The candidates were asked last night in the debate if they would follow the advice of “the generals” who say we need 30,000 more troops on the ground in Iraq to fight Da-esh. When asked if he would follow their advice, Trump said “We have no choice”.
Peace candidate, my ass!
What would Clinton do differently? What would Clinton say if she were running for the Republican nomination? I shudder to think.
Just like Obama who ran as the Peace candidate.
Well, she probably wouldn’t repeatedly call for the commission of war crimes. So there’s that.
Trumps entire strategy is based around, never showing weakness, never backing down, attacking and bullying those who stand against you, using whatever leverage you can get to force your opponents into submission. Of the 11 “arts of the deal” two are “using leverage” and “fighting back”.
[QUOTE=Trump]
When somebody challenges you, fight back. Be brutal, be tough.
[/QUOTE]
As POTUS, his leverage would include the might of the US armed forces. You really think that he isn’t going to make use of it? I don’t see that any conflict that Clinton might get involved it, that Trump would back down from. But I do see conflicts that Trump might generate or escalate with his belligerence that Clinton would avoid entirely.
and relative to what McCain has advocated and what Bush did in actuality, he was.
It does not help to think that Trump is a better choice when you ignore that Trump already showed how protectionist and a lover of trade wars he is.
You tell us. And use quotes from her, not something you make up.
She’s not running for the Republican nomination, so that’s a nonsensical question.
OP, why did you end the thread title with a question mark when you have unequivocally rejected any suggestion he’s not the peace candidate, even after direct quotes from Trump expressing his desire and willingness to use violence as a matter of government policy?
Cruz, Kasish and Trump appear to support sending in ground troops to attack ISIS. Clinton and Sanders oppose that, and I agree: US ground troops are a bad idea. Furthermore, it’s pretty easy for me to imagine Trump and Cruz using a war to gin up their popularity. In fact, it’s difficult for me to imagine otherwise.
Kasich: It will be quick and easy!
[INDENT]“You have to be in the air and you have to be on the ground. And you bring all the force you need. It has got to be “shock and awe” in the military-speak. Then once it gets done, and we will wipe them out, once it gets done, it settles down, we come home and let the regional powers redraw the map if that’s what it takes.”[/INDENT]
Cruz: We need to do whatever it takes, including ground power:
[INDENT] We need to do whatever is necessary to utterly defeat ISIS…We’re not using our overwhelming air power. We’re not arming the Kurds. Those need to be the first steps. And then we need to put whatever ground power is needed to carry it out.[/INDENT]
Trump: Listen to the generals. Send in the troops, knock them out, then bring them home. (How many generals would seriously think this would be a quick operation?)
[INDENT] We really have no choice…I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast. And we have to get back home. And we have to rebuild our country which is falling apart.
[/INDENT]
Listen, I’m not happy with how militaristic Clinton is. I’d much rather have had Sanders, and she may well get us into full-scale war in Syria. But Trump is likely to get us into full-scale war in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Georgia, Ukraine, Korea, Mexico, and Canada. Maybe neither one of them is a “Peace Candidate”, but Clinton is a Hell of a lot closer to that than Trump is.
Trump never publicly opposed the Iraq war, so that whole premise in the opening post is plain wrong. We at the least can’t prove he opposed it, and in reality he is lying about publicly opposing it prior to the war. He didn’t say anything publicly about the war until it had been going on for more than a year, so yes hindsight is 20/20.
Marketing kissing up to Putin as being peaceful is laughable. Trump has expressed admiration for Putin’s hard-handed tactics like killing journalists, and also Trump is the only person probably in the world (probably apart from Chinese leadership at the time) that seems to have sided with the tanks in Tiananmen Square.
Trump also makes plenty of comments indicating that, even if we believe he is pro-peace in other parts of the world, he is very much an authoritarian that has no qualms about putting down dissent with violence. That’s not peaceful.
I’m not claiming Clinton is peaceful, but neither is Trump.
Breaking: Chicago Trump rally postponed after clashes erupt on the arena floor:
Yeah, ‘Peace Candidate’, you bet.
A peace candidate who encourages his supporters to “knock the crap out of” protesters, and promises to pay their legal fees…? Yeah, right.
You know Mr. Trump, at least Barry Goldwater discouraged his followers when they wanted to show the worst angels of their nature.
After you resorted to toss gasoline into the fire with birtherism, claiming that 81 percent of whites are killed by black assailants, lying about what your supporters actually did to black protesters in your rallies, joining racial profilers like Joe Arpaio to the hip, etc. You have no shame; and it will be a pleasure to vote against you in November.
I’m guessing this speech is what nets him his Nobel Peace Prize.
She would simply support rebels that commit racial cleansing as she did in Libya. What does international law say about coups, by the way?
Yes he has used metaphorical language when giving advice in how to act in the business world. The difference is between Trump, who has had to act without using physical violence while in the private sector, and Clinton, whose entire life has been using physical violence by wielding the instrument of state.
One conflict that Trump has already hinted he would deescalate is the one with Russia, and Putin in particular. This is a big one. THE big one, if you will.
You use words like belligerence and bully when talking about Trump. Most business people and employees of Trump who have spoken out actually consider him to be of a gentle demeanor. There is every reason to believe the crude showman is a character.
Contrasted again with the person of Clinton, who has among her credentials, the mass incarceration of American Blacks and the destruction of families.
And relative to Clinton and the Republicans, Trump is.
I don’t ignore it. It is an important point to consider.
Clinton calls for a no-fly zone. General Dempsey has stated it would take 70,000 servicemen to pull that off. “No-Fly Zone” is the dog whistle for the neocons. It sounds harmless enough until you actually dig past the New York Times type analysis.
In other words you are afraid to answer. Clinton is pulling from the same advisers as Marco Rubio, the biggest warmonger in the race. You want to pretend politics isn’t playing a part in the rhetoric being used.
I reject that he is more willing to use violence than Clinton. The question mark was obviously because he is not your typical peace candidate.
Again, Clinton’s position of imposing a No-Fly Zone, besides the problem it would cause with Russia, would require 70,000 servicemen.
Trump has shown he is not interested in these far-flung adventures, instead he always plays up building at home. Clinton has shown she is interested in these ideological crusades. I don’t know where you’re pulling this stuff from.
When did Clinton realize it was a bad move? Real question.
Cite please. He said that nobody’s proven Putin killed journalists, thats all I can find on that.
Google “Waco” if you think Clinton is any different.
I agree. The question is whether the American system would be strong enough to keep that sort of thing from happening.
Takes two people to fight.
Obama once joked about treating his daughters’ hypothetical boyfriends as if they were on his kill list. Ha ha. He has killed many innocent children, not something to joke about really. He was considered the peace candidate.
Yes he’s mean to minorities rhetorically. I just prefer someone mean to someone who will slaughter thousands. Just me though.
Are people not allowed to defend themselves? I don’t support Trump protesters who initiate violence but “swinging back” is hardly the wrong thing to do.
Besides an attempt at gallows humor, it is a very tone deaf one.
BTW what Arapio is doing is not rhetorical, the courts have already found that the police department was doing racial profiling and Arapio is in the courts again because he attempted to get around the remedies the court ordered. Investigating the wife of the current judge in his case in an attempt at intimidation does not help too. But Trump loves what he sees there.
**That is because while those legal issues were taking place in the open Trump decided that Arapio was a nice guy to join and get his support from. **
I have seen enough to conclude that Arapio is looking to get relief from the federal watchful eyes if Trump become president, and to continue to put those ‘black and brown people’ in place.
One has to add that people like Arpaio would be employed in Trump’s Operation Wetback II, last time it took place people did indeed die.
I hope the black and brown folks suffering under Arpaio are not resting contently because they believe the “federal watchful eyes” are being Jesus for them. They have the ability to escape Arpaio’s reach relatively easily by moving from Arizona. On the other hand, these “super predators” would find it much harder to escape the regime of mass incarceration Clinton helped to bring to the entire country.
Why, thank you for giving me evidence of the kind of supporter Trump and Arapio has, I need convince a few more of my relatives in Arizona about who they should not give any support in the next elections.
By the way I live here and the reason why Arpaio is in legal trouble is that in his stops and roundups of illegals he also did go over several legal residents rights.
So yeah, I live here and I’m not leaving, and even less when nonsensical and prejudiced opinions are given as advice for people like me to leave. I guess it is hard to do the right thing or it is that people like you do not want to be voted out of the island by the kind of people you are close by, because you will have to convince by telling them that they should respect the rights of others.
Again, you only exude ignorance, I was not talking about criminals, but it is clear that you can not go over the bullshit Trump and others are offering you. The reason why Arpaio is in trouble is because he abused the rights of legal Hispanics and even citizens. We can expect even more once Operation Wetback II comes on line.
As I said, Trump saw what was going on in Arizona and he loved the abuses of Arpaio.
I don’t support Trump or Arpaio. I just call them how I see them. Clinton has damaged more brown and black people than Arpaio could in his wildest dreams.
Ok. I do not support him.
Prejudiced opinions? Yes I am severely prejudiced against the state, especially the larger more powerful ones.
There are always going to be local bullies. Thankfully in a capitalist society it is easier to escape them, because somehow it doesn’t make me feel safer knowing that the federal government is protecting the little guy. This will be doubly true if Clinton is the president.
You miss the point entirely. Clinton labelled black youths as “super predators”. Her solution was mass incarceration. Again, you may be more threatened by some hick in Podunk Arizona, but there are many more people than you and your family who are terrorized by Clinton’s policies in major cities across America.
Clinton saw that she could terrorize an entire race throughout the whole country and still be financially rewarded. You are unwilling to admit that mass incarceration is a problem. Probably because you live in lilly-white Arizona. The citizens of Baltimore, Ferguson, and Chicago could probably teach you something you are unwilling to learn from me.