Which state of affairs do you think is better for the country?
A. Non-racists voting for a racist politician
B. Racists voting for a non-racist politician
Your pretty fucking dumb if you think racist politicians only want th vote of racists, and non-racist politicians only want the votes of non-racists.
You still have them? I was sure that they all guns had been confiscated long ago. The NRA promised that they would be if Obama was elected, and he was elected twice. So presumably all the guns are gone now. What is there left for Clinton to do?
Please tell me this isn’t a euphemism for Monica Lewinski’s actions.
They’re just simple farmers. They’re people of the land. The common clay of the new west. You know…
This thread is hysterical. Tired ol’ Hillary attacked “the VOTERS”. Brilliant move on her part. :rolleyes: “They” can attack their fellow candidates, but attack the voters at your own peril.
Tired ol’ Hillary claims that she’s going to fight for every vote but she wants the voters to know that she believes that half of them are irredeemable.
*irredeemable
adjective
While that definition certainly describes the yellow dog Democrats who comprise the Democrat collective, it’s not going to help her with the independents. And nobody wins the Presidency without the independents.
Gary Johnson’s chances are looking better and better.
Yeah, he’s doubled, from 0.1 to 0.2!
Why do you want Trump to win?
Because Hillary is old and tired!
Gary “And what is Aleppo?” Johnson? That guy? I don’t think he has a shot in hell of being elected.
Let’s just remember that doorhinge thinks that loading a shotgun in a crowded Walmart with live shells and racking it isn’t dangerous and unsafe behavior, it’s simply “a good way to try it [the shotgun] out.”
There are many many things this guy has no business being near. Guns. Voting booths. Keyboards. Any kind of machinery. More than one inch of water in a bathtub while not being supervised by a guardian.
I know you are stretching to find good things about Trump, but this isn’t one of them. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.
Nor this, maybe, since he was for abortion rights before he was against them.
Over at Vox, Matt Yglassias goes over Clinton’s foreign policy. Honestly it’s not that different from Obama’s: they both support the arms control deal with Iran for example. Hillary Clinton’s neoconservative fan club, explained | Vox
Trump is a foreign policy disaster in the making. He is soft on NATO. He basically wants to turn the US military into a protection racket. He kept asking his military briefers why they never use A-bombs. Very hawkish in practice. Hillary Clinton rolled out the anti-Trump argument that could deliver a landslide | Vox
Fred Kaplan, national security expert: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/08/a_trump_win_would_lead_to_a_nuclear_arms_race_and_a_collapse_of_sanctions.htm
[INDENT][INDENT] Donald Trump, on the other hand, grasps none of these things—not the history, not the concepts, not the tools or limits or creative possibilities of power. He is not so much an isolationist as a unilateralist. It’s easy to envision him barging into a foreign war, driven as much by avenging some personal slight as pursuing a national interest—and, in the process, waving off help from others, believing that he can win alone (or that he alone can win) with the right combination of firepower and rhetoric.
Trump is likely to wreck the few remnants of the post–World War II order that sustain America’s influence.
Even if he didn’t start a war, or escalate one with no notion of how to end it, he is likely—judging from what he says—to wreck the few remnants of the post–World War II order that sustain America’s influence and its broad network of (mostly) democratic allies. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
Frankly, foreign policy is a good reason to deliver the strongest vote against Trump possible.
This is the one that made me cackle.
A ten-headed dragon and a Whore of Babylon would fit in nicely.
Comparing Clinton to Obama based on what she says tells us nothing, since what she says is for the purposes of running for President. Matt Yglesias knows better than that.
Clinton’s record tells us a lot more about the kind of foreign policy she’ll have, and it coincides with Obama’s first term foreign policy more than his second term. More interventionist, less likely to sign onto deals for the sake of getting any deal.
So tell us about Your Guy’s foreign policy! (You keep claiming you aren’t voting for Trump, but he’s Your Party’s candidate.)
I have no idea what his foreign policy is. Clinton’s always been grade A on foreign policy for me, and I look forward to Congress making her a solely foreign policy President.
You *want *a return to the Republican policies that caused the collapse we’re still digging out of? Whatever for?
Neither does he.
Hey Hector, foreign policy matters, right? What are your thoughts on Trump wanting to respond to taunts with a literal act of war? How does that fit into the picture, exactly?
[Kim Jong-Il] Nobody does! [/kji]