2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

20Cent

Jill Stein is close to raising enough money for a recount in PA, MI & WI. The states with the dodgy voting machine results.

Laois_Man

20Cent wrote: »

Jill Stein is close to raising enough money for a recount in PA, MI & WI. The states with the dodgy voting machine results.

Michigan doesn't have any voting machines!

https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state

InTheTrees

20Cent wrote: »

Jill Stein is close to raising enough money for a recount in PA, MI & WI. The states with the dodgy voting machine results.

I just heard she's raised enough cash for recounts in those three states.

I doubt it'll make any difference though.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Wouldn't call all the liberal Republicans voting for Hillary some neocons. The opposite of what they want is less American troops around the world. If they had their way America would have boots in every country in the world. They also are fairly okay with the Imperial Presidency. The idea that the President makes executive decisions without consulting Congress.

We all know why that was the case, can't slip war in through Congress quietly. The media would ape **** and protestors would be aghast at the prospect.

So what does all the obvious racists (kkk, that white nationalist group that had their conference) cheering for Trump mean?

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Wouldn't call all the liberal Republicans voting for Hillary some neocons. The opposite of what they want is less American troops around the world. If they had their way America would have boots in every country in the world. They also are fairly okay with the Imperial Presidency. The idea that the President makes executive decisions without consulting Congress.

We all know why that was the case, can't slip war in through Congress quietly. The media would ape **** and protestors would be aghast at the prospect.

Did you ever explain how Trump is a pacifist?

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Wouldn't call all the liberal Republicans voting for Hillary some neocons. The opposite of what they want is less American troops around the world. If they had their way America would have boots in every country in the world. They also are fairly okay with the Imperial Presidency. The idea that the President makes executive decisions without consulting Congress.

We all know why that was the case, can't slip war in through Congress quietly. The media would ape **** and protestors would be aghast at the prospect.

You're veering away from what your said nicely here. You stated that Hillary surrounded herself with neoconservatives. This is patently false.

If you cannot name one neoconservative on Hillary's campaign team or even an advisor, you need to admit you're wrong so we can move on.

Brian?

K-9 wrote: »

Did you ever explain how Trump is a pacifist?

In Brian's defence it was RobertKK who expressed that opinion originally.

Brian simply doubled down by calling Hillary a neoconservative.

26000 Elephants

Brian? wrote: »

There is a huge difference between "surrounding herself with neocons" and having some neocons voted for her. You actually have no idea if she sought their advice.

I think you were set up for that one. The correct question to ask is "What has Hillary to do with anything now?"

Hillary could be weekending with David Icke and it wouldn't make any difference now.

edit: apologies, I see you already did. Still had no impact

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

You're veering away from what your said nicely here. You stated that Hillary surrounded herself with neoconservatives. This is patently false.

If you cannot name one neoconservative on Hillary's campaign team or even an advisor, you need to admit you're wrong so we can move on.

Veered nowhere away. Hillary Clinton has been surrounded by pro-war advisors during the campaign season. She boasted about her qualifications yet when we turn to her record as secretary of state she consistently supported the neo-con playbook. Lets judge her on what she did not say. She said nothing on the drone war, she said nothing on the Arabs of Palestine. What did she say? She accused the Russians of hacking into America's national security. All by the book neocon ploys to whip up war feeling in the crowd. You'd be having war at breakfast come election day.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Veered nowhere away. Hillary Clinton has been surrounded by pro-war advisors during the campaign season. She boasted about her qualifications yet when we turn to her record as secretary of state she consistently supported the neo-con playbook. Lets judge her on what she did not say. She said nothing on the drone war, she said nothing on the Arabs of Palestine. What did she say? She accused the Russians of hacking into America's national security. All by the book neocon ploys to whip up war feeling in the crowd. You'd be having war at breakfast come election day.

So you're changing from neoconservative advisors to "pro war" advisors?

So we're agreed that Hillary is not a neoconservative nor are were any of her team?

Here stance on various policy issues is not relevant until you admit this simple truth.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She accused the Russians of hacking into America's national security.

Actually, the US intelligence services arrived at that conclusion. They briefed both Clinton and Trump on it. Clinton publicised it; Trump denied it.

Think about that: the now President-elect told the public the opposite of what he'd been told by the intelligence services he's now going to oversee.


Why would he do that? I guess that's left as an exercise for the reader.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

So you're changing from neoconservative advisors to "pro war" advisors?

So we're agreed that Hillary is not a neoconservative nor are were any of her team?

Here stance on various policy issues is not relevant until you admit this simple truth.

Hillary is a neocon and here is her neocon supporters all giving her gushing praise.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18998/neocon-war-hawks-want-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump.-no-surprisetheyve

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

Hillary is a neocon and here is her neocon supporters all giving her gushing praise.

I assume the point of all this is to prepare the defence of Trump's foreign misadventures by saying that Hillary would have been worse?

TheOven

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary is a neocon and here is her neocon supporters all giving her gushing praise.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18998/neocon-war-hawks-want-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump.-no-surprisetheyve

People support other candidate when against the least liked candidate. Wow.

Why do you support the white supremacist then? Look at Breitbart, all for Trump which means he must be one.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary is a neocon and here is her neocon supporters all giving her gushing praise.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18998/neocon-war-hawks-want-hillary-clinton-over-donald-trump.-no-surprisetheyve

That opinion piece is worthless. Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

She may be a foreign policy hawk. But that doesn't mean you can tell blatant lies to suit yourself.

Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

TheOven

RobertKK wrote: »

The Saudi Arabia policy that Russia will not accept, and which Hillary wanted.
Hillary is the stupid person who gave Russia an actual button that was to symbolise a reset button and ended up having the reset going back to the cold war.
Yet people supported someone who gets most things wrong:
Voted for the Iraq war.
Lobbied Obama over Libya and got her way, another disaster.
Reset relations with Russia back to the cold war.

She is so incompetent and being incompetent she lost the election to a reality star who owns hotels and other properties.
The world didn't need her incompetence, anything was possible including WW3...given her sheer level of incompetence.

So about that Trump pacifist stuff. Is that before or after sinking Iranians? If managing to lose to Trump makes you incompetent that doesn't make Trump sound good.

RobertKK

TheOven wrote: »

So about that Trump pacifist stuff. Is that before or after sinking Iranians? If managing to lose to Trump makes you incompetent that doesn't make Trump sound good.

For starters I never said Trump was good which makes it even worse for those he beat along the way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/11/21/five-ways-president-trump-will-reduce-the-danger-to-america-of-war-in-europe

In this article it is argued that Trump will reduce the chances of war in Europe, compared to way things have been going = currently the biggest build up of troops in Eastern Europe since the cold war ended.

I hope Trump rethinks his Iran ideas. He has said nothing that indicates he wants a war with them though.
It does seem North Korea will be the main headache and mending ties with Russia would be a good start to a Trump presidency given both have more to gain by cooperation, and North Korea could finally be heading towards the end game in the coming years.

It is clear all the wars over the past 15 years have achieved is a bigger terrorist problem and the biggest migrant crisis since WW2.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

That opinion piece is worthless. Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

She may be a foreign policy hawk. But that doesn't mean you can tell blatant lies to suit yourself.

Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative on foreign policy. People are in denial of this.

TheOven

RobertKK wrote: »

For starters I never said Trump was good which makes it even worse for those he beat along the way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/11/21/five-ways-president-trump-will-reduce-the-danger-to-america-of-war-in-europe

In this article it is argued that Trump will reduce the chances of war in Europe, compared to way things have been going = currently the biggest build up of troops in Eastern Europe since the cold war ended.

I hope Trump rethinks his Iran ideas. He has said nothing that indicates he wants a war with them though.
It does seem North Korea will be the main headache and mending ties with Russia would be a good start to a Trump presidency given both have more to gain by cooperation, and North Korea could finally be heading towards the end game in the coming years.

It is clear all the wars over the past 15 years have achieved is a bigger terrorist problem and the biggest migrant crisis since WW2.

Now it has become war in Europe. He doesn't want war with Iran because shooting Iranians would have no chance of causing that but wanting a no fly zone means Clinton is all aboard the WW3 train.

North Korea is a problem but there is nothing to worry about with Russia who have actively taken land from other countries. I'm sure Eastern Europe will be glad to hear that.

aloyisious

Throwing in a curveball here to Robert; Would you think Melania might have an input, on at least a personal level, on educating Don on European peoples feeling towards NATO and it's spreading it's defence net to cover parts of the former Yugoslavia, a part of the former Soviet Union, given how Don had said he wants a greater cash input from other (read European) NATO allies to cover the costs of the US Military presence in Europe, his statements he wants a change in the present US/NATO European financing of defence there?

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

For starters I never said Trump was good which makes it even worse for those he beat along the way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2016/11/21/five-ways-president-trump-will-reduce-the-danger-to-america-of-war-in-europe

In this article it is argued that Trump will reduce the chances of war in Europe, compared to way things have been going = currently the biggest build up of troops in Eastern Europe since the cold war ended.

I hope Trump rethinks his Iran ideas. He has said nothing that indicates he wants a war with them though.
It does seem North Korea will be the main headache and mending ties with Russia would be a good start to a Trump presidency given both have more to gain by cooperation, and North Korea could finally be heading towards the end game in the coming years.

It is clear all the wars over the past 15 years have achieved is a bigger terrorist problem and the biggest migrant crisis since WW2.

Would you think China might be watching what Don is saying and thinking; this guy might be worth doing business with, as China must be watching N/K like a cat in case it destabilizes the Asian area? I'm looking at this man-made island China's been making as a possible defence/offensive base in the regoin.

I'm assuming that along with Don's apparent "isolationist rhetoric" the US general staff will let him know it cant fight multiple wars and with State dept input, he'll do a deal with China to, at least, subvert the N/K leadership and cause peace to break out in the peninsula.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative on foreign policy. People are in denial of this.

No. You can't pick and chose like that. You're either a neoconservative or not. She may have been aligned with neocons in some aspects of her foreign policy, but she was opposed to pretty much everything else they stand for.

She was far more hawkish than most democrats, fair enough. But let's not keep repeating the lie.

Are you going to answer the question of when Trump talked like a pacifist?

TheOven

Christ, they are putting an creationist in charge of education. You would think you need to be educated for that role.

RobertKK

TheOven wrote: »

Now it has become war in Europe. He doesn't want war with Iran because shooting Iranians would have no chance of causing that but wanting a no fly zone means Clinton is all aboard the WW3 train.

North Korea is a problem but there is nothing to worry about with Russia who have actively taken land from other countries. I'm sure Eastern Europe will be glad to hear that.

Crimea was a mess created by Khrushchev who never foresaw the end of the Soviet Union where he as a Soviet leader gave a part of Russia to the Ukraine, all because he in his younger years had spent time in Ukraine.

The whole Crimean situation has been greatly overblown, most of the population of Crimea are Russian speakers.

War with Iran is not on the cards.
Hillary Clinton was against the Iran deal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-17/in-private-clinton-split-with-obama-on-iran

A December 2015 e-mail from Eizenstat to Sullivan concerns a message from a senior aide to Netanyahu. Eizenstat says the Israeli official told him: "The prime minister always had a 'surprising good relationship' with Hillary; she is 'easy to work with,' and that she is more instinctively sympathetic to Israel than the White House." This is a marked contrast to Obama, who openly fought with Netanyahu and pro-Israel organizations in the summer of 2015 over the Iran deal.
Clinton's skepticism of Rouhani is in line with other criticisms of Obama's foreign policy she shared in her behind-closed-doors speeches. For example, at an October 2013 speech at the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit, she was critical of Obama's decision to walk away from his "red line" on the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. "You can't squander your reputation and your leadership capital," she said. "You have to do what you say you’re going to do. You have to be smart about executing on your strategies. And you’ve got to be careful not to send the wrong message to others, such as Iran."

Hillary is a person who continuously lies to the public while holding different private views which she liked to express to big banks in private.

Hillary has been a disaster and the world is safer with her now a defunct politician.
Like it is so bad that Trump wants better relations with Russia, oh the horrors...
I would not be surprised if Trump did a U turn on Iran.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

No. You can't pick and chose like that. You're either a neoconservative or not. She may have been aligned with neocons in some aspects of her foreign policy, but she was opposed to pretty much everything else they stand for.

She was far more hawkish than most democrats, fair enough. But let's not keep repeating the lie.

Are you going to answer the question of when Trump talked like a pacifist?

It is not picking and choosing.

Some of my views are conservative, other views I hold would be considered liberal.
Her foreign policy is neoconservative, it does not mean she is not liberal in other areas.
I am sure Obama much preferred Kerry over her, as he blames Europeans for the Libyan mess, given it was disastrous lobbying by Sarkozy and Cameron's governments with Hillary that convinced him to give the go-ahead for the Libyan disaster.
Obama then totally blanked her over Syria. I admire Obama for having the courage despite the pressure he was put under to intervene in Syria in a much more hardline way. He saw the **** storm or whatever he calls Libya and decided more intervention was not the right solution for Syria.
Obama called that right even if Hillary was wrong, I believe Assad is why the country is not under total control by terrorists, if he had been removed it would have been a far bigger mess.
I don't see Assad a threat to us in Europe, but the groups who could replace him are.
So the further Hillary Clinton is away from Syria the better, plus Saudi Arabia don't get their foreign policy implemented, and maybe Trump can work with Putin to improve the Syrian catastrophe.

RobertKK

aloyisious wrote: »

Throwing in a curveball here to Robert; Would you think Melania might have an input, on at least a personal level, on educating Don on European peoples feeling towards NATO and it's spreading it's defence net to cover parts of the former Yugoslavia, a part of the former Soviet Union, given how Don had said he wants a greater cash input from other (read European) NATO allies to cover the costs of the US Military presence in Europe, his statements he wants a change in the present US/NATO European financing of defence there?

I was reading how the US fund 70% of NATO, but the other members of NATO have a bigger combined GDP than the US, so the US is either over paying or the most of the other members are underpaying.
Melania, I don't know what she thinks or knows, her parents may have influenced her and she may have opinions but we don't know.

RobertKK

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you think China might be watching what Don is saying and thinking; this guy might be worth doing business with, as China must be watching N/K like a cat in case it destabilizes the Asian area? I'm looking at this man-made island China's been making as a possible defence/offensive base in the regoin.

I'm assuming that along with Don's apparent "isolationist rhetoric" the US general staff will let him know it cant fight multiple wars and with State dept input, he'll do a deal with China to, at least, subvert the N/K leadership and cause peace to break out in the peninsula.

Well he will have to work with China as it is the only solution, but China may be getting worried too about their NK neighbour and their leader who seems more like King Joffrey from Game of Thrones compared to his father.
North Korea is the biggest disgrace on this planet,as China advances the only thing North Korea is a buffer between it as US backed South Korea.
If South Korea did a Philippines and moved into China's sphere of influence, maybe China would stop the nonsense and support. of a regime that has been compared to the Nazis in terms of brutality.
But with South Korea in the US camp, then the situation remains in the 1950s, and SK will not abandon their US ally who shed so much blood for them.
It is headache for all involved, and nothing is ever done as how to solve it that suits everyone outside of NK is seemingly impossible.
I don't see what Trump can do.
Anyone who solves the North Korean problem will be the most deserving of a Nobel peace prize.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Crimea was a mess created by Khrushchev who never foresaw the end of the Soviet Union where he as a Soviet leader gave a part of Russia to the Ukraine, all because he in his younger years had spent time in Ukraine.

The whole Crimean situation has been greatly overblown, most of the population of Crimea are Russian speakers.

War with Iran is not on the cards.
Hillary Clinton was against the Iran deal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-17/in-private-clinton-split-with-obama-on-iran


Hillary is a person who continuously lies to the public while holding different private views which she liked to express to big banks in private.

Hillary has been a disaster and the world is safer with her now a defunct politician.
Like it is so bad that Trump wants better relations with Russia, oh the horrors...
I would not be surprised if Trump did a U turn on Iran.

I am sorry. Hillary has been off a disaster and is a warmonger but Putin can roll tanks into a country, turn it into a war zone and it is no big deal? Well I suppose he is just trying to unite the Russian speaking people of the world. I am sure we can appease him that regard after his country lost so much in the last (cold) war.

Shockingly I don't think your argument hokds water.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not picking and choosing.
.

That's exactly what it is. She either is or is not a neoconservative. Simple, she's not.

Let me remind you, KingBrian has called Hillary Clinton a neoconservative because some voted for her and she's hawkish on foreign policy. Both are illogical.

Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

Donald Trump is not a pacifist, he never talked like a pacifist. Are we agreed on this?

I have selectively responded to your post because they are irrelevant to the points above.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Crimea was a mess created by Khrushchev who never foresaw the end of the Soviet Union where he as a Soviet leader gave a part of Russia to the Ukraine, all because he in his younger years had spent time in Ukraine.

The whole Crimean situation has been greatly overblown, most of the population of Crimea are Russian speakers.

War with Iran is not on the cards.
Hillary Clinton was against the Iran deal.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-17/in-private-clinton-split-with-obama-on-iran


Hillary is a person who continuously lies to the public while holding different private views which she liked to express to big banks in private.

Hillary has been a disaster and the world is safer with her now a defunct politician.
Like it is so bad that Trump wants better relations with Russia, oh the horrors...
I would not be surprised if Trump did a U turn on Iran.

Hillary lost. We've moved on. Comparing Trump to Hillary no longer has any value. Why are you so obsessed with it?

The Crimea situation was not overblown. Russia annexed part of a sovereign nation, because they could.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Hillary lost. We've moved on. Comparing Trump to Hillary no longer has any value. Why are you so obsessed with it?

The Crimea situation was not overblown. Russia annexed part of a sovereign nation, because they could.

Do you think the referendum held there would be different if Ukraine had held it?
It was all a part of Russia that was given to Ukraine initially without the consent of the people in Crimea.

It is not black and white, there is a valid argument for any violence in eastern Ukraine where there is a high Russian biased population, but they should accept that it has been always Ukraine unlike Crimea which had been always Russian until Khrushchev did a transfer when Russia and Ukraine were all part of the one country.
Russia annexed what had been always a part of Russian, which had been transferred by a biased towards Ukraine leader that was Nikita Khrushchev, and it should have been taken back by Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

That's exactly what it is. She either is or is not a neoconservative. Simple, she's not.

Let me remind you, KingBrian has called Hillary Clinton a neoconservative because some voted for her and she's hawkish on foreign policy. Both are illogical.

Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

Donald Trump is not a pacifist, he never talked like a pacifist. Are we agreed on this?

I have selectively responded to your post because they are irrelevant to the points above.

Your argument does not stand up. You are saying people can be boxed in by either liberal or conservative and people can't have a different range of views that go from a very conservative to a very liberal viewpoint depending on the issue.
Trump has only ever talked about fighting ISIS, he has not indicated he is for regime change and has talked about how that has been a disaster in Iraq and Libya. He has talked about too many stupid wars and too much money wasted on such wars, and it would be better if they had spent two trillion on the American people than two trillion on wars that have not made the US safer and have in fact made things worse.
This is common sense talk from Trump, and one reason he won, despite what some feel about his foreign policy, it has been on the pacifist side.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

I am sorry. Hillary has been off a disaster and is a warmonger but Putin can roll tanks into a country, turn it into a war zone and it is no big deal? Well I suppose he is just trying to unite the Russian speaking people of the world. I am sure we can appease him that regard after his country lost so much in the last (cold) war.

Shockingly I don't think your argument hokds water.

As you can see in my previous reply...

Putin is asserting Russian power and influence. He doesn't need to be appeased but talking rather than accusations and sanctions. Get the UN to hold another referendum in Crimea - I think a similar outcome would result.
Get eastern Ukraine stabilised.
All we got in the past 8 years is a deterioration in western/Russian relations, and that has not been good for anyone.
The regime changes that the west has pursued has mostly being removing Russian friendly leaders for what they hoped to be US/western friendly leaders.
When too many toes get trodden on, it leads to other consequences, it is why the Saudi backed no fly zone/removal of Assad which Trump's rival supported was never a real possibility.
Too many toes had already being stood on.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Your argument does not stand up. You are saying people can be boxed in by either liberal or conservative and people can't have a different range of views that go from a very conservative to a very liberal viewpoint depending on the issue.

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying you cannot describe someone as a neoconservative unless they hold neoconservative views on a range of issues. Hillary Clinton does not, therefore she is not a neoconservative. Simple.

Trump has only ever talked about fighting ISIS, he has not indicated he is for regime change and has talked about how that has been a disaster in Iraq and Libya. He has talked about too many stupid wars and too much money wasted on such wars, and it would be better if they had spent two trillion on the American people than two trillion on wars that have not made the US safer and have in fact made things worse.
This is common sense talk from Trump, and one reason he won, despite what some feel about his foreign policy, it has been on the pacifist side.

Trump talked about fighting ISIS. He did not talk like a pacifist. Which is what you said. Again, simple. The rest of this post is irrelevant.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Do you think the referendum held there would be different if Ukraine had held it?
It was all a part of Russia that was given to Ukraine initially without the consent of the people in Crimea.

Who knows? Russia annexed the Crimea before they had a chance to hold a vote.

It is not black and white, there is a valid argument for any violence in eastern Ukraine where there is a high Russian biased population, but they should accept that it has been always Ukraine unlike Crimea which had been always Russian until Khrushchev did a transfer when Russia and Ukraine were all part of the one country.
Russia annexed what had been always a part of Russian, which had been transferred by a biased towards Ukraine leader that was Nikita Khrushchev, and it should have been taken back by Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed.

I'm not saying it's black and white. I don't need a history lesson thanks. Russia annexed part of a neighbouring country, that is a big deal.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

As you can see in my previous reply...

Putin is asserting Russian power and influence. He doesn't need to be appeased but talking rather than accusations and sanctions. Get the UN to hold another referendum in Crimea - I think a similar outcome would result.
Get eastern Ukraine stabilised.
All we got in the past 8 years is a deterioration in western/Russian relations, and that has not been good for anyone.
The regime changes that the west has pursued has mostly being removing Russian friendly leaders for what they hoped to be US/western friendly leaders.
When too many toes get trodden on, it leads to other consequences, it is why the Saudi backed no fly zone/removal of Assad which Trump's rival supported was never a real possibility.
Too many toes had already being stood on.

Too late. The Crimea was invaded. Potentially a peaceful resolution could have been found to give the Crimea to Russia if that is what the people wanted. Instead we had a joke of a referendum followed by invasion of sovereign territory and Russia starting a war.

Whst should have happened 22 years previously is irrelevant. Troops were sent into a sovereign nation and started a war. It could come into a potential diplomatic solution but a war was started with civil unrest being coordinated from Russia.

Heck Russia was involved in creating the unrest well before the election.

Russia started a war because they didn't like that the Ukraine was moving towards the EU and it couldn't influence what another country did as much as it had been able to.

This was a series of horrific actions taken by Russia entirely ignoring the fact that they were in a different country and affecting their affairs.

Why you blame the west for worsening relations with Russia is beyond me.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

Too late. The Crimea was invaded. Potentially a peaceful resolution could have been found to give the Crimea to Russia if that is what the people wanted. Instead we had a joke of a referendum followed by invasion of sovereign territory and Russia starting a war.

Whst should have happened 22 years previously is irrelevant. Troops were sent into a sovereign nation and started a war. It could come into a potential diplomatic solution but a war was started with civil unrest being coordinated from Russia.

Heck Russia was involved in creating the unrest well before the election.

Russia started a war because they didn't like that the Ukraine was moving towards the EU and it couldn't influence what another country did as much as it had been able to.

This was a series of horrific actions taken by Russia entirely ignoring the fact that they were in a different country and affecting their affairs.

Why you blame the west for worsening relations with Russia is beyond me.

What you described is also what the west have been doing to Russia, looking for regime change in nations that are friendly towards Russia.
Both sides are guilty of playing the same deadly game.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

What you described is also what the west have been doing to Russia, looking for regime change in nations that are friendly towards Russia.
Both sides are guilty of playing the same deadly game.

So you admit to Russia being in the wrong in the Ukraine and destabilising a previously peaceful nation?

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

What you described is also what the west have been doing to Russia, looking for regime change in nations that are friendly towards Russia.
Both sides are guilty of playing the same deadly game.

This is absolute nonsense. Who have the west annexed? Russia invaded the Crimea and Georgia in the last few years. They've started making noise about parts of Finland. What's next?

To say supporting opponents of Russia in countries that neighbour Russia is equivalent to Russia invading the Crimea is delusional.

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying you cannot describe someone as a neoconservative unless they hold neoconservative views on a range of issues. Hillary Clinton does not, therefore she is not a neoconservative. Simple.



Trump talked about fighting ISIS. He did not talk like a pacifist. Which is what you said. Again, simple. The rest of this post is irrelevant.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely a neo conservative. Her positions on Libya, Iran and Russia are all from that playbook.

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is absolutely a neo conservative. Her positions on Libya, Iran and Russia are all from that playbook.

What about her positions on the economy, education and the environment?

Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative!

First Up

Maybe you could exchange your definitions of neoconservative to bring this to a conclusion?

Brian?

First Up wrote: »

Maybe you could exchange your definitions of neoconservative to bring this to a conclusion?

Is this addressed to me?

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

That opinion piece is worthless. Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

She may be a foreign policy hawk. But that doesn't mean you can tell blatant lies to suit yourself.

Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

Hillary Clinton does not believe Arabs or other peoples are allowed to govern themselves. This is precisely why she is a neocon. As for Trump being a pacifist the only countries he is talking about getting confrontational with is North Korea and Saudi Arabia and he even talks of cooperating with Russia and China to put pressure on these gvts. I would not call that millitarism. Actually sitting down and talking with your opponents.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary Clinton does not believe Arabs or other peoples are allowed to govern themselves. This is precisely why she is a neocon.

Ah, the old strategy of argument-by-inventing-my-own-definitions-of-words.

As for Trump being a pacifist the only countries he is talking about getting confrontational with is North Korea and Saudi Arabia...

There's another interesting re-definition: a pacifist is someone who only wants to start a war with two countries. And that's only if you pretend he doesn't want a war with Iran.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, the old strategy of argument-by-inventing-my-own-definitions-of-words. There's another interesting re-definition: a pacifist is someone who only wants to start a war with two countries. And that's only if you pretend he doesn't want a war with Iran.

Pacifism is not what defeated the Brits during the revolutionary war, pacifism did not defeat the confederates, pacifism did not defeat the Nazis and pacifism is not going to resolve the substantial issues of the world.

eire4

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Pacifism is not what defeated the Brits during the revolutionary war, pacifism did not defeat the confederates, pacifism did not defeat the Nazis and pacifism is not going to resolve the substantial issues of the world.

I will grant you there are times when military responses are appropiate sadly for sure. However it is quite clear that since Bush's illegal invasion of Iraqi and Obama's doubling down on war especially his mass use of drone strikes that the world is a much less safe place for Americans and westerners in general, that the middle east has been badly effected in terms of political stability, that Europe is suffering a significant problem of terrorism and mass migration all as a result of the Americans bellicose foreign policy since Bush in particular. A continuation of the overly bellicose American foreign policy in this arena will not in my opinion solve things, certainly to date it has created and made the current issues worse.

First Up

Brian? wrote:

Is this addressed to me?

To everyone wittering on about Hillary, neoconservatives and other pointless stuff.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Pacifism is not what defeated the Brits during the revolutionary war, pacifism did not defeat the confederates, pacifism did not defeat the Nazis and pacifism is not going to resolve the substantial issues of the world.

You're arguing with no one on this.

RobertKK said Trump was talking like pacifist. This is blatantly untrue.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Hillary Clinton does not believe Arabs or other peoples are allowed to govern themselves. This is precisely why she is a neocon.

I'm fairly satisfied that you don't know what the word neoconservative means from this post.

Can you provide evidence that Hillary Clinton does not believe "Arabs or other peoples" should be allowed govern themselves? This is a fairly broad statememt, it actually includes everyone.

I may sound like a dog with a bone, but I refuse to let these lies go unchallenged. Hillary Clinton is not a neoconservative.

As for Trump being a pacifist the only countries he is talking about getting confrontational with is North Korea and Saudi Arabia and he even talks of cooperating with Russia and China to put pressure on these gvts. I would not call that millitarism. Actually sitting down and talking with your opponents.

This doesn't make Trump a pacifist.