Trump is "a clear and present danger"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ivan Seeking, Aug 9, 2016.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,607
    And when you get past the sex and the Hollywood, here's what Trump has to say about whether he wants to start WW3:

    "I'm really good at war, I love war, in a certain way."
    "—including with nukes. Yes, including with nukes.”
    "I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me."
    “Nuclear, just the power, the devastation, is very important to me.”
    “I want to be unpredictable.”
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Of course it wasn't. The bubble you are in is easily crossed - nothing is very far away. Your universe is a spheroid region 705 meters in diameter, as the Star Trek computer put it. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Remember_Me_(episode)

    Trump is especially weak on military issues and foreign policy, and on his record of lying to people and cheating them. So that's the pre-emptive attack on Clinton. It's like the W campaign against Kerry - the Reps had to sell a draft-dodging service-shirking third generation rich kid who had demonstrated physical cowardice in the wake of 9/11, so the attack on Kerry was on his service record and courage. Pre-emptive strike.

    For those outside the bubble, the notion that of the two candidates Clinton is more likely to start WWIII is another of the dozens of mutually contradictory, fact-free, thought-deprived, wingnut Hillaryhate memes. We see where it came from, we watch it get spread around, and we marvel at the sheer amnesiac gullibility of the white American male age 30 - 65. Have you guys forgotten when the Clintons's (Hillary alleged to be wearing the pants in the family) lack of belligerence and willingness to confront - it was called "strength" - was her flaw? Here's a reminder: http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2003/12/19/the_clintons_real_legacy

    As Piet Hein never put it:
    "It would be a joke
    but it's backed by votes"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,461
    Hollywood actress and activist Susan Sarandon says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be a more dangerous U.S. president than Donald Trump — provided she’s not indicted first.

    Ms. Sarandon, a supporter of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, told a liberal news outlets this week that Mrs. Clinton’s track record portends a much worse future than anything Mr. Trump might catalyze as commander in chief.

    “I believe in a way she is more dangerous,” the actress told The Young Turks on Thursday. “They’re both talking to Henry Kissinger, apparently. … She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things — and very callously. I don’t know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is. That scares me. I think we’ll be in Iran in two seconds.”

    said voters are being “fed” a message that Mr. Trump is “so dangerous”

    “I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from. I do know that she is not transparent, and I do know that nobody calls her on it,”
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,461
    Wow billvon
    That is one hell of an editing job you did there.
    Have you no shame?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It would be hilarious, if this were after the election.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The irony here is you, a self proclaimed dove, supporting the candidate most likely to begin WW III.
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,461
    Susan and I and many more think that HRC is "the candidate most likely to begin WW III".
    Which I do not see as likely for either candidate. However, HRC seems hell bent on using our military for attacking people that ain't a threat to us.

    I ain't no dove.
    However, I do agree with Susan when she describes HRC
    "HRC is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things — and very callously. I don’t know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is. That scares me."
    ('xcepting that I ain't scared---------Mostly i just dislike the wastes)

    What is HRC's trip why is she so willing to bomb people and create chaos?
    If she is overcompensating, what is she overcompensating for?
    Or is she just another sociopath?
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,607
    And most of the military think that Trump, with his love of war, his ignorance of our country's defenses and his claims that he knows better than our generals how to fight wars, is a much, much greater risk.

    Trump has shown that he hates foreigners, has said he is willing to use nuclear weapons, and says he likes wars (especially wars we "win.") He says he loves war, and wants to spend billions getting ready for it.

    Who do you think will win Trump's nuclear war? Why do you want a Trump nuclear war to begin with?

    A good piece on this:
    =============================
    Donald Trump Dreams of an Endless, Bloody, Costly American War
    Trump has never been close to combat, but he does have a Purple Heart. He got it from an admiring old soldier at a campaign rally.

    David Cay Johnston
    09.08.16 6:10 AM ET
    If you love war, Donald Trump made clear on Wednesday, you want him in the White House.

    That was not the purpose of his Philadelphia speech on national security, but if you listened to his words, both specifics and theme, that was the message. Embedded in the message was that he would be a very big spender of tax dollars.

    And Trump revealed, unintentionally for sure, that his secret plan to destroy ISIS is a con job, a flip-flop which we’ll come back to.

    An ominous sign that Trump envisions a dictatorial presidency arose a few hours later, at an NBC “commander in chief” event in Manhattan where veterans asked Trump and Hillary Clinton questions.

    Speaking of ISIS, Trump denigrated America’s top military officers. “The generals have been reduced to rubble” under President Obama, adding that they have been “reduced to a point where it’s embarrassing to our country.” He said nothing about the continual degrading of ISIS, whose territory has shrunk in Syria and Iraq, under attack plans drawn by these generals.

    The most disturbing part came when host Matt Lauer followed up about Trump’s statement earlier that he would give “my generals” 30 days to come up with a plan to destroy ISIS even though he claims to already have a plan. Lauer asked Trump to square his statements about his supposed secret plan with what his new promise to solicit a plan from the generals he had just denounced. Trump replied, “They’d probably be different generals, to be honest with you.”
    . . .

    Trump called for more Navy ships, about 90 more jet fighters (which cost up to $337 million each) and a 20 percent increase in the size of the Army. The costliest part of Trump’s plan for more war involves the Army.

    Trump wants to increase the Army by 90,000 soldiers to 540,000 GIs. He did not give many details, including how he would get deficit hawks in Congress to authorize the money.

    Based on the current Army budget we can reasonably assume the annual costs would be in the neighborhood of $50 billion a year.

    That equals about $600 a year more in federal spending for each family of four. But that is only the initial cost and it assumes that none of these soldiers would see combat.

    “I love war,” he declared at Iowa Central Community College last November. “I’m good at war,” he added then. “I’ve had a lot of wars of my own. I’m really good at war. I love war in a certain way, but only when we win.”
    ===============
     
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,461
    billvon
    You are stretching the truth until it comes out completely wrong.

    Do we need a refresher course in propaganda?
    see: http://sciforums.com/threads/election-psychology.157587/#post-3399903
    Every president since 1945 has been willing to use nuclear weapons.

    You might care to run that silly lying ad through factcheck.org

    Trump did say that he “loves war, in a certain way,” at a campaign rally in Iowa last year. He made the comment after he said that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein claimed to have weapons of mass destruction as a strategy “to scare” Iran.

    Trump, Nov. 12, 2015: This is the Trump theory on war. But I’m good at war. I’ve had a lot of wars of my own. I’m really good at war. I love war, in a certain way, but only when we win.
    .........................
    His "wars" were purely business dealings.
    No invasion of Iraq, no bombing Libya, no "regime change" in Syria .
    If actions speak louder than words, it is HRC who loves war, or at least causing the deaths and suffering of others.
    ........................
    factcheck goes on to say:
    But Trump’s “including with nukes” comment was unrelated to that and came several months later. He said that during an April 3 interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace.
    Trump suggested that Japan might need to acquire nuclear weapons to defend against neighboring North Korea, which does possess nuclear weapons.
    Wallace, April 3: You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?

    Trump: In many ways, and I say this, in many ways, the world is changing. Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes.

    Wallace: Understood.

    Trump: It’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them.

    So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea.

    Wallace: With nukes?

    Trump: Maybe they would be better off — including with nukes, yes, including with nukes.

    Wallace: And South Korea, with nukes?

    Trump: South Korea is right next door, just so you understand.

    Wallace: But that means you can have a nuclear arms race on the Korean Peninsula.

    Trump: You already have it, Chris. You already have a nuclear arms race.

    It’s clear, in that exchange, that Trump wasn’t talking about the U.S. using nuclear weapons, and he wasn’t saying that he “loves” nuclear war.

    But Trump has previously said that he wouldn’t ever rule out using nuclear weapons as president. That’s a point that Priorities USA Action spokesman Justin Barasky made in an email to FactCheck.org.

    At an MSNBC town hall in March, when asked by moderator Chris Matthews about the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State terrorist group in the Middle East or even in Europe, Trump said that “I’m not going to take it off the table” even though “nuclear should be off the table.”
    ..................................
    If you must repeat the HRC campaign's lies, You really need a less intelligent audience
    ....................................
    factcheck concludes:
    It’s not our place to say whether a potential U.S. president should or should not talk about using nuclear weapons in war. However, Trump saying that he would not rule out using nuclear weapons as president is not the same thing as saying, “I love war, in a certain way … including with nukes, yes, including with nukes.” That’s what someone might wrongly think Trump said, given the way the ad uses the two quotes one after the other.

    Barasky disagreed. “It’s obvious to anyone that these are different clips and there’s no suggestion all 5 are one statement,” he wrote in an email.

    Viewers can be the judge of that. But the two Trump quotes come in quick succession in the ad, and there’s no context given for the “nukes” comment.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/ad-suggests-trump-loves-nuclear-war/
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,461
    You may be too young to remember, but the democrats pulled that same "nuclear" crap on Barry Goldwater over 50 years ago.
    Then we got a democrat who(with the help of a corrupt draft board) drafted me and almost got me killed.
    "Greetings from the president and people of the United States..."
    (go team)


    fool me once, shame on you.....................................
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Except it's not crap. Trump is at best erratic and extremely narcissistic. When you have the ability to destroy the world with a button, that's a recipe for WW III.

    Trump prides himself on unpredictablity, that's not a good thing. He could very easily get his weiner stuck.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,607
    So you now use the same "crap" against Clinton that "almost got you killed?" Hmm. You should have pulled a Trump and gotten out of the draft, in any case.
    The words right before that were referring to the Iraq war. He was talking about real war, the kind that gets 4000 American soldiers killed. That's the kind he likes:

    "Then it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction. You know why we thought there were? Well because first of all we had faulty intelligence because we didn't do that right either. We thought there were because Saddam Hussein used to say that in order to scare Iran. Makes sense right? This is the Trump theory on war. But I’m good at war. I’ve had a lot of wars of my own. I’m really good at war. I love war, in a certain way, but only when we win."
    I guess you just read what the right wing media has fed you. Try listening to his speech rather than just taking what FOX News says. He was talking about the Iraq war - the kind he loves.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,461
    factcheck.org and no "right wing media"

    Just a little common sense, and being literate helps.
    Face it billvon: The ad you quoted is grossly misleading if not just a damned lie.

    Does the "left wing" neocon propaganda machine need to stoop so low?

    ................
    addendum to above:
    Who authored that piece of sh-t?
    Not just the superpac, (of which Bernie said that he had none and wanted none), Priorities USA Action, but the person or team?
    ....................
    What Priorities... says about themselves:
    “We will have an aggressive and creative media strategy backing up all of our work.”
    .....
    "Priorities eventually raised and spent about $79 million on behalf of Obama – but got off to a late start because Obama and his staff refused to endorse the concept of a super PAC – on good-government grounds – until January 2012. Hillary Clinton has no such qualms, ..."

    Gee------------HRC has not got Obama's sense of good government?
    (go team)
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,607
    And some very selective reading, apparently - and some very creative reinterpretation.

    It's an interesting phenomenon among Trump supporters. He will say something like "I love war" (or something equally damaging) and they will immediately spring to his defense, saying "no, he didn't really mean what he said." It was especially amusing to watch his apologists right after he claimed that Obama founded ISIS. They kept trying to tell people what Trump really meant, only to have Trump himself hammer them on the effort. For several days afterwards, the conversation went something like this:

    Trump: ISIS honors President Obama. He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS.
    Apologist: Well, you don't mean he literally founded ISIS. He created the vacuum, he lost the peace. Right?
    Trump: No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do.
    Apologist: But he's not sympathetic to them. He's trying to kill them. You really meant . . .
    Trump: I don't care. He was the founder.

    Then after about a week of this he said: "‘obviously I’m being sarcastic" and they breathed a huge sigh of relief - they had been vindicated! - only to hear a few seconds later "but not that sarcastic, to be honest with you."

    It was fun to watch them scramble to reinterpret the nonsense into something sane.
    Since you are the one stooping (you accused Clinton of being about to start World War III) ask yourself the question.
    Trump. All you need to do to do a good anti-Trump ad is use his own words.
     
    Bells likes this.
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    We now have conservatives in the US assigning blame for the chaos in Syria and Libya to Hillary Clinton. You can't make this shit up.

    What Clinton was compensating for, during her tenure as Secretary of State (not President), is the situation created by W&Cheney. And yes, "sociopathy" does seem like a fair description of quite a bit of that horrible, inexcusable, and deeply reprehensible mess. But not Clinton's.
    But you didn't get WWIII, or anything like WWIII - not even a Cuban Missile Crisis. And you did get a Voting Rights Act, and some other civil rights stuff - or rather, black people did. Do they count?
     
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,461
    Strategy:
    It seems that Trump was complementing the bluff that Saddam played to extricate from a stalemate war.

    A little story about Harald Hardrade, after a long journey in exile while building up enough of a fortune and army to retake is rightful kingdom.

    6. BATTLE IN SICILY.

    Now when Harald came to Sicily he plundered there also, and sat down with his army before a strong and populous castle. He surrounded the castle; but the walls were so thick there was no possibility of breaking into it, and the people of the castle had enough of provisions, and all that was necessary for defence. Then Harald hit upon an expedient. He made his bird-catchers catch the small birds which had their nests within the castle, but flew into the woods by day to get food for their young. He had small splinters of tarred wood bound upon the backs of the birds, smeared these over with wax and sulphur, and set fire to them. As soon as the birds were let loose they all flew at once to the castle to their young, and to their nests, which they had under the house roofs that were covered with reeds or straw. The fire from the birds seized upon the house roofs; and although each bird could only carry a small burden of fire, yet all at once there was a mighty flame, caused by so many birds carrying fire with them and spreading it widely among the house roofs. Thus one house after the other was set on fire, until the castle itself was in flames. Then the people came out of the castle and begged for mercy; the same men who for many days had set at defiance the Greek army and its leader. Harald granted life and safety to all who asked quarter, and made himself master of the place.

    Saddam had a strategy that worked better'n tanks and aircraft. ....................... which, later, came back to bite him in the ass. Good excuse as far as excuses go, almost as far out as the gulf of tonkin "creative" farce.

    Ain't the peculiarities of election cycle propaganda interesting? So predictable, and so oft repeated.
    "....twisted by knaves to make trap for fools..."
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The trap here is that "conservative" white American men aged 30 - 65 - especially with a military background - are faced with two options:

    1) Find a way to justify voting for Trump

    2) Face the fact that they have been not only dead wrong for their entire adult lives about critical matters of politics, not only made continual errors of judgment that cost the safety and welfare of their families and communities, but have been all that time humiliatingly suckered and played and made public fools in their wrongness, by Republican Party media operations that the most despised and mocked people they know saw through immediately and called out from the gitgo.

    Although being reduced to celebrating endorsement of their views by ditzy liberal Hollywood actresses is a bit worse than expected, frankly. Kind of a flinch, there - hard to look at straight on. But desperation makes strange bedfellows.
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Gosh! Given the recent nuke testing by an insane North Korea we may not only see WW3 but also a suspension of the elections we are talking about...Trump or Hillary may never make it to the White House...
    I suppose we can blame the USA Admin. for the crazy behavior of North Korea?

    "When are people (world leaders) going to start taking responsibility for their own decisions"

    South Korea may very well force the USA hand in this recent crisis by launching against the North. ( pre-emptively - given the Norths leadership state of mind)
     
  22. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,224
    Do you tend to overreact much?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And it's nice to see the priority you give such unthinkable things...
    "... we may not only see WW3 (as if this wasn't enough!) but also (shock, horror!) a suspension of the elections..."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Do you honestly think N.Korea will sign their own demise by ever launching nukes?
    It remains to be seen just how bullish they try to be in negotiations with their new toys as some sort of leverage, but there is as yet little evidence of recklessness... otherwise the world would have surely/hopefully been stronger in their efforts to prevent them ever reaching this stage.

    Interesting times for that region for sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    If WW3 does break out prior to the election, feel free to tell me: "I told you so!"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I think that's a gross over reaction. It will not stop the US election this fall. The US has never, even during the US Civil War, delayed or foregone a national election. And a two bit petty dictator of a third-rate nation isn't going to change that.

    It's difficult to see how North Korea would become the genesis for WW III. North Korea has few friends. But this could get very ugly and millions of people could die as a result. North Korea is China's reluctant ally. North Korea is China's problem. But I wouldn't rule out a Western preemptive attack. A Western attack would be brief, swift, and militarily devastating for North Korea. But I think it more likely China will militarily intervene in North Korea. China doesn't like this crap either. I wouldn't rule out a coordinated China-Western attack. North Korea's nuclear actions benefit no one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016

Share This Page