Liberal tried to assassinate Trump over fear he would become president

Daimoku said:
The easiest way to find out how the press is treated by the candidates is just by listening to what they say. They have reported being corralled in one designated area inside Trump rallies. We've seen vids of the Secret Service aggressively enforcing those boundaries. The fact that Trump would use the Secret Service for the purpose of silencing the press is unconscionable. I'm sure if Hillary Clinton's Secret Service had done the same it would be all over the news. In fact, I'm sure the Republican control congress would have held congressional hearings on it from then until , who knows when?

Between Clinton and Trump on foreign policy I'd choose Clinton any day of the week (and twice on Sunday). What I find interesting, is that when I asked you what Trump would have done differently regarding intervention in the Civil War conflict in Libya, your answer was essentially..." I don't know". I will , however, agree with you on what Sanders said. He too, tried to accuse Hillary Clinton of being an interventionist. To which, Hillary Clinton retorted that Sanders' had voted for regime change in Libya. How convenient it must be for Sanders' to now second guess Hillary Clinton because the regime change , he approved of, ultimately resulted in such an unpredictable outcome.

Having said that, I would have preferred either Sanders or Clinton to Trump. At least, with them we know what we're getting. With Trump, based on what we've seen, it's likely he'll start a nuclear war because one of our allies made fun of his ridiculous comb over.
Click to expand...
no that wasn't my answer on Trump - I didn't answer .Trump's current stated foreign policy is one of less engagement.
I'm not thrilled with his stance on the Korean peninsula, or willingness to leave NATO over budgets,
but I take that as the candidate talking and not as he would be as POTUS. same as deporting 11 million illegals.
One would hope getting into the WH and privy to national security matters would curtail such loose rhetoric.


You say you'd prefer "either Sanders or Clinton to Trump" but Sanders ( coalitions) and Clinton (invasive interventionism) couldn't be further apart.
So maybe you'd prefer a Democrat over Trump? I don't know what you mean the policies are all substantially different.

But you are completely wrong here (below), and it needs to be corrected:
To which, Hillary Clinton retorted that Sanders' had voted for regime change in Libya. How convenient it must be for Sanders' to now second guess Hillary Clinton because the regime change , he approved of, ultimately resulted in such an unpredictable outcome.
Click to expand...
If you look at source material - and I can show you more- it was Sanders who voted in favor of voted for a resolution condemning the systemic human rights abuses in Libya and "demanding democratic reforms" - nowhere did he vote for "regime change".

That was a Hillary invention after meeting the NTC's Jibril in Paris. At most Sanders voted for UN Resolution 1973 -
which was the no fly.
It wasn't the active bombing/Tomahawks and the command and control the US did as leader of NATO's war.
Again Clinton was chief architect and advocate for that role -she played an integral part - see State Dept's "Tic Toc on Libya"-
I linked last post
So the choice is her bellicosity or Trumps naïve loose rhetoric..which I agree is a shitty choice in general

I think you are making way to much of the way the press is handled by the campaigns. There is no "silencing by the Secret Service"
 
Good point on the campaign rhetoric vs actions as president. Remember when Obama said he was going to close Gitmo? I'm sure it sounded like a good idea until a few rounds of discussion with some folks at the Pentagon and CIA lol.

Eight years later we still have Gitmo. Trump's not going to deport 11 million illegals. What that kind of rhetoric tells you is how serious a given candidate is about certain issues---it shouldn't be taken as gospel during a presidential campaign.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Good point on the campaign rhetoric vs actions as president. Remember when Obama said he was going to close Gitmo? I'm sure it sounded like a good idea until a few rounds of discussion with some folks at the Pentagon and CIA lol.

Eight years later we still have Gitmo. Trump's not going to deport 11 million illegals. What that kind of rhetoric tells you is how serious a given candidate is about certain issues..
Click to expand...
Gitmo is a colossal screw up. we are dumping "high value" terrorists
back into Oman instead of Yemen, or Somalia of all places, or into SA's "rehabilitation"

All with poor review/follow up. But it'sa bi-partisan screw up since Congress won't let them be held in the US.

Ideally there would be trials, in some cases they have been held so long.. evidence is gone..
None of this should have happened, including the releases
 
anatta said:
Gitmo is a colossal screw up. we are dumping "high value" terrorists
back into Oman instead of Yemen, or Somalia of all places, or into SA's "rehabilitation"

All with poor review/follow up. But it'sa bi-partisan screw up since Congress won't let them be held in the US.

Ideally there would be trials, in some cases they have been held so long.. evidence is gone..
None of this should have happened, including the releases
Click to expand...

There's that, and Gitmo was another of those supposed instances where we were giving the terrorists some sort of propaganda coup. Which has proven to be bunk. Islamist propaganda is limited only by the Islamists imagination. Even if Gitmo were a major recruiting tool it wouldn't be worth returning known terrorists back into the battle field; and if we did close it, the propagandists would call it a victory for Islam. It's a no win situation.

It was never a good idea to close it.
 
anatta said:
no that wasn't my answer on Trump - I didn't answer .Trump's current stated foreign policy is one of less engagement.
I'm not thrilled with his stance on the Korean peninsula, or willingness to leave NATO over budgets,
but I take that as the candidate talking and not as he would be as POTUS. same as deporting 11 million illegals.
One would hope getting into the WH and privy to national security matters would curtail such loose rhetoric.


You say you'd prefer "either Sanders or Clinton to Trump" but Sanders ( coalitions) and Clinton (invasive interventionism) couldn't be further apart.
So maybe you'd prefer a Democrat over Trump? I don't know what you mean the policies are all substantially different.

But you are completely wrong here (below), and it needs to be corrected:
If you look at source material - and I can show you more- it was Sanders who voted in favor of voted for a resolution condemning the systemic human rights abuses in Libya and "demanding democratic reforms" - nowhere did he vote for "regime change".

That was a Hillary invention after meeting the NTC's Jibril in Paris. At most Sanders voted for UN Resolution 1973 -
which was the no fly.
It wasn't the active bombing/Tomahawks and the command and control the US did as leader of NATO's war.
Again Clinton was chief architect and advocate for that role -she played an integral part - see State Dept's "Tic Toc on Libya"-
I linked last post
So the choice is her bellicosity or Trumps naïve loose rhetoric..which I agree is a shitty choice in general

I think you are making way to much of the way the press is handled by the campaigns. There is no "silencing by the Secret Service"
Click to expand...

the thing is unless you take those stances you will not see any change. For instance Obama wanted nato to pay more too. When they said lolno all he could do was cry in the oval.
 
tsuke said:
the thing is unless you take those stances you will not see any change. For instance Obama wanted nato to pay more too. When they said lolno all he could do was cry in the oval.
Click to expand...

Europe is not going to kick in 2%. Many NATO economies are hurting..willingness to leave NATO over a few crumbs is destructive
 
Any violence at a Trump rally has been directly connected to agitators going to his rallies to create it. Trump stupidly played into their hands in the beginning. He since learned their playbook and ceased.

Trumps amateurs campaign handlers are gone. Let's see what happens next.

liberal haters are violent. They don't protest, they riot.
 
^ can he act "presidential" , Campaigning is a sales job. Some voters like us dig down ,but most only surface deep.
He would need to start gladhanding, using teleprompters, being un-Trumpish where called for.

I don't know if he can. so far he can't
 
Thing1 said:
See - you're taking it in a very linear way.

So, the only valid comparison of any leader to Hitler is when their country is exactly like Germany?

That's simplistic thinking. The comparison can be valid even if the countries are different.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall similar statements concerning things like registration leads to confiscation, police state, and tyranny. that it couldn't possibly be that way because it's not exactly like that situation.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The cynical side of me says Obama knew that but it made for a good political bone to throw to liberals and libertarians.
Click to expand...

It is true that is isn't the recruitment tool it once was with the population greatly decreased, but it is still a very big stain on our reputation as a country that goes by the rule of law. They still mention it, but it is not as important as it once was.
 
Thing1 said:
Trump's ideology is Trump - just as Hitler's was Hitler.

They're both classic narcissists. But they mask their narcissism with fierce nationalism, combined with scapegoating and pitting ethnic/religious/racial groups against one another.

But ultimately, they're both 100% about themselves. Germans didn't really realize it w/ Hitler until he was holed up in his bunker, demanding that his loyal soldiers fight to the death to give him a few more hours.
Click to expand...

There are so many politicians whose ideology is themselves, why aren't you calling them hitler?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Well, if kinda/sorta is the standard you can compare lots of pols to Hitler. Hell, let's compare Trump to Teddy Rosevelt while we're at it.

Okay, Hitler had an ideology and he wrote a book about. It would be nice if more people who attempt the comparison would actually read it.

What is Trump's ideology?
Click to expand...

Didn't Obama write a book or two? Maybe Obama is Hitler.
 
Thing1 said:
Why are you focused on Jews? Are you suggesting that someone has to be bigoted against Jews specifically to warrant a comparison to Hitler?

Yes or no on that. Honestly, if you come back w/ a yes, we don't have to keep talking about it.
Click to expand...

No. I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities by talking about the six million Jews Hitler killed. I'll be more careful next time.
 
Thing1 said:
Like I said - you guys have been calling him a Muslim since '08, anyway. You even have "Hussein" in your screen name.

So we'll continue to compare Trump to Hitler. It's all nice & even.
Click to expand...

It appears Thing has been making this comparison to give tit for tat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top