouldn't do it. And she's right, only Sanders of the 3 possible candidates would likely not be an interventionist.

    That being said, Trump seems to be more of a military chest beating, bomb them to the stone age type guy. So I would expect Trump to make robust use of the U.S. military to throw his weight around. Hillary I would assume would be a little more cautious (yeah I know about Libya).
     
  11. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    GREAT deflecting post .
    perhaps if you READ the link you would see the type of "intervention" Susan was talking about.
    [​IMG]
    how much "training" do you think that kid got as he was fleeing his homeland due in part to Obamas bombing with Hillary's blessing?
    how horrible it must be for a liberal "loon" to want to end the conflicts in the M-E that have been supported by Hillary. I'll take a liberal loon any day of the week over the liberals who are ok with the never ending bombing & displacement of millions simply because the war monger in question has a "D" next to his/her name.

    https://vivalibya.wordpress.com/201...nearly-half-a-million-in-the-past-few-months/

    she came,she saw, he died and she laughed, while 1000's died and continue to due so and millions flee and continue to do so.
     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12
    I seem to recall she was saying the same **** when she was backing Nader.
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13


    Get this through your head: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did not start the Libyan civil war.

    The Libyan civil war was but one in a series of popular uprisings, generally referred to as the "Arab Spring." The causes for this popular uprising are numerous. But pretty much none of them can be described as "Hillary Clinton made me do it."

    The United States intervened in Libya on mainly humanitarian grounds, when it became clear that the remnants of Gadaffi's forces were intent on massacring civilian populations in rebel-held areas.

    Let me just refer you to this:

     
  14. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    did I say they STARTED the civil war? nope. that war was NONE of our business, neither is Syria. where the goal is to remove Assad.
     
  15. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #15
    You said it, not me. Self-awareness is a good start.
     
  16. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #16
    I don't blame American politicians for people having civil wars in Africa or the middle east.

    "Obama's bombing with Hillary's blessing" you say. So she is supposed to defy her commander in chief/boss? I love how the blame game is assessed here. Look Africa and the Mideast have messed up countries. Is that Obama or Hillary's fault -- no. They are messed up regardless of who is in power in our country. We can try and tweak things -- but rarely any of it works.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016 ---
    Right, which is why the less militaristic candidate is the better choice. Obviously Trump is more militaristic than Hillary. He talks about killing terrorist families, spreading nukes, taking care of ISIS. Who is more bombastic and strutting around like he will use the full military might of the U.S. -- Trump.

    Therefore, if you have to choose between the two, sorry to say, your choice is Hillary.
     
  17. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    why would she defy something she agrees with? this is what Susan is getting at, Hillary is a war hawk.
     
  18. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #18
    Relative to what? The only question (if you vote based on that), is who is more of an authoritarian military, bombastic threatening person. Clearly that is Trump - not Hillary.
     
  19. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    actually the candidate the will face the most opposition to ANYTHING they try to do by CONGRESS would be Trump, Obama faced no opposition from Congress on the military affairs, Trumps is not even liked by the GOP so if YOU want less war than TRUMP should be YOUR choice.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016 ---
    talk (trump) vs ACTION (hillary)
     
  20. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #20
    Not based on the way they talk. Trump is the military guy. And if the Republicans control, they will back a republican president. TRump is a republican.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016 ---
    Trump can only talk, as he has never held elective office. But if you don't take him at his word, then he is a liar. Either way, that's bad.
     
  21. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    neither democrats nor republicans opposed Obama in war, so they won't oppose whatever Hillary wants to do war wise, democrats will start to once again grow a back bone and oppose any military intervention that trump might try.
     
  22. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #22
    I don't think opposition matters. The President doesn't have to go to Congress based on precedent (though they really should). Everyone ignores that congress must declare war thing. So opposition doesn't mean squat.
     
  23. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    congress hold the purse strings, hard to wage war w/o money. republicans (bush) NEEDED congress to wage war, unlike Obama who got away with whatever he wanted and so will Hillary if she makes it.
     
  24. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #24
    Can you proove (or atleast argue in a convincing matter) that more Lybians died because of US intervention as would have without ?
    Did any US-soldiers die ? (no Benghazi doesn't really count as could have happened just the same)

    So all you have left to whine about is the cost, which is probraly more or less the same as those troops cruising and training in the mediterranean.

    Syria is slightly different, but still miles away from the full scale invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
     
  25. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #25
    C'mon, you know in reality this is politically impossible. Congress is not going to cut off funds while US forces are in harms way.
     

Share This Page