2016 US Presidential Election - Trump vs Clinton? - Part 1

Who will win the election??


  • Total voters
    181

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Considering Donald Trump is a Putin fanboy, I would suggest it isn't the Democrats that are obstacles to world peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/opinion/donald-trumps-putin-crush.html

Being meek and subservient to Russia and Putin is not the solution.

So you're not concerned about the Democrats potentially engaging in conflict with Russia? You think war with Russia would be a much more peaceful outcome than Trump cooperating with Russia.

We heard fear mongering from Hillary supporters about how Trump was gonna nuke people. Now we've got the Dems suggesting options in Syria that would require conflict with a nuclear power. For some reason there isn't the same level of concern over Hillary as there is with Trump despite having genuine reason to fear it with her.

And FWIW I don't think we'll be seeing nuclear war anytime soon.
 
Why would either the US or Russia start a nuclear war over Syria?

Why would Trump start a nuclear war over, reasons unspecified? There has been a lot of fear mongering over Trump having access to nuclear codes. These fears are even more baseless than fears that hillary is gonna nuke someone.
 
So you're not concerned about the Democrats potentially engaging in conflict with Russia? You think war with Russia would be a much more peaceful outcome than Trump cooperating with Russia.

We heard fear mongering from Hillary supporters about how Trump was gonna nuke people. Now we've got the Dems suggesting options in Syria that would require conflict with a nuclear power. For some reason there isn't the same level of concern over Hillary as there is with Trump despite having genuine reason to fear it with her.

And FWIW I don't think we'll be seeing nuclear war anytime soon.

If you keep bending over to Russia and China you won't get world peace, you're just letting authoritarian and imperialistic governments run roughshod over everyone. I am definitely a dove but I am fully in support of things like running exercises in the South China Sea and controlling Russian influence in Syria to show that the West at least won't be meek.

There already is diplomacy between Russia and the US, and China and the US , but I'm not naive to think that letting Russia and China have their way without opposition is a good thing.

Clinton was Secretary of State with years in diplomacy and international relations. That would probably explain the difference.
 
He would be the richest person ever to hold the office, but spent the least to gain office in modern times. And the first in modern times not to be beholden to special interest groups, that's what makes him dangerous but the real danger is to the establishment. His main obligation will be to the people, they will be the ones who put him there.There will be a bond between him and the people not seen for a long time.
Be honest.

Did you get half a mongrel when typing that rubbish?
 
Why would either the US or Russia start a nuclear war over Syria?
They wouldn't, but they would escalate their involvement in Syria and Ukraine to the point of direct conflict.

The same question could be asked about why Britain and Germany would go to war over the Balkans. But they did.
 
If you keep bending over to Russia and China you won't get world peace, you're just letting authoritarian and imperialistic governments run roughshod over everyone. I am definitely a dove but I am fully in support of things like running exercises in the South China Sea and controlling Russian influence in Syria to show that the West at least won't be meek.

There already is diplomacy between Russia and the US, and China and the US , but I'm not naive to think that letting Russia and China have their way without opposition is a good thing.

Clinton was Secretary of State with years in diplomacy and international relations. That would probably explain the difference.

I think the point is more that the U.S have no business in being in Syria in the first place.....And that Hilary's policies of enabling that conflict, has escalated things to a point where Russian intervention was inevitable.

Other than that, neither side of U.S politics really makes a damn of difference anyways; so far as foreign policy & Pax Americana annexation & destruction goes. As we saw with Bush.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I think the point is more that the U.S have no business in being in Syria in the first place.....And that Hilary's policies of enabling that conflict, has escalated things to a point where Russian intervention was inevitable.

Other than that, neither side of U.S politics really makes a damn of difference anyways; so far as foreign policy & Pax Americana annexation & destruction goes. As we saw with Bush.

I actually support military intervention in Syria. I also understand it's a proxy war of sorts and a powerplay between the US and its allies, Turkey and Russia. It will continue to happen so long as Russia is heading down the path of becoming a superpower again.

Fair point re: second paragraph.
 
I think the point is more that the U.S have no business in being in Syria in the first place.....And that Hilary's policies of enabling that conflict, has escalated things to a point where Russian intervention was inevitable.

Other than that, neither side of U.S politics really makes a damn of difference anyways; so far as foreign policy & Pax Americana annexation & destruction goes. As we saw with Bush.

Sometimes you've just got to let genocide play out.
 
Sometimes you've just got to let genocide play out.

Ah yes, the Arab Spring....A CIA sponsored set-up, if ever there was one.

Now look at Syria....Worst still, the entire Middle East....Playground for U.S Murder, Chaos & mayhem.

Some people still buy snake-oil I see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top