2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Fr Tod Umptious

InTheTrees wrote: »

I see Trump calling on the russians to hack the DNC

Thats just plain weird. He wants help from the russians to break into his opponents computers?

I'm not saying Trump is an more or less fit than Clinton.

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Look at it from the point of view of who do you want to see as President.

Do you want someone who was so careless with national security that their actions allowed Russia access to their emails ?

That's a huge red flag for Clinton.

I'm not here to defend Trump by the way, its a pity that he is the one on the other side and not someone better.

But at the end of the day, it Clintons carelessness that allows someone like Russia access to something they should not have.

That's massive, how can you trust such a person to be president ?

Stop deflecting. Address the point I made or don't bother reply to my posts please.

Trump is asking the Russians to break the law. How can you trust a man who knowingly encourages the agents of a foreign country to break the law to further his own ambitions???

It's a new low. He proves that without a doubt, he'll do anything to become president and people like you will make excuses for it.

I'm starting to worry I'm not getting my apology.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Or, more succinctly: "I don't care."

It's the thing about Trump supporters I've never been able to wrap my head around. They genuinely don't seem to care that damn near everything the man says is a lie, because they are able to latch on to a subset of those lies that they agree with, and ignore the rest.

Have you asked yourself why there is an email crisis for the Democrats and Hillary?
Is this the fault of Trump?

Is it the fault of Trump that the DNC are proven to have favoured Hillary, that there was a smear campaign against Bernie?
Is it good for democracy that the Democrats are shown to have influence over certain areas of the media, telling MSNBC what they shouldn't show or the Washington Post what they should publish, is this Trump's fault?

When it comes to Clinton and Democrat supporters they are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. But Trump is awful, he will be a dictator, when it is on the Democrat side where actions are actually happening that are associated with dictators.
I am not saying Hillary would be a dictator, but if Trump had won the nomination with help from the RNC in what is called democracy, or if he was manipulating the media in what they can and cannot say, there would be uproar, you see the hypocrisy in this thread.
I don't agree with a number of points that Trump supports, but Hillary is not better. Obama is a liar to say no one is more qualified. Obama at least was against the bombing of Libya but listened to crazy Hillary who had ignored the Pentagon's advice.
Hillary is not a stable option, she was not a safe pair of hands as Secretary of State. She got her way with bombing Libya and getting the country to the mess the Pentagon said would be the outcome. Obama could see the mess, so ignored her when she wanted to bomb Assad out of power.
This is the kind of crazy person Hillary Clinton is. I don't know why people want a proven war monger for president.

Fr Tod Umptious

Brian? wrote: »

Stop deflecting. Address the point I made or don't bother reply to my posts please.

Trump is asking the Russians to break the law. How can you trust a man who knowingly encourages the agents of a foreign country to break the law to further his own ambitions???

It's a new low. He proves that without a doubt, he'll do anything to become president and people like you will make excuses for it.

I'm starting to worry I'm not getting my apology.

I don't trust him and never said I did.

I just don't get how Clinton supporters are trying to use this as a stick to beat him with, when her playing fast and loose with national security in the first place is a contributor to Russians ability do what Trump is requesting.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Stop deflecting. Address the point I made or don't bother reply to my posts please.

Trump is asking the Russians to break the law. How can you trust a man who knowingly encourages the agents of a foreign country to break the law to further his own ambitions???

It's a new low. He proves that without a doubt, he'll do anything to become president and people like you will make excuses for it.

I'm starting to worry I'm not getting my apology.

This is my point earlier.
People talking about Trump, not the speeches of the DNC.

Also what happened to those 30k+ missing emails?
Did Hillary delete them all?

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

This is my point earlier.
People talking about Trump, not the speeches of the DNC.

Also what happened to those 30k+ missing emails?
Did Hillary delete them all?

So why is Trump a genius if none of this has anything to do with him?

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

So why is Trump a genius if none of this has anything to do with him?

I was watching coverage of the DNC on CNN. They talked about about how the RNC got 4 days of uninterrupted coverage and how it ended as a success.
They then moved onto talk about the DNC and how their convention has Trump in the middle of it by what he said. They then spent time talking about Trump and Hillary's emails. Do you think this is what the DNC wanted?

I just think Trump is a genius by the way he is able to hog the media, yes he says stuff that an ordinary candidate would not say, but then it is his character to say what he thinks, so he gets away with it as it is not out of the ordinary, but it shocks the media enough that they spend hours talking about it.
No one really cares about the DNC speeches. Trump is doing what won him the Republican nomination which was against all odds.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Oh please, stop acting stupid, you know well what the problem is.

Yes, and the problem is somebody committed an act of treason yesterday by calling on Russia to hack them.

And his supporters are trying to defend that by shouting "but but but... Hillary!!" as they do every day. Fact is, he called on Russia to attempt to hack the US government, which is a deliberate act of treason, and from the looks of things you are supporting that.

There is a reason why Mike Pence was sent out to make a statement on this running as far away from the incident as possible. Naturally that falls into a "but but but... Hillary!" message too, so at least you are picking up on your cues well - https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/statement-from-governor-mike-pence

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

This is my point earlier.
People talking about Trump, not the speeches of the DNC.

Also what happened to those 30k+ missing emails?
Did Hillary delete them all?

Like the media "obsessing" yesterday, right?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100495619&postcount=8832

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

I was watching coverage of the DNC on CNN. They talked about about how the RNC got 4 days of uninterrupted coverage and how it ended as a success.
They then moved onto talk about the DNC and how their convention has Trump in the middle of it by what he said. They then spent time talking about Trump and Hillary's emails. Do you think this is what the DNC wanted?

I just think Trump is a genius by the way he is able to hog the media, yes he says stuff that an ordinary candidate would not say, but then it is his character to say what he thinks, so he gets away with it as it is not out of the ordinary, but it shocks the media enough that they spend hours talking about it.
No one really cares about the DNC speeches. Trump is doing what won him the Republican nomination which was against all odds.

So how did Trump move the focus? I know it moved but I'm failing to see how Trump had anything to do with it.

Here's what I think. The news networks love Trump, he gives great headlines and soundbites. Hilary is boring with all of her positivity and common sense. Trump is not a genius for working the media, the media love hom for the ratings.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I was watching coverage of the DNC on CNN. They talked about about how the RNC got 4 days of uninterrupted coverage and how it ended as a success.
They then moved onto talk about the DNC and how their convention has Trump in the middle of it by what he said. They then spent time talking about Trump and Hillary's emails. Do you think this is what the DNC wanted?

I just think Trump is a genius by the way he is able to hog the media, yes he says stuff that an ordinary candidate would not say, but then it is his character to say what he thinks, so he gets away with it as it is not out of the ordinary, but it shocks the media enough that they spend hours talking about it.
No one really cares about the DNC speeches. Trump is doing what won him the Republican nomination which was against all odds.

Don't think last nights are out yet, but the DNC comfortably beat the RNC for ratings - by about 3mn in night one, and 5mn in night two. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/26/12293208/dnc-ratings-higher-rnc

Don't know about last nights yet though, think they're a few hours off being released (most of the night 2 results show 18 hours ago for me so I'm guessing at least another 4-6 hours).

TheDoctor

I've got the best ratings, the best

Billy86

TheDoctor wrote: »

I've got the best ratings, the best

Believe me!

Ted Kaine's speech yesterday wasn't great (not poor either, just very middle of the road) but he absolutely nailed it on that part.

Someone mentioned the "you're fired" bit earlier, which was Biden.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

So how did Trump move the focus? I know it moved but I'm failing to see how Trump had anything to do with it.

Here's what I think. The news networks love Trump, he gives great headlines and soundbites. Hilary is boring with all of her positivity and common sense. Trump is not a genius for working the media, the media love hom for the ratings.

Hillary is not boring, so many skeletons, so many emails. You may see war being positive, but she that is what she offers.
The media love to talk about Trump because Trump knows how to use the media to move focus. He used his press conference to move focus.
No one will be talking about the DNC speeches, they offer nothing, one could say the same about the RNC but Cleveland was more fun to watch, I watched both and apart from day 1 at the DNC it has been boring.
Trump allowed Cruz give his speech, an egomaniac would have blocked it as it was not positive towards Trump. Instead he allowed it and Cruz was the loser.
Trump has been so good at reading sentiment.
People going on about treason and how could Trump say that. Thing is people want to know what Hillary is hiding with her emails and that is why Trump will be unaffected while Hillary's campaign admit her private emails are a national security issue...in the end Trump has the focus back on Hillary and got an admission that if Russia did hack her private emails with were suppose to be about stuff like yoga, would instead be a national security issue.
In what is suppose to be a positive week for Hillary, is instead just raising questions about her.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Have you asked yourself why there is an email crisis for the Democrats and Hillary?

I'm genuinely at a loss as to what that has to do with the fact that you're content to support a candidate that has almost never said anything that's even vaguely true.

I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton. She wouldn't have been my choice for Democratic candidate. But her opponent is a man who appears to suffer from a range of psychiatric problems that make him uniquely unfit to hold the office he's running for.

Whenever criticism of Trump is deflected by "what about Hillary's emails?" - I guess Benghazi is finally behind us - it amazes me that you feel this one issue makes Clinton unfit to hold office, while studiously and pointedly ignoring the many, many, many criticisms that make it clear just how much worse Trump is.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Don't think last nights are out yet, but the DNC comfortably beat the RNC for ratings - by about 3mn in night one, and 5mn in night two. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/26/12293208/dnc-ratings-higher-rnc

Don't know about last nights yet though, think they're a few hours off being released (most of the night 2 results show 18 hours ago for me so I'm guessing at least another 4-6 hours).

People watch, I watch, does it mean it is doing anything for me?

Have any of them dealt with the security issues with the emails? The answer is no. So they can talk about how great Hillary is and how awful Trump is, but the elephant in the room is like Russia with the emails, no one sees the problem as it is happening.
Just wait till Wikileaks release more, and you will see all the talking was just talk and the real national security issue engulfing the Democrats and Hillary has not been dealt with.
Blaming Trump over what he said is not dealing with an issue that Trump has nothing to do with. Democrats must think the viewers are stupid to blame Trump, it is a case of it's everyone else's fault but their own.
Then when they say how they would improve this and that and how Hillary needs to be president to do it, it puts in one's mind 'well Obama has been there for 8 years, why hasn't he done it?'
I know there is congress and Obama did have two years of Democrat controlled congress. But people will watch and think 'why will Hillary be any different to Obama?'.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm genuinely at a loss as to what that has to do with the fact that you're content to support a candidate that has almost never said anything that's even vaguely true.

I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton. She wouldn't have been my choice for Democratic candidate. But her opponent is a man who appears to suffer from a range of psychiatric problems that make him uniquely unfit to hold the office he's running for.

Whenever criticism of Trump is deflected by "what about Hillary's emails?" - I guess Benghazi is finally behind us - it amazes me that you feel this one issue makes Clinton unfit to hold office, while studiously and pointedly ignoring the many, many, many criticisms that make it clear just how much worse Trump is.

Do you support war?

Did you agree with Hillary's vote to invade Iraq?
Did you agree with Hillary's pushing that led to Obama agreeing to bomb Libya?
Did you agree with Hillary that Assad should have been bombed out of power?
Did you agree with Hillary's support of a coup in Honduras?

If I supported war and toppling of democratically elected governments for no reason (the army in Egypt had to have a coup against the MB to stop a civil war) I would support Hillary.

Did you agree with the choices of Hillary Clinton when she had the power to make a choice in all of the above?
Have you supported her warmongering and is this why you want her elected?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

People watch, I watch, does it mean it is doing anything for me?

Have any of them dealt with the security issues with the emails? The answer is no. So they can talk about how great Hillary is and how awful Trump is, but the elephant in the room is like Russia with the emails, no one sees the problem as it is happening.
Just wait till Wikileaks release more, and you will see all the talking was just talk and the real national security issue engulfing the Democrats and Hillary has not been dealt with.
Blaming Trump over what he said is not dealing with an issue that Trump has nothing to do with. Democrats must think the viewers are stupid to blame Trump, it is a case of it's everyone else's fault but their own.
Then when they say how they would improve this and that and how Hillary needs to be president to do it, it puts in one's mind 'well Obama has been there for 8 years, why hasn't he done it?'
I know there is congress and Obama did have two years of Democrat controlled congress. But people will watch and think 'why will Hillary be any different to Obama?'.

Robert, you appear irritated by this. Of course they were not talking about emails, for the same reason Trump at the RNC wasn't talking about his multiple bankruptcies, his multiple ongoing fraud trials, his alleged enablement of paedophiles and rape of a 13 (14?) year old girl, his history of racial discrimination and taking jobs out of the US, his calling for the deaths of innocent Americans, his calling for torture of innocent non Americans, and probably won't be discussing his act of treason from yesterday either - when he asked Russia to hack the US government for him.

LostinKildare

RobertKK wrote: »

Thing is people want to know what Hillary is hiding with her emails and that is why Trump will be unaffected while Hillary's campaign admit her private emails are a national security issue

Um, no. What they said was that Trump calling on a hostile foreign power to engage in espionage in order to influence a US presidential election is a national security issue.

BTW, the FBI has already recovered the previously deleted "personal" emails --- last September, and they formed part of their investigation that found nothing criminal, merely "careless." I guess Trump (and you) didn't get the memo?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-22/fbi-said-to-recover-personal-e-mails-from-hillary-clinton-server

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Have you supported her warmongering and is this why you want her elected?

I know Donald Trump certainly has, and did at the time.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Robert, you appear irritated by this. Of course they were not talking about emails, for the same reason Trump at the RNC wasn't talking about his multiple bankruptcies, his multiple ongoing fraud trials, his alleged enablement of paedophiles and rape of a 13 (14?) year old girl, his history of racial discrimination and taking jobs out of the US, his calling for the deaths of innocent Americans, his calling for torture of innocent non Americans, and probably won't be discussing his act of treason from yesterday either - when he asked Russia to hack the US government for him.

Is Hillary's private emails about yoga and wedding planning US government property.
Didn't other people people get into trouble and end up in jail for moving classified material to their private devices and allowing it to be shared.
Hillary was so upset at Bradley Manning for what he did, Hillary through a lack of security on her private server looks to have inadvertently done the same, and Hillary was all for Bradley being jailed for what he did and he got 35 years for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks.
Will Hillary be punished if it is revealed her actions led to Wikileaks gaining access to classified documents?

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Do you support war?

Did you agree with Hillary's vote to invade Iraq?
Did you agree with Hillary's pushing that led to Obama agreeing to bomb Libya?
Did you agree with Hillary that Assad should have been bombed out of power?
Did you agree with Hillary's support of a coup in Honduras?

If I supported war and toppling of democratically elected governments for no reason (the army in Egypt had to have a coup against the MB to stop a civil war) I would support Hillary.

Did you agree with the choices of Hillary Clinton when she had the power to make a choice in all of the above?
Have you supported her warmongering and is this why you want her elected?

You clearly ignored everything I wrote that you quoted, so I'll repeat it so you can ignore it again: I don't particularly admire Clinton. I would rather see her elected than Trump, not because of what an amazingly good president I think she'd be, but because the alternative is, quite literally, batsh*t crazy.

You appear to think differently, which is fair enough. What amazes me is that you've managed to arrive at your conclusion by pointedly ignoring almost everything Trump has ever said. That's an act of self-deception that I just can't get my head around.

ancapailldorcha

oscarBravo wrote: »

You clearly ignored everything I wrote that you quoted, so I'll repeat it so you can ignore it again: I don't particularly admire Clinton. I would rather see her elected than Trump, not because of what an amazingly good president I think she'd be, but because the alternative is, quite literally, batsh*t crazy.

You appear to think differently, which is fair enough. What amazes me is that you've managed to arrive at your conclusion by pointedly ignoring almost everything Trump has ever said. That's an act of self-deception that I just can't get my head around.

This is the crux of the issue though. When pressed, Trump supporters only defence amounts to "Hillary is bad". I don't think that this is particularly controversial. However, she's much less of an evil than a man who expresses fascist opinions. Here's a nice collection of his "Greatest hits:"

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Is Hillary's private emails about yoga and wedding planning US government property.
Didn't other people people get into trouble and end up in jail for moving classified material to their private devices and allowing it to be shared.
Hillary was so upset at Bradley Manning for what he did, Hillary through a lack of security on her private server looks to have inadvertently done the same, and Hillary was all for Bradley being jailed for what he did and he got 35 years for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks.
Will Hillary be punished if it is revealed her actions led to Wikileaks gaining access to classified documents?

There you go again Robert, you appear to be having a minor meltdown by wanting to change the subject on every single post of yours. But you havben't said much on Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old girl and threatening to kill her, facilitating paedophiles, his current multiple fraud cases, his history of racial discrimination, his multiple failed businesses and bankruptcies, his calls for the deaths of innocent Americans and torture of innocents abroad, and of course his open act of treason yesterday in asking Russia to hack the US government for him.

It is funny how these don't seem to interest you, but not as funny as your unawareness of just how transparent you are in what you are trying to do. It's not genius.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

You clearly ignored everything I wrote that you quoted, so I'll repeat it so you can ignore it again: I don't particularly admire Clinton. I would rather see her elected than Trump, not because of what an amazingly good president I think she'd be, but because the alternative is, quite literally, batsh*t crazy.

You appear to think differently, which is fair enough. What amazes me is that you've managed to arrive at your conclusion by pointedly ignoring almost everything Trump has ever said. That's an act of self-deception that I just can't get my head around.

I have heard Trump refer to the wars as stupid wars. I have yet to hear Hillary Clinton or see her take a position which is anti-war.
To me she is bat**** crazy the way she has always sided on the side of war and bombs as the solution.
Trump at least has said trillions of dollars has been wasted on wars, and he goes onto say 'what have we gotten for all that money spent'.
Meanwhile Hillary continues to be a paid up neocon who believes bombing and war is the solution, to me the bat**** crazy person is the person who supported a monumental mistake and never learned from it.
What would she have achieved if Obama has not learned after Libya and agreed with her on bombing Syria and Assad out of power?
Syria is a disaster but what was the point of making the situation far worse?
That to me is bat**** crazy.

I prefer what Trump has said, which is rather than wasting money on wars and getting no return for that money, he would rather spend money on the infrastructure in the US, modernise the airports, spend the money in America rather than on destroying other countries and wanting to make things worse for other countries which is Hillary's record.

20Cent

RobertKK wrote: »

I have heard Trump refer to the wars as stupid wars. I have yet to hear Hillary Clinton or see her take a position which is anti-war.
To me she is bat**** crazy the way she has always sided on the side of war and bombs as the solution.
Trump at least has said trillions of dollars has been wasted on wars, and he goes onto say 'what have we gotten for all that money spent'.
Meanwhile Hillary continues to be a paid up neocon who believes bombing and war is the solution, to me the bat**** crazy person is the person who supported a monumental mistake and never learned from it.
What would she have achieved if Obama has not learned after Libya and agreed with her on bombing Syria and Assad out of power?
Syria is a disaster but what was the point of making the situation far worse?
That to me is bat**** crazy.

I prefer what Trump has said, which is rather than wasting money on wars and getting no return for that money, he would rather spend money on the infrastructure in the US, modernise the airports, spend the money in America rather than on destroying other countries and wanting to make things worse for other countries which is Hillary's record.

So when he talks about destroying isis and being tough with other countries what do you think he means?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

There you go again Robert, you appear to be having a minor meltdown by wanting to change the subject on every single post of yours. But you havben't said much on Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old girl and threatening to kill her, facilitating paedophiles, his current multiple fraud cases, his history of racial discrimination, his multiple failed businesses and bankruptcies, his calls for the deaths of innocent Americans and torture of innocents abroad, and of course his open act of treason yesterday in asking Russia to hack the US government for him.

It is funny how these don't seem to interest you, but not as funny as your unawareness of just how transparent you are in what you are trying to do. It's not genius.

How lives have these led to lives being lost, compared to the decisions made by Hillary that had led to countless deaths.
Thousands dead in Libya, hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. There were not enough people dead in Syria so she wanted the secular supporting dictator removed for Islamic extremists like in Libya. If we lived in Syria, our best chance for survival would not have been who Hillary supported.

I am vehemently anti-war. Hillary is the antithesis to this

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Do you support war?

Did you agree with Hillary's vote to invade Iraq?
Did you agree with Hillary's pushing that led to Obama agreeing to bomb Libya?
Did you agree with Hillary that Assad should have been bombed out of power?
Did you agree with Hillary's support of a coup in Honduras?

If I supported war and toppling of democratically elected governments for no reason (the army in Egypt had to have a coup against the MB to stop a civil war) I would support Hillary.

Did you agree with the choices of Hillary Clinton when she had the power to make a choice in all of the above?
Have you supported her warmongering and is this why you want her elected?

Do you support oppressive dictators? Because it's looking like you do. It's easy for us to sit at home and give easy answers and pretend that war is always wrong. If people like you had a say in the matter the USA would never have entered WWII. You obviously find it easy to turn a blind eye to oppressive regimes and pretend everything is rosy. Some people believe there is a moral imperative to use military force to topple tyrannical regimes. Those people realise that as bad as wars are, sometimes they're better than doing nothing and leaving people suffer just because they're half a world away.

Clinton has favoured intervention in the past and it has not gone well. At least there's a chance that she has learned from her mistakes and won't repeat them. Compare that to Trump who is incapable of learning from his mistakes because he doesn't admit to making them. Compare that to Trump who openly supports committing war crimes. Compare that to Trump who wants to murder the families of terrorists and use torture. Compare that to Trump who wants to pull out of NATO and allow Putin free reign to invade a host of Eastern European countries. Compare that to Trump that wants to turn his back on allies and make the world a markedly less safe place.

That you could favour Trump over Clinton on the basis of foreign policy is truly remarkable.

RobertKK

20Cent wrote: »

So when he talks about destroying isis and being tough with other countries what do you think he means?

Yesterday when asked and asked about Russia which led to the statement of he hoped they had her missing emails.
He did deal with the issue of ISIS when he said and I will paraphrase what he said but the gist of it was 'why do we have to be enemies? Why can't we be friends and work together to destroy terrorism'.

He also talked about being tough on other countries in relation to trade deals, and the need to re-negotiate deals like NAFTA as he said the deal has led to a migration of jobs from the US to Mexico and Canada, and that this is not good for Americans. So he wants to re-negotiate trade deals and be tough that way.

This is a general post, not aimed at anyone in particular:
To me he is far less dangerous than Clinton. it should be noted that under Obama they have invested heavily in their nuclear weapons and delivery systems while continuing to develop a mini-nuke which one general has said will be usable in normal wars.
The Huffington Post called Obama's spending on nuclear weapons as a 'shop till you drop' it has been so massive.
John Pilger says the US is preparing for war. Maybe that is why Obama believes she is the most qualified candidate ever.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I have heard Trump refer to the wars as stupid wars.

The same wars he supported. Unlike Trump though, who in typically cowardly fashion now pretends he never supported it, Clinton has taken accountability in saying it was an error...

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm
Many Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution [authorizing the Iraq War in 2002]. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake became more painful. I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.

I have yet to hear Hillary Clinton or see her take a position which is anti-war.

Funny, given that is literally the reason she moved from the Republicans to Democrats.

To me she is bat**** crazy the way she has always sided on the side of war and bombs as the solution.

You must be confusing her with Donald 'bomb the sh*t out of them' Trump.

Trump at least has said trillions of dollars has been wasted on wars, and he goes onto say 'what have we gotten for all that money spent'.

Wars he supported, and now pretends he didn't.

Meanwhile Hillary continues to be a paid up neocon who believes bombing and war is the solution,

Again you appear to be confusing her with Donald 'bomb the sh*t out of them' Trump.

to me the bat**** crazy person is the person who supported a monumental mistake and never learned from it.

I guess I'll post it again...

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_War_+_Peace.htm
Many Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution [authorizing the Iraq War in 2002]. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake became more painful. I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.

Meanwhile cowardly Trump, in typically cowardly fashion, now pretends he wasn't in favour of the Iraq war.

What would she have achieved if Obama has not learned after Libya and agreed with her on bombing Syria and Assad out of power?
Syria is a disaster but what was the point of making the situation far worse?
That to me is bat**** crazy.

She was actually in favour of arming the more moderate rebels so that the Islamists did not get into power, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Meanwhile Donald Trump is advocating 'bombing the sh*t' out of them.

I prefer what Trump has said,

So you're against bombing them, but you support the guy who wants to 'bomb the sh*t' out of them. Sound logic.

which is rather than wasting money on wars and getting no return for that money,

The same wars Trump supported, in an area he now wants the US to 'bomb the sh*t' out of. Because you are against bombing. Riiiight.

he would rather spend money on the infrastructure in the US,

By 'bombing the sh*t' out of the middle east and torturing innocents?

modernise the airports,

Link and details please, because a Google search came up with nothing.

spend the money in America rather than on destroying other countries

By 'bombing the sh*t' out of other countries and provoking a war on their southern border with an attempt to strong arm them?

and wanting to make things worse for other countries which is Hillary's record.

Typically when you 'bomb the sh*t' out of another country, things get worse there.