It is to laff. :rolleyes:
You can laugh uncomfortably and look out the corner of your eyes waiting for others to join you all day long. Me, I will get my popcorn out for these debates, because Trump is going to bury Clinton with this stuff.
Trump will not debate Clinton. He will find an excuse, something along the lines of unfair and biased media, best guess. But he won’t do it.
Just like Khrushchev buried the USA. :rolleyes:
Bet?
Why would he be afraid to debate Clinton? She’s a terrible debater with 1000 things hammer on. In any case, it’s a chance for him to be on TV. Now it’s entirely possible that Clinton refuses to debate, but that would null the bet.
He’ll debate (well, he’ll physically be there, anyway), but he’ll avoid actual issues like the plague and continually try to derail it via personal attacks.
Yeah, Trump really won over Code Pink when he said that Russian airplanes buzzing US ships should be shot down.
I expect The Donald to hit the road with Wavy Gravy any day now.
Trump CLAIMS he was against the Iraq War all along, but he’s lying. Or, if he ever opposed it, he kept that to himself.
Don’t you remember all those college students taking to the streets in 2002, chanting things like “I wish things were done correctly the first time! Either you attack or don’t attack!”
Personally, I’ll never forget Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy taking to the floor of the Senate to hector Bush, saying things like, “Looks like a tremendous success from a military viewpoint, and the French never liked us except when we were bailing them out.” Take THAT, Shrub!
True. But if he hits her like he did on that clip she’ll be down for the count, and it will be great.
Nice try. Hillary has adopted the hardcore neoconservative position of supporting a no-fly zone in Syria. Code words for “Yes we want to shoot Russians down and act like we were in a defensive posture”.
i don’t care. He came out against it well before she did and she only did it to run for president in 2008. In any case, he has made more courageous anti war statements than any of the other candidates combined.
Wow somebody is on his heels. The anti war liberals won’t ever vote for Trump, but if he keeps hammering like this, it will depress her turnout with independants.
For those that did not watch the Trump clip. He calls Clinton “trigger happy”. Besides mentioning the Americans lost with her help, he also mentions the “probably millions…folks” of non-Americans lost because Clinton and those like her were mistaken.
So what? He’s just looking for another handle that will be catchy enough to gain him some votes. People learned long ago that Trump’s blather isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and he continually proves the point. Not everyone is as gullible as the Republican base. Not even close.
Have we found an actual, real, live Trump supporter? Or a Bernie supporter who will chuckle gleefully while Rome burns?
The democratic base is just as gullible, this message board and Diane Rehm is proof of that.
You miss the point anyway. It doesn’t even matter what Trump is really about. It matters that he can say these things and be a major party nominee.
Favorability polls seem to contradict your assertion.
But let me help you with that: “major Republican party nominee.”
Clinton represents the continuation of the same mistaken US foreign policy thats destabilized the middle east and allowed ISIS to form from the power vacuum.
Trump at least wants to make fresh new mistakes. I’m guessing that from what he has said he would leave Assad in power and cooperate directly with Russia to take out ISIS. He has also said he wants to disengage from the Saudi’s who are not a real ally and in general stop meddling so much in the middle east. This would be “peace” in that it would mean that after ISIS was stomped by US and Russia there would be less US soldiers fighting overseas.
However the US disengaging from the middle east would almost certainly see Iraq breaking up and the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional domination would flare up in open warfare. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia would buy nukes from Pakistan if they were seriously threatened by Iran. Iran would restart it’s own nuclear weapons program. There would be a decade or so of warfare in the middle east as countries ally with either Saudia Arabia or Iran. Some might say “good” let them go at each other, you might have a point, but this is hardly “peace”.
Waitaminnit…which is it? She’s too much of a hawk or not enough?
You’re guessing based on policy targets that move with a shift of the wind? Yeah, good luck with that.
Two other points: Whatever policy Trump wants, Congress has to ratify. Also, like it or not, no one is going to wipe out Islamic extremism. We already have the template. Best case (for the US), we wipe out Islamic State, and another organization takes its place, just as it did with Al Qaeda. Or more than one. You’re not going to erase poverty or fundamentalism, the combination of which leads to recruitment of idealistic young jihadis.
Both. If you’re going to go in and take out a dictator you better have a plan to stick around and do some nation building for a couple of decades or so, otherwise leave them alone.
There is little doubt that US disengagement in the middle east would cause more wars in the short term, but in the long term it might be the best. But it’s a hard fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other and only one of them can be the regionally dominant power. That hatred has endured for over a thousand years, it’s not “shifting with the wind”.
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, I guess. Which is very much Hillary.
Trump’s policy targets, not Saudi Arabia or Iran.
The very, very least.