Donald Trump

LorMal

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

And almost every country in the region, besides the one which supplied the terrorists, and of which there seem to be suspicious links between the terrorists and the highest echelons of the royal family, including the ambassador to America's family, has been targeted during this "war on terror".

How selective can you possibly be in your reading of history? I'm not saying they should have attacked Saudi instead, I'm just saying they should have refrained from attacking and destabilizing literally everyone else. Long term pressure to democratize and educate would have cost a lot less both in terms of money and life, and led to far more stable outcomes.

Do you accept that the whole Iraq invasion was sold to both the US and UK populations via lies? Does that not make you a little suspicious? Especially with the dossiers and declassified documents were being made privvy to as time goes on that show what was really going on in the background.

And I love Americans - I believe they're lead by 2 branches of the same party however, much like the communist party controls China. I don't dislike the Chinese for that. And I presume were I to point out Chinese aggression such as their latest forays into the south China Sea, you wouldn't presume it's because I'm some Chinese hating maniac.

I didn't suggest you are a 'maniac'.
The Iraq invasion was a travesty - didn't support it then, wouldn't now. I agree it was propped up by a tissue of lies.
It's like everything in life - not black and white - some of the war on terror was justified - some of it was war crimes.
That was Bush and Chaney. Not Hillary (or Trump).
My argument is that neither of these are directly to blame for that.
She was being called a monstrous war monger and a psychopath here - it's just ridiculous - completely hysterical.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

You know he hasn't had a chance to do anything yet? Like he will be expected to enact the policies that got him elected?

Going on your policy you just elect the least experienced candidate every time.

Trump has a lot of talk, often contradictory, one hopes if he is elected, his Secretary of State will not have the sheer incompetence that Hillary Clinton showed she had when she dealt with foreign policy.

LorMal wrote: »

You think she should have pointed out her 'monumental mistakes'?

No, but the way she went after Trump, where she threw the kitchen sink at him, it only led to reminding one that she is not perfect herself and her very bad judgement has contributed to thousands and thousands of dead people.
It was easy for her to speak when she had no one to speak back to her, and her campaign had said it was going to be about her foreign policy.
It was not, it was even said on CNN how awful her record when it comes to foreign policy.
She then finished her speech and had a Mexican girl give her flowers.

LorMal

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump has a lot of talk, often contradictory, one hopes if he is elected, his Secretary of State will not have the sheer incompetence that Hillary Clinton showed she had when she dealt with foreign policy.



No, but the way she went after Trump, where she threw the kitchen sink at him, it only led to reminding one that she is not perfect herself and her very bad judgement has contributed to thousands and thousands of dead people.
It was easy for her to speak when she had no one to speak back to her, and her campaign had said it was going to be about her foreign policy.
It was not, it was even said on CNN how awful her record when it comes to foreign policy.
She then finished her speech and had a Mexican girl give her flowers.

What do you honestly expect her to do?

RobertKK

LorMal wrote: »

I didn't suggest you are a 'maniac'.
The Iraq invasion was a travesty - didn't support it then, wouldn't now. I agree it was propped up by a tissue of lies.
It's like everything in life - not black and white - some of the war on terror was justified - some of it was war crimes.
That was Bush and Chaney. Not Hillary (or Trump).
My argument is that neither of these are directly to blame for that.
She was being called a monstrous war monger and a psychopath here - it's just ridiculous - completely hysterical.

The invasion of Iraq needed approval by congress, this makes Hillary Clinton directly responsible as she voted for it.

RobertKK

LorMal wrote: »

What do you honestly expect her to do?

Give a foreign policy speech when touted as a foreign policy speech.

All she gave was electing Trump would be a 'historic mistake', and on CNN they showed how Hillary also told lies about Trump in her speech.

Billy86

Winterlong wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

I won't be back from work for the next hour or two but will check her speech in full after. Not a Clinton fan either myself just for the record, just cannot believe how dumbed down this election cycle has been in favour of personality politics.

I am half expecting the X Factor judges to host the 1st debate between Trump and Clinton.

I was thinking more like that The Voice one, where the celebrity judges chairs spin around as they strike poses to signal their approval.

Cheerful Spring

LorMal wrote: »

Just not true. The Germans needed to be beaten - they were still incredibly strong - as they proved. The Soviets would not have achieved this singlehandedly. It required war on 2 fronts and the might of the US forces.

If Stalin wanted to take all of Europe then - he would not have demanded, pleaded and threatened until the Allies finally launched D-Day. He would have been happy for them to stay away while he rolled over Europe.
Didn't happen because it couldn't happen.

I agree with this somewhat. The Nazis Invasion of the Soviet union had not taken place. Hitler would have send millions of German troops and weapons to defend France. German soldiers number in the millions were stuck holding territory in the East and couldn't move from those positions.

The Soviet Push into Europe was not an invasion of Europe It was the pushback against the Nazis who had invaded the Soviet Union in 1941. All the territory they took in the east was territory taken by the Nazis.

When the Soviets took East Berlin, i don't believe, they ever had a plan to invade the rest of Europe? The Americans forced their hand in Europe. The American hated Soviet ideology so it lead to a clash of cultures.

LorMal

RobertKK wrote: »

Give a foreign policy speech when touted as a foreign policy speech.

All she gave was electing Trump would be a 'historic mistake', and on CNN they showed how Hillary also told lies about Trump in her speech.

And so far Trump has been completely virtuous? I am no great supporter of Hillary and I think Trump will win, but some of your positions against her and against the Great Satan, USA, are just ridiculous.

RobertKK

LorMal wrote: »

And so far Trump has been completely virtuous? I am no great supporter of Hillary and I think Trump will win, but some of your positions against her and against the Great Satan, USA, are just ridiculous.

I love the USA, going there this year on a holiday and going next year too. I am a friend of the USA, and friends should be honest.
Even on CNN and Fox News - the two American news channels I receive on my satellite service, I have seen Americans everyday point out how Hillary's stint as the head of foreign policy as Secretary of State poses a problem for him particular with her vote for the invasion of Iraq, her cheerleading for the removal of Gaddafi and leaving the country in a far bigger mess with thousands of Libyan civilians dead and now a terrorist haven, her failure with Russia, her Syria policy and how she has greatly contributed to the migrant crisis and the rise of ISIS through her policies as Secretary of State.
She has been there and made bad call after bad call, which she calls experience.
I do watch CNN a lot for the coverage on the US elections, they say Trump appears far more isolationist on foreign policy which is closer to Bernie Sanders position than Clinton's, who they say is rather hawkish when it comes to the getting involved.
Everything Clinton touched in the Middle East as Secretary of State turned to $hit, and has cost an untold amount of human lives, people are still dying every week from her decisions, just look at the boats leaving Libya on a daily basis, currently hundreds a week are a drowning trying to flee her North African mess and Libyan terrorist haven.

RobertKK

btw here is what the New York Times says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0

They say the resulting civil war has cost 4,000 lives, poses a terrorist risk far beyond the borders of Libya.
The article shows how Clinton lied to Russia by telling them the Libyan adventure was limited to protescting citizens.
This lie is one reason why Russia stepped in to protect Assad, they saw how Gaddafi was murdered.


The above article claims that the Libyan military offered a 72 hour ceasefire before the bombing of their country started so the Gaddafi family could leave and go into exile but this was rejected.

You can see in the NY times article how Hillary Clinton double crossed people on the international stage:

The Libyans saw the threatened intervention not as a noble act to save lives, as Mrs. Clinton portrayed it, but in far darker terms. After all, Colonel Qaddafi, fearing the fate of Saddam Hussein, had abandoned his nuclear program and was sharing intelligence with the C.I.A. in the fight against Al Qaeda. Mrs. Clinton herself had publicly welcomed one of the leader’s sons to the State Department in 2009.
Now Colonel Qaddafi saw deep treachery, ingratitude and mercantile revenge. He railed to anyone who would listen that he was Libya’s only bulwark against extremism, that without him the country would become a terrorist haven.

Hillary is far more hawkish than Obama, and by a long way.

By April, the president had authorized the use of drones, and, according to a senior rebel commander, C.I.A. operatives began visiting rebel camps and “providing us with intercepts of Qaddafi’s troop movements.”
The incremental escalation ran against Mr. Obama’s instincts, and he did it reluctantly, said Mr. Ross, the former National Security Council official. Mrs. Clinton, he said, was less concerned that “every step puts you on a slippery slope.”
“Her view is, we can’t fail in this,” Mr. Ross said. “Once we have made a decision, we can’t fail.”

Then you remember how Libya was suppose to be about protecting civilians?
Well again Hillary lied.

Onetime advocates of the intervention, including Ms. Slaughter, the secretary’s former policy planning director, had grown disillusioned over the rebels’ human-rights abuses.
“We did not try to protect civilians on Qaddafi’s side,” said Ms. Slaughter, who at the time called for a deal in which Colonel Qaddafi would have turned over power to one of his sons.

Then her judgement:

NATO’s supreme allied commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis, had told Congress of “flickers” of Al Qaeda within the opposition. Mr. Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, argued that the administration could not ensure that weapons intended for “the so-called good guys,” as one State Department official put it, did not fall into the hands of Islamist extremists.In fact, there was reason to worry. Mr. Jibril himself described in an interview how a French shipment of missiles and machine guns had gone awry. At a June meeting, President Sarkozy had agreed to “ask our Arab friends” to supply the Transitional National Council with the weapons, Mr. Jibril said. But, he said, the acting defense minister diverted them to a militia led by Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a militant Islamist who had once been held in a secret prison by the C.I.A.
Mrs. Clinton understood the hazards, but also weighed the costs of not acting, aides said. They described her as comfortable with feeling her way through a problem without being certain of the outcome.

Hillary, make it up as you go along.

Interesting how the article finishes with one of those emails from her close advisors telling her to appear on camera and mention how successful the Libya adventure was when Tripoli fell and Gaddafi was ousted so it could be used for her presidential bid.
Now we know Libya is a much larger threat to the world, is a terrorist haven and chaos reigns.


Libya is a text book case for why Hillary Clinton should be going to jail for what she agreed to and some European and Arab leaders should be going with her to jail for what they have done to Libya and the thousands and thousand who have died from their actions.
It is a great disgrace what has been done to Libya, Gaddafi was not good, but a million times better with what they replaced Gaddafi with.

It is scary what Clinton pushed for in Libya and succeeded in getting and we know it was done with no idea what the outcome would be, butt he NY Times tells us that Hillary was comfortable with that.
This is what people accuse Trump of, but the difference is Trump is not a hawk like Clinton, to a point that Clinton accused Trump of being a friend to dictators.
Well, I am all for certain dictators because the alternative is worse which Hillary Clinton's poor judgement showed us.
No one wants the North Korean dictator though...

Superhorse

Trump will be president time for people to wake up and realise the American electorate have had enough of the crooked Hillarys of this world.

RobertKK

Hillary Clinton's aides wanted people to see her starring role in the fall of Gaddafi

Part 2 of the above article
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html

“We came, we saw, he died!” she exclaimed.
Two days before, Mrs. Clinton had taken a triumphal tour of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and for weeks top aides had been circulating a “ticktock” that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton’s “leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s Libya policy from start to finish.” The memo’s language put her at the center of everything: “HRC announces … HRC directs … HRC travels … HRC engages,” it read.

It is interesting how the person that Clinton had as the person to lead Libya after Gaddafi, was traveling from Qatar to make 'cameo appearances' in Libya, given Qatar was also funding terrorists.

The country’s interim leaders seemed shockingly disengaged, he wrote. Mahmoud Jibril, the acting prime minister, who had helped persuade Mrs. Clinton to back the opposition, was commuting from Qatar, making only “cameo” appearances. A leading rebel general had been assassinated, underscoring the hazard of “revenge killings.” Islamists were moving aggressively to seize power, and members of the anti-Qaddafi coalition, notably Qatar, were financing them.
On a task of the utmost urgency, disarming the militia fighters who had dethroned the dictator but now threatened the nation’s unity, Mr. Feltman reported an alarming lassitude. Mr. Jibril and his associates, he wrote, “tried to avert their eyes” from the problem that militias could pose on “the Day After.”

Clinton asleep on the job.

Libya’s Western allies, preoccupied by domestic politics and the crisis in Syria, would soon relegate the country to the back burner.And Mrs. Clinton would be mostly a bystander as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.

She then has a cheek to say that Trump would embolden ISIS, when all her policies towards Libya, Iraq and Syria helped ISIS.

So you remember how Hillary was taking the credit for the fall of Gaddafi...

Last fall, frustrated with calls for greater American involvement in Syria, Mr. Obama dismissed them as “half-baked” and “mumbo jumbo.” Asked whether those labels applied to Mrs. Clinton’s proposals, the president denied it, not entirely convincingly.
When asked to defend her record on Libya, Mrs. Clinton has taken a line quite the opposite of her aides’ previous insistence on her central role in the intervention. “At the end of the day, this was the president’s decision,” she told a House committee in October.

Is it any wonder she is still fighting Sanders, when she should have him beaten a long time ago.
Trump had a tougher fight and did it in a much shorter time frame.

marymary1984

One person can only do so much - anything of significance needs approval by senate so it would not be possible for him to go too far wrong. Obama was a good president but unable to make change as he was blocked at every stage - same would happen if Trump wins - he'll have a few policies but they won't get the backing from the House and nothing different will happen.
Storm in tea cup - the president is just the puppet, they'll all do what their told and when they dont we get a JFK incident.

tigger123

LorMal wrote: »

I think she really has to. He has had such an easy ride so far. Her only hope is to scrap like hell. She is good at that.
He's very good at absorbing punches though. and he really doesn't care what he has to say - he'll say it - no limits.
Not a great way to choose a leader.

I think his policies (whatever they might be, they shift around so much) are going to come under much greater scrutiny when it's Trump v Clinton and the actual race starts. And he'll find it much more difficult to duck and dive when the hard questions come. And they will come. Seasoned, experienced politicians find these campaigns incredibly challenging. And that's not him. He's a failed business man and a scam artist.

In short, I think he's gonna be found out much more as it gets closer to the election. He's going to try to move to the centre (as all campaigns do as they get closer to polling day, the cinque de mayo burrito bowl photo being a case in point), but he's proven he'll say anything, so, how can people take him seriously?

I'd like to see a bit more of a reaction from her, but it's being tempered by the fact that she's having to take on Sanders (who won't step aside and at this stage is damaging the party, but that's because he's a Democrat with a small d).

Euch. I wish Trump would just f*ck off at this stage.

tigger123

marymary1984 wrote: »

One person can only do so much - anything of significance needs approval by senate so it would not be possible for him to go too far wrong. Obama was a good president but unable to make change as he was blocked at every stage - same would happen if Trump wins - he'll have a few policies but they won't get the backing from the House and nothing different will happen.
Storm in tea cup - the president is just the puppet, they'll all do what their told and when they dont we get a JFK incident.

I'd agree with the tone of what you're saying; people overestimate the power a US President has when he doesn't have the support of the other arms of government.

(but Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK! )

Superhorse

Fantastic to hear Richard rich boy Barrett on RTE this morning crying and moaning over Trump coming here for a visit. Stony silence in the studio when one pundit pointed out only one person between Trump and Kenny has called the leader of another nation a nigg*r. The irony of Kenny calling Trump a racist isn't lost on the majority of the population here.

beach_walker

Superhorse wrote: »

Fantastic to hear Richard rich boy Barrett on RTE this morning crying and moaning over Trump coming here for a visit.

That little scrote would be creaming himself if any of his leftie dictators Guardians of the Revolution were coming to visit.

stefanovich

He'd welcome Kim Jong with open arms.

RobertKK

beach_walker wrote: »

That little scrote would be creaming himself if any of his leftie dictators Guardians of the Revolution were coming to visit.

He is surprisingly quiet about President Maduro of Venezuela.

He cries about Trump, but the people of Venezuela cry for food.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-protest-idUSKCN0YO2M9

Thankfully RBB can simply complain about Trump and not have us crying for food with his hair brained economic ideas.

cowboyBuilder

HensVassal wrote: »

Mocking people and labelling them lefty loons because they might support something like universal healthcare doesn't say much for a person. In fact I'm curious why one would even do it. Perhaps you could explain?

Not mocking that aspect, I'm mocking the way people call him a "racist" for wanting to vet incoming Muslims to the USA - perfectly legitimate considering the worrying percentages of Muslims that have sympathy for ISIS.

Samaris

Well, Kim Jong Il supports the "wise and precient" Trump for America. Apparently the Americans are so terrified ("living on pins and needles") for North Korea to bomb them that only Trump can save them.

When North Korea is endorsing you for President of the US, you might need to take a step back and look at yourself.

hmmm

Some shocking images of attacks on Trump supporters emerging today - many of the attacks initiated by people draped in Mexican flags.

I don't particularly want him as President, but the backlash against those who oppose him is going to be huge. It seems that unless you toe the liberal/left-wing line, you are not allowed have a voice.

timmyntc

Samaris wrote: »

Well, Kim Jong Il supports the "wise and precient" Trump for America. Apparently the Americans are so terrified ("living on pins and needles") for North Korea to bomb them that only Trump can save them.

When North Korea is endorsing you for President of the US, you might need to take a step back and look at yourself.

When you base your opinions on the (opposite) opinions of others, you might need to take a step back and look at yourself.

beach_walker

hmmm wrote: »

Some shocking images of attacks on Trump supporters emerging today - many of the attacks initiated by people draped in Mexican flags.

Same as, shocking stuff. I've said it before, this protesters are absolute morons and are doing a spectacular job of pushing voters toward Trump.

Funny, haven't seen any Bernie/Hillary supporters being attacked on their way to rallys. I mean the media have been telling how dangerous and violent Trump people are... Strange that *awaits whataboutery*

tigger123

beach_walker wrote: »

Same as, shocking stuff. I've said it before, this protesters are absolute morons and are doing a spectacular job of pushing voters toward Trump.

Funny, haven't seen any Bernie/Hillary supporters being attacked on their way to rallys. I mean the media have been telling how dangerous and violent Trump people are... Strange that *awaits whataboutery*

There's been a lot of comment in the US media recently about the behaviour of Sanders supporters.

tigger123

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Not mocking that aspect, I'm mocking the way people call him a "racist" for wanting to vet incoming Muslims to the USA - perfectly legitimate considering the worrying percentages of Muslims that have sympathy for ISIS.

What percentage would that be?

Also, how would you vet the Muslims already living and working in the US?

Superhorse

hmmm wrote: »

Some shocking images of attacks on Trump supporters emerging today - many of the attacks initiated by people draped in Mexican flags.

I don't particularly want him as President, but the backlash against those who oppose him is going to be huge. It seems that unless you toe the liberal/left-wing line, you are not allowed have a voice.

A lot of looney lefties now been exposed as the violent thugs they are now in America. I hope they keep it up as it will do great damage to crooked Hillarys campaign.

cowboyBuilder

tigger123 wrote: »

What percentage would that be?

Also, how would you vet the Muslims already living and working in the US?

Not getting involved in this "Muslim is/isn't a religion of peace" crap ..

the numbers are there , look for them yourself.

You wanna stick your head in the sand and pretend there isn't an issue with radical Islam ? - fine.

Cheerful Spring

RobertKK wrote: »

He is surprisingly quiet about President Maduro of Venezuela.

He cries about Trump, but the people of Venezuela cry for food.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-protest-idUSKCN0YO2M9

Thankfully RBB can simply complain about Trump and not have us crying for food with his hair brained economic ideas.

Venezuela leader was a dictator it was not a socialist state. Cuba has been a socialist state for 50+ years its never failed know matter how much America tried it never failed. America left those countries alone they probably be fine.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.