If Trump wins. Or loses

[sculptor]

I see Hillary hawk Clinton as a clear and present danger to world peace. I suspect that her arrogance will lead her to ignore warnings from Russia and China and just blast away with a damn the consequences attitude. And, then, safe in her bunker, have zero compassion or remorse for the suffering she has caused.
I have no idea why she orchestrated the Libya, Syria, etc... debacles, death and suffering. And wonder if she cares about the consequences of her military adventurism. Even if she actually has an agenda, I seriously doubt that she will ever be honest about it.

Vote for Hillary. Vote for war. And watch your tax dollars and every damned nickle we can borrow disappear in a cloud of blood and smoke.

 

[billvon]

I see Hillary hawk Clinton as a clear and present danger to world peace. I suspect that her arrogance will lead her to ignore warnings from Russia and China and just blast away with a damn the consequences attitude.

==============================
Trump asks why US can't use nukes: MSNBC
Matthew J. Belvedere | @Matt_Belvedere
Wednesday, 3 Aug 2016 | 8:05 AM ETCNBC.com
Donald Trump asked a foreign policy expert advising him why the U.S. can't use nuclear weapons, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said on the air Wednesday, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.

"Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can't we use them," Scarborough said on his "Morning Joe" program.
=============================

 

[billvon]

Wiki has a different take on the subject:

Sounds like the only place they disagree is the price - 390 million vs. 407 million. The Wiki article does mention the nepotism he is famous for, so thanks for that.

Congress and the president have little incentive to balance the budget or pay off the debt.

=================
How Much Would Clinton and Trump Increase Our $19 Trillion Gross Debt?
Jul 27, 2016 | Budgets & Projections
Our report Promises and Price Tags: A Fiscal Guide to the 2016 Election estimates that debt held by the public would rise from about $14 trillion today to $23.9 trillion by 2026 under Secretary Clinton's plan ($250 billion above current law), and $35.2 trillion under Mr. Trump's plan ($11.5 trillion above current law). But what about gross debt?

Though most estimators prefer to use debt held by the public, a more economically meaningful measure of debt, the nation's $19 trillion gross debt is more commonly cited by politicians and the media. That number includes not only what the federal government owes individuals, businesses, central banks, and foreign countries, but also what it owes itself through various trust funds such as those for Social Security, Medicare, and federal retirement programs.

Under current law, gross debt is projected to rise from about $19 trillion today to about $29.1 trillion by 2026, a 50 percent increase.

Trump in particular often expresses concernabout the dangers of our current $19 trillion debt. Yet his plan would increase that number significantly. Under our central estimate of Trump's plan, we find very roughly that gross debt would rise from $19 trillion today to $39.5 trillion by 2026. In other words, gross debt would more than double under Trump's plan.

The increase under Clinton's plan would be much smaller but still significant. Under our central estimate of Clinton's plan, we find very roughly that gross debt would rise from $19 trillion today to $29.6 trillion by 2026. In other words, gross debt would rise by over 50 percent.
===================

 

[sculptor]

, citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee.

"citing an unnamed source who claimed he had spoken with the GOP presidential nominee."

Even as hearsay, that seems a tad shady.

................................................................
Trump said nuclear capability was the “single biggest problem” facing the world in a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times in March. Asked whether the U.S. should be the first to launch a nuke during a confrontation with an enemy, Trump said that should be the “absolute last step.”

Absolute last step.
I agree.
That step, if taken, might well leave the survivors without the infrastructure upon which we all depend.

 

[sculptor]

WASHINGTON, June 30— Nuclear weapons have cost the United States at least $5.48 trillion since 1940, and for most of that time neither Congress, the armed services nor the President had a clear idea what was being spent, according to a four-year study sponsored by the Brookings Institution.

The figure, which is stated in 1996 dollars converted under a Defense Department formula, represents about a third of the nation's military spending and about one-tenth of all expenditures by the Federal Government from 1940 to 1996; only non-nuclear defense programs and Social Security cost more.
from:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/01/us/us-nuclear-arms-cost-put-at-5.48-trillion.html
---------------------------------------------------
A trillion here and a trillion there, and pretty soon, we're talking about some serious money.
Dr./professor Julie Brigham Grette's work at Lake El’gygytgyn cost less than one fighter aircraft, and totally changed our understanding of paleoclimates.
Where would you rather your tax dollars be spent?

 

[sculptor]

The United States and other nuclear powers have maintained and expanded their nuclear arsenals, enhancing their ability to launch nuclear strikes even as they have concluded that the logic of such a conflict makes using the weapons unthinkable.

This idea became known as mutually assured destruction, in which countries wield nuclear weapons primarily to deter other nuclear powers. But this deterrent works only if it is credible.

This leads to an odd dynamic: The more willing leaders are to use nuclear weapons, the less likely they will need to do so. Leaders heighten the risk — making the weapons faster, more powerful and harder to stop — so as to minimize it. They make the weapons more usable precisely because they are not.

There is little in Mr. Trump’s comments to suggest that he intended to highlight this contradiction, but that is what he did in asking why the United States bothers to develop extravagantly expensive weapons it never intends to set off.

.............................
Perhaps, it is the extravagantly expensive cost that puzzles him?

 

[billvon]

Trump said nuclear capability was the “single biggest problem” facing the world in a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times in March.

Given that he has admitted he doesn't know what our nuclear capability is, I can see it being a problem for him. Hard to solve a problem when you don't even understand the basics:
=========
HEWITT: Mr. Trump…… What’s your priority among our nuclear triad?

TRUMP: Well, first of all, I think we need somebody absolutely that we can trust, who is totally responsible; who really knows what he or she is doing . . .

HEWITT: Of the three legs of the triad, though, do you have a priority? I want to go to Senator Rubio after that and ask him.

TRUMP: I think — I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.

 

[iceaura]

I see Hillary hawk Clinton as a clear and present danger to world peace.

Sure. Like any rightwing conservative American President. But that's all you get, these days. And you can thank white American male voters age 30 - 65 for that fact.

I suspect that her arrogance will lead her to ignore warnings from Russia and China and just blast away with a damn the consequences attitude. And, then, safe in her bunker, have zero compassion or remorse for the suffering she has caused.
I have no idea why she orchestrated the Libya, Syria, etc... debacles, death and suffering. And wonder if she cares about the consequences of her military adventurism. Even if she actually has an agenda, I seriously doubt that she will ever be honest about it.

Still sneaking hits on the Breitbart popskull pipe, we see. Hard to lay off that stuff, once you've been hooked.

Vote for Hillary. Vote for war. And watch your tax dollars and every damned nickle we can borrow disappear in a cloud of blood and smoke.

Uh, that was W&Cheney. Remember? That already happened. We're in the aftermath now.

 

[sculptor]

Hillary Clinton is “a danger to world peace,” says France’s Marine Le Pen

For Le Pen, a Clinton Presidency would “not benefit” France, be “destructive” for Europe, and ultimately be a “danger to world peace.”
...who can forget Hillary’s Libya “success”.

“There is a candidate who appears a lot more dangerous for France than the others – that’s Hillary Clinton,” the head of the National Front told RT France in an exclusive interview. “I’m not American so I don’t need to make a choice. But…in the interests of France,Hillary Clinton is probably the worst choice out there.”

Le Pen sees the Democratic frontrunner as being so “dangerous” because of Clinton’s career as US Secretary of State, in which she worked “hand in hand with the full spectrum of American decisions” that eventually “plunged the world objectively into chaos.”
“I think if she was elected she would continue this policy, a destructive policy, a policy of conflict,...” Le Pen said. “I think it’s a danger for world peace.”

“Everything but Hillary Clinton” would be better for France, Marine Le Pen told CNN in an interview aired Wednesday.
“I believe Hillary Clinton means war, Hillary Clinton means devastation, destabilizing the world, economic choices that would be devastating for my people, geostrategic choices that would lead to global conflicts,” she said.


About her party, from wiki:
Since her election as the leader of the party in 2011, the popularity of the FN continued to grow apace: the party won several municipalities at the 2014 municipal elections; it became the first French party at the 2014 European elections with 25% of the votes; and again in the last departmental elections in France. They, once again, came out in 1st place in the last regional elections with a historic result of nearly 28% of the votes. Marine Le Pen would lead the first round of the 2017 presidential elections, according to various polls.As of 2015, the FN has established itself as one of the largest political forces in France

 

[Randwolf]

“Everything but Hillary Clinton” would be better for France, Marine Le Pen told CNN in an interview aired Wednesday.

And this surprises us how? Trump is his brother from another mother...

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35075439

"Donald Trump is now America's Marine Le Pen," declared a headline in the New Yorker this week.

"Europe has plenty of its own Donald Trumps," responded Marc Champion in BloombergView, noting that Le Pen may have a better chance of becoming president in France than Trump in the US.
When it came to Donald Trump's call for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the US" Ms Le Pen asked a television interviewer: "Seriously, have you ever heard me say something like that?"

One answer could be that it depends on the definition of "like".
Here is a comparison of quotations from the two politicians on this and other topics.

Migrants
Trump: Donald J Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice. We have no choice. We have no choice. (December 2015)
Le Pen: Marine le Pen calls for an immediate end to all reception of migrants in France and an immediate end to their dispersal in the municipalities of France, both villages and towns. The security of the French people renders this precaution pressing. (November 2015 )

Trump: When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us [sic]. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. (June 2015)
Le Pen: Would you accept 12 illegal immigrants moving into your flat? You would not. On top of that, they start to remove the wallpaper. Some of them would steal your wallet and brutalise your wife. You would not accept that. Consequently, we are welcoming, but we decide with whom we are welcoming. (May 2012)

Borders
Trump: I will build a great wall - and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me - and I'll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words. (June 2015)
Le Pen: Whatever the EU says, it is essential that France gets back control of its national borders once and for all. Without borders, neither defence nor security is possible. (November 2015)

Christianity
Trump: I will be the greatest representative of the Christians that they've had in a long time. (June 2015)
Le Pen: Liberty, equality, fraternity are Christian values! France can be secular because it is Christian at its origin. (April 2012)
​

And so on.

 

[joepistole]

I see Hillary hawk Clinton as a clear and present danger to world peace. I suspect that her arrogance will lead her to ignore warnings from Russia and China and just blast away with a damn the consequences attitude. And, then, safe in her bunker, have zero compassion or remorse for the suffering she has caused.
I have no idea why she orchestrated the Libya, Syria, etc... debacles, death and suffering. And wonder if she cares about the consequences of her military adventurism. Even if she actually has an agenda, I seriously doubt that she will ever be honest about it.

Vote for Hillary. Vote for war. And watch your tax dollars and every damned nickle we can borrow disappear in a cloud of blood and smoke.

Hogwash!

 

[joepistole]

Hillary Clinton is “a danger to world peace,” says France’s Marine Le Pen

For Le Pen, a Clinton Presidency would “not benefit” France, be “destructive” for Europe, and ultimately be a “danger to world peace.”
...who can forget Hillary’s Libya “success”.

“There is a candidate who appears a lot more dangerous for France than the others – that’s Hillary Clinton,” the head of the National Front told RT France in an exclusive interview. “I’m not American so I don’t need to make a choice. But…in the interests of France,Hillary Clinton is probably the worst choice out there.”

Le Pen sees the Democratic frontrunner as being so “dangerous” because of Clinton’s career as US Secretary of State, in which she worked “hand in hand with the full spectrum of American decisions” that eventually “plunged the world objectively into chaos.”
“I think if she was elected she would continue this policy, a destructive policy, a policy of conflict,...” Le Pen said. “I think it’s a danger for world peace.”

“Everything but Hillary Clinton” would be better for France, Marine Le Pen told CNN in an interview aired Wednesday.
“I believe Hillary Clinton means war, Hillary Clinton means devastation, destabilizing the world, economic choices that would be devastating for my people, geostrategic choices that would lead to global conflicts,” she said.


About her party, from wiki:
Since her election as the leader of the party in 2011, the popularity of the FN continued to grow apace: the party won several municipalities at the 2014 municipal elections; it became the first French party at the 2014 European elections with 25% of the votes; and again in the last departmental elections in France. They, once again, came out in 1st place in the last regional elections with a historic result of nearly 28% of the votes. Marine Le Pen would lead the first round of the 2017 presidential elections, according to various polls.As of 2015, the FN has established itself as one of the largest political forces in France

Is it surprising birds of a feather flock together? Is is surprising Putin, Le Pen and Trump are all in the same boat, that they all support each other? No, it isn't. And if Mussolini and Hitler were still around, I'm sure they too would be on the Trump Train. They share the same political ideology. Hitler had his Brown Shirts, Trump has his forced deportation and torture squads, and I'm not exaggerating in the least bit. Trump has on several occasions, including quite recently, endorsed his "forced deportation squads" and he has been very forthright about his desire to torture suspects. Is it any wonder fascists flock together?

Trump, Feb. 17: "Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—”Torture doesn’t work!”—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding." http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/trump-torture/


http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/donald-trump-deportation-force-debate-immigration/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-immigration.html