And no way of evaluating your perceptions of them, which have been (permanently?) modified by your acceptance of rightwing corporate American authoritarian (fascist) agitprop memes as the basic frame of your world. It wasn't a joke. It was a con (the standard hypnotist's and tale-teller's trick of creating an assumption of context). You fell for it, revealing yourself to have been hypnotized. What I meant was that you can't distinguish them, not that they can't be distinguished. I learned that by reading your comparison, where you labeled the one logical opposite a "variant" of the other. Hence my response: you have lost the ability to distinguish even logical opposites in this arena of discourse. Crippled. Nobody except your fellow Tribesmen sees that in those videos. There are a whole lot of people who seriously dislike Clinton and her politics who don't see what you claim to see in any of those hundreds of videos. What they share, that you lack, is 1) actual knowledge of Clinton and her long career in the public eye, including the nature of her relations with the media and 2) familiarity with, and some ability to resist, the workings of American rightwing political propaganda operations. They have information and context, in other words. You don't. You don't know what Trump proposes. You don't know how to evaluate anything he says, either, so you have no idea what he would actually do even if you did know what he had proposed. And as with most people in most areas of human ignorance, you underestimate the scope of it, the scale, the possibilities. Trump as a candidate is seriously hazardous, and not only because his core supporters are a collection of Tribesmen. Also because his halo support is remarkably uninformed and unimaginative about the kinds of disasters this guy can create, and they have no real source of corrective information - the US media has been trashed overall, as a provider of info about a guy like Trump. He could actually be elected.
It is the same way anyone in the Soviet Union who was against Soviet rule has been presented. And more Soviet-style argumentation.
Except for its relationship with reality. There is a reality, you know. You don't have to just compare propaganda styles and sign on with the one you can't see - you can refer to facts and stuff. In theory, anyway. Or the opposite of it - you obviously can't tell, any more, in the matter of Clinton or Trump. You haven't dealt with your lack of information yet. And you never will. Look, the only reason Hillaryhate is worth identifying and confronting at this late date - after 25 years of Clinton Derangement Syndrome corroding US politics, and everybody more or less settled in relation to it - is that it is a significant factor in this election. The Tribe might swing the vote. And that hands us President Trump.
Oh, joepistole writes something: Ups, sorry, this was iceaura. Sorry, I was unable to see the difference in the content.
Nothing in the video of Clinton talking about Iran is evidence of mania or warmongering. She is more of a hawk than a Bernie Sanders, but less than any Republican, which is pretty typical for the parties. As a woman, she has to combat the stereotype that she's weak or too emotional to be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
donald trump is only in the race to make hillary look good. And he is doing a good job. I see a false dichotomy.
As I have explained, this is my personal impression. You may have another one. No problem. Clinton less warmongering than any Republican, inclusive Trump? I have, indeed, not seen much difference among all the other candidates, I would guess with Rand Paul as the exception. For a nice summary of what I think is important see http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.de/2016/07/trumps-foreign-policy.html
Trump did mention that he would torture people and kill the families of terrorists, both are war crimes.
Who cares about American presidents being war criminals? As if Obama had not killed family members of terrorists as well as "terrorists" in his drone wars.
Your inability to see stuff in American politics is pretty much the central feature of your posting - you can't even see blatant Hillaryhate agitprop when it's thrown in your face. Pretty basic stuff. W&Cheney actually did it, and were re-elected. There was never even a serious attempt to depose them under oath, let alone impeach either one. Trump is not going to lose many votes on such matters. Best case scenario: Trump gets 40% of the vote, and loses in a landslide. That means 40% of the voting citizens of the US don't know, or care, any more about governing the US and Trump's role in that than Schmelzer does.
Trump wants to invade Syria and enter a ground war against ISIS. I mean, you have one candidate who actually advocates a ground war, and one that doesn't, and you think the one that doesn't is the warmonger.
The one I name a warmonger has already started wars and murdered people. The other one is a businessman who talks a lot of different things, contradicting each other, and nobody believes that his talk during this campaign has to be taken seriously. This is the case where I believe that he sometimes talks nonsense to sound like a tough guy.
Nah - she's murdered people, but not started any wars. She's not confrontational, never has been. So? Doesn't it occur to you that as President he is going to act, according to his nature?
And the nature of a usual businessman may include some tough talk if you sell your product, may be some tough claims before starting negotiations, but what follows are negotiations, which end with some compromise. And there is enough in his claims what suggests a similar behavior. Libya is Hillaries war, the Syrian civil war too.
