Trump opens up on his foreign policy positions

[MadDog2020]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

I'd rather have some who would have my back. Not like what HRC did to the Americans in Benghazi.

[boomerangutang]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/03/14/military-times-election-survey-donald-trump-bernie-sanders/81767560/

Somebody asked for a reliable link ,about the US Military favoring Trump .Here it is .

Interesting poll, even though it's less than 1,000 military people.

Sanders, was a few % points behind Trump in the poll, but Sanders scored better than Trump among Air Force and Navy respondents.

Plus, the survey didn't ask who would be best at national defense. Instead it asked who was the respondents' favorite candidate. Military voters are much like other voters in the general public. On the one hand, they cover a wide swath of political preferences. On the other hand they may have personal priorities which rank higher than military preparedness. Such issues as job security, economics, legality of pot, immigration, foreign affairs etc are also important to various degrees, in their individual perspectives. Military personnel can also be hoodwinked by a silver-tongued NY real estate salesman as readily as the general public.

[Lorn]

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

Mmmm... you like Hillary, I can tell.

Clinton, hawkish? Trump was against Bush and the Iraq war and said Saddam was bad but killed terrorists, so you probably both agreed with each other at the time, correct?

However....Hillary voted to support GWB's war

Hillary voted to overthrow Gaddafi and just like Iraq, hasn't Libya gone well? She wants to overthrow Assad so Syria will follow suit and be worse than it presently is.

"Cool headed" you say? Cool alright

"Ms. Clinton has supported every war initiated by the United States not in self-defense for more than twenty three years since she first occupied the

White House as First Lady: Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, ISIS, Al- Qaeda, Yemen, Somalia" *

If she is President she has promised to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel

You speak about what Trump said he will do. At this point in time it's just pre election talk, whereas with Hillary so far it is REAL

* You can read more on the Goddess of War http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/-hillary-clintons-appalli_b_9157892.html

Trump is on record as being unsure whether he would support Bush Jr's and Cheney's Iraq II war. He wasn't in a position of power to vote on it (as Hillary was), and he only decided he was against it belatedly (Monday morning QB), when it was clear there was no WMD to be found. Hillary based her decision on Bush/Cheney/Powell insisting there were heaps of WMD, chemical weapons and N weapons there. Actually, the Iraq war turned out to be not all bad. Saddam was a tyrant and his 2 sons were worse. All 3 were mass murderers and at least one of them raped little girls habitually (one of the sons had an arrangement with Baghdad school principles to provide him with pre-menstral girls whenever he wanted, which was roughly every day). That may not be enough reason, in itself, to attack a country, but it comes pretty close.

Linzz writes; "You speak about what Trump said he will do. At this point in time it's just pre election talk, whereas with Hillary so far it is REAL"

You made a good point. Trump tells lies and says what rednecks want to hear. He's the premier salesman. In contrast, Hillary is more honest; what you see is what you get. With Trump you get a jack-in-the-box - every time he pops out of the box, he's got a different message.

Hillary couldn't be less honest and less real if she tried.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Lorn

[Linzz]

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

This is an under-reported issue. I can almost guarantee you that the foreign policy hawks known as the "neoconservatives" will never support Trump. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they issue a like warm endorsement of Secretary Clinton should a third party candidate not emerge.

It's already up and running and not because they are embarrassed about Trump. He's an unknown entity and an anti politician and he just might trim their cushy and lucrative positions of power. They would rather have Hillary than Trump or Sanders because neither are bought by special interest groups and banks so are not controlled and could shake up Washington and it's oligarchs and plutocrats. It's all about power and the money. If Trump gets too close to the levers of power, they'll probably have him shot and then blame some Mexican or Muslim whom they've hired, then shoot him to shut him up. It's even happened before in 1963

Another favorite tactic of wingnuts, conspiracy theories or in this case a potential conspiracy theory for an event that hasn't happened.

Well thank you Pinot for suggesting I'm a wingnut. Which wing left or right? 2 candidates could change the status quo, Sanders or Trump. You love to put people into your simplistic boxes

.'Fortunately, enough Americans have receive(d) at least a high school education and realize how absolutely insane that thinking is" Your attitude .is very condescending and it's obvious that you have no understanding or identification with the common or uneducated man, although you no doubt vote Democrat. Chardonnay socialist are you or make that Pinot ? I take it you consider yourself educated and that makes you superior to the electorate that supports Trump. They are mostly the unrepresented and nothing is going well for them and Trump in their eyes has the street cred that no career politician can give.

Conspiracy theory? Perhaps but still a possibility. The bankers and Google will be pouring in millions to Hillary's campaign because they want to be on the side of whoever owns the Whitehouse.

[up-country_sinclair]

A frightening article on Trump's foreign policy advisors:

Donald Trump's new lineup of little-known foreign policy advisers isn’t exactly assuaging concerns about the Manhattan real estate mogul's readiness to be commander in chief.

Republican insiders were scratching their heads Monday at names Trump offered as sources of regular advice on national security. Several of those Trump cited during a visit to the Washington Post's editorial board are complete unknowns; others have mixed reputations among GOP national security pros.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-foreign-policy-advisers-221058

This no longer amusing. Trump is a danger to the national security of the United States.

[lannarebirth]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

Clinton is far more hawkish, and what's worse is, she's not very good at it.

[uptheos]

>>If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? <<

Recent opinion polls suggest the military would prefer Trump.

But only if you didn't get shot down, imprisoned and tortured like John McCain, while Trump was busy draft dodging.

Be horrible for your beloved Muslims if Trump gets in.

[willyumiii]

Great man .I.M.O....May he live to become President.

>>Really embarrassing to be an American now,<<

em ,now ok ,but more so when Bush was President.

GW Bush is the biggest embarrassment to American to date.

But if elected, Trump has the potential and promise to surpass even GW.

Good luck America!

[StasD]

For me(Russia) it is does not matter who will be the next president in US. We have only 2 friends:our Army and our Navy. we are able to say anytime to the USA or someone else: get out

[helpisgood]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

Before you get too excited about HRC as Sec. of State, you may want to check on how she meddled in the the 2009 coup in Honduras. Let me guess: US foreign investment needed to be protected? Yeah, she's cool-headed, cold-hearted and well-connected.

[willyumiii]

The pentagon has already stated that much of what Trump says he will do is in violation of international law and that the military would be obligated to disobey any orders from a Commander and Chief who required them to violate international law.

Trump knows nothing about the U.S. government, how it functions, and what a President of the United States has the authority to do.

[boomerangutang]

Clinton is far more hawkish, and what's worse is, she's not very good at it.

We don't agree. Look at what Trump says he'll do overseas, compared to what HRC says, and it's plain Trump is the warmonger.

Personally, I'm not against war in every case. I acknowledge that military action is called for, sometimes. It then becomes a matter of who do a majority of Americans want at the helm? Looking back 8 and 4 years, Americans voted in solid majorities for Obama. To his credit, he didn't start any wars, and he's worked diligently to extradite the US from at least 2 wars. Obama has kept a cool head re; Syria and the aftermath of pulling US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. None of those scenarios are clean cut and b&w as Trump and Cruz would have us believe. Trump and Cruz will automatically oppose whatever Obama recommends. Only later, will they think about what the situation merits. Both Trump and Cruz would be warmongers, but for slightly different reasons. Cruz is more predictable, and would go charging in with N-bombs and a Bible whenever he got the chance. Trump is a flip-flopper who is out of his depth on foreign affairs. Clinton may not be perfect, but at least she's got knowledge and experience to back up her decisions. Trump has neither, though he's great at being a threatening quick-to-anger easily-offended hot-head.

[gchurch259]

Bernie is a professional welfare slut and Hillary is. Criminal, she knows all the foreign heads because the Clinton Foundation as been sucking on them for years. I am only sorry I can only vote once, my Country USA is going to Hell in a hand basket of illegals and welfare bums !!

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

[boomerangutang]

When Clinton gets inaugurated in January 2017, perhaps she could do a nice gesture for the loser: and give him a portfolio to be "The Jobs Czar". Maybe Trump can help create some decent jobs for Americans. I doubt he could do much else. So, give him a concession prize and see whether he can back up his repeated boasts of "I will be the best jobs president the world has ever seen!" Oh, but see whether he can do it without Federal money or bank loans. That will be the big challenge. Spoiler alert: He wouldn't be able to do it without big influxes of outside money. That's how he's parlayed every one of his business ventures: With truckloads of other peoples' money.

If he was prez, he'd do the same: borrow, borrow, spend, borrow some more, avoid paying back, saying, "I'm too big to pay back, are you kidding me?"

[Pinot]

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkis

It's already up and running and not because they are embarrassed about Trump. He's an unknown entity and an anti politician and he just might trim their cushy and lucrative positions of power. They would rather have Hillary than Trump or Sanders because neither are bought by special interest groups and banks so are not controlled and could shake up Washington and it's oligarchs and plutocrats. It's all about power and the money. If Trump gets too close to the levers of power, they'll probably have him shot and then blame some Mexican or Muslim whom they've hired, then shoot him to shut him up. It's even happened before in 1963

Another favorite tactic of wingnuts, conspiracy theories or in this case a potential conspiracy theory for an event that hasn't happened.

Well thank you Pinot for suggesting I'm a wingnut. Which wing left or right? 2 candidates could change the status quo, Sanders or Trump. You love to put people into your simplistic boxes

.'Fortunately, enough Americans have receive(d) at least a high school education and realize how absolutely insane that thinking is" Your attitude .is very condescending and it's obvious that you have no understanding or identification with the common or uneducated man, although you no doubt vote Democrat. Chardonnay socialist are you or make that Pinot ? I take it you consider yourself educated and that makes you superior to the electorate that supports Trump. They are mostly the unrepresented and nothing is going well for them and Trump in their eyes has the street cred that no career politician can give.

Conspiracy theory? Perhaps but still a possibility. The bankers and Google will be pouring in millions to Hillary's campaign because they want to be on the side of whoever owns the Whitehouse.

Chardonnay socialist? Tch. Elitist? I do find it impossible to relate to the wingnut community...maybe a character flaw?

Bankers and Google, okay. Whatever.

America needs a guy with street cred? The guy is a corrupt Mussolini wannabe. He has no political skills or experience. President of the United States? Really? He's a world-wide embarrassment. A stain on America's heritage.

You sir, sound like a typical Trump supporter. Good luck in the upcoming Republican trainwreck that the November elections promise to be.

It is very condescending, isn't it?

[Norvid 1950]

With this statement "My daughter Ivanka is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby," he hope to reverse Jewish policy against him. Well, not the first one and not the last one under Jewish spell.

[boomerangutang]

Is there anyone still out there who doubts Trump is a flip-flopper? Try this on for size. . . . .

[lannarebirth]

Clinton is far more hawkish, and what's worse is, she's not very good at it.

We don't agree. Look at what Trump says he'll do overseas, compared to what HRC says, and it's plain Trump is the warmonger.

Personally, I'm not against war in every case. I acknowledge that military action is called for, sometimes. It then becomes a matter of who do a majority of Americans want at the helm? Looking back 8 and 4 years, Americans voted in solid majorities for Obama. To his credit, he didn't start any wars, and he's worked diligently to extradite the US from at least 2 wars. Obama has kept a cool head re; Syria and the aftermath of pulling US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. None of those scenarios are clean cut and b&w as Trump and Cruz would have us believe. Trump and Cruz will automatically oppose whatever Obama recommends. Only later, will they think about what the situation merits. Both Trump and Cruz would be warmongers, but for slightly different reasons. Cruz is more predictable, and would go charging in with N-bombs and a Bible whenever he got the chance. Trump is a flip-flopper who is out of his depth on foreign affairs. Clinton may not be perfect, but at least she's got knowledge and experience to back up her decisions. Trump has neither, though he's great at being a threatening quick-to-anger easily-offended hot-head.

You can choose to look at what people say if you like, but I would suggest it is far more instructive to look at what they have actually done.

[Trouble]

If anyone listened to the speeches you would have heard Hillary and Ted sucking up to the pro-jewish lobby in such a way as to be almost sickening. They were literally groveling at the members feet to get support/votes. No way could either of them deliver on what they spoke about. It was so far out of the ball park in being realistic that you wondered if either of these two actually live in the real world. It was absolutely pathetic and only shows what these politicians will do for votes.

[Jingthing]

With this statement "My daughter Ivanka is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby," he hope to reverse Jewish policy against him. Well, not the first one and not the last one under Jewish spell.

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weber

Mark Edward Weber (born October 9, 1951) is the director of the Institute for Historical Review,^[1] an American Holocaust denial^[2] organization based in Newport Beach, California.

Sickening hateful source you used.

The USA and Israel are close allies.

Most Americans support that. Like it or not.

Of course obsessive Israel demonizers and/or Jew haters don't.

The vast majority of American Jews will vote DEMOCRATIC, as usual.

Twice that way for Obama, who is very much disliked by most Israelis.

BTW, reports I am reading is that the majority of Israelis don't like Trump, he is seen as dangerous, unpredictable, a BS hurling CON MAN, and VERY FAKE.

Of course like everywhere, he is seen as entertaining,

It seems this time American Jews and Israelis will be on the same page with majority support for Hillary Clinton.

Of course it's always totally predictable that any topic about Israel or Jews brings out the most vile sorts of Jew hating rhetoric. Jew hating, the social mental disease that never goes away,

Edited March 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

If anyone listened to the speeches you would have heard Hillary and Ted sucking up to the pro-jewish lobby in such a way as to be almost sickening. They were literally groveling at the members feet to get support/votes. No way could either of them deliver on what they spoke about. It was so far out of the ball park in being realistic that you wondered if either of these two actually live in the real world. It was absolutely pathetic and only shows what these politicians will do for votes.

I thought Hillary Clinton's speech was excellent.

This is a better picture of how HRC will be as president than her campaigning. This is a substantive speech, not a campaign rally stump speech. She's isn't so great at those but she's good enough to win.

She is positioning herself very well. To the right of Obama on the USA-Israel relationship but not extremist like Cruz. Cruz of course is about the Christian fundamentalist base which is of course much more right wing than American Jews. It's a funny kind of support considering what many of them believe about the fate of the Jews in their religious dogma.

Of course Hillary Clinton is a seasoned professional politician. Donald Trump is Donald Trump. Bottom line, I don't think the majority of American voters are that stupid to go for that bombastic psychopathic con man. Maybe 49 percent though.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Following is an example of Trump's foreign policy thoughts from three months ago.

Any comments from you Hillary/Bernie drones?

The least you can do is attack the source. Don't disappoint me, now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Trump Finds New City to Insult: Brussels

By DAN BILEFSKY and CLAIRE BARTHELEMY

JAN. 27, 2016

LONDON — He incensed Paris and London by saying that some of their neighborhoods were so overrun with radicals that the police were too scared to enter.

He raised Scottish tempers by threatening to pull the plug on his investments there, including his luxury golf courses, if British politicians barred him from entering Britain.

Now Donald J. Trump has upset the already beleaguered people of Belgium, calling its capital, Brussels, “a hellhole.”

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/world/europe/trump-finds-new-city-to-insult-brussels.html?_r=1

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In the interview, Trump goes on to respond to a question with...

"There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Shariah law, where they want this, where they want things that — you know, there has to be some assimilation. There is no assimilation. There is something bad going on.”

It appears he got this one right.

[anto]

>>When Clinton gets inaugurated in January 2017,<<

If there is any just law left in the USA, she will be in Prison by then ,but of course they favor locking up Black people for years for far lesser crimes than Clinton and her Hubby have ever done .

[Jingthing]

>>When Clinton gets inaugurated in January 2017,<<

If there is any just law left in the USA, she will be in Prison by then ,but of course they favor locking up Black people for years for far lesser crimes than Clinton and her Hubby have ever done .

That's a nice fantasy for those who hate Clinton. Best of luck.

[anto]

>>When Clinton gets inaugurated in January 2017,<<

If there is any just law left in the USA, she will be in Prison by then ,but of course they favor locking up Black people for years for far lesser crimes than Clinton and her Hubby have ever done .

That's a nice fantasy for those who hate Clinton. Best of luck.

I just said it would not happen .What a &lt;deleted&gt; up World we live in .

[Neurath]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

Good point. I should have said Clinton is sometimes more hawkish than Trump and it depends on what day and what Donald Trump turns up. Contender Trump is a confusing kaleidoscope of policy positions. Not about the Wall though. The Wall is a constant. With regard to the Wall, have any of our more conspiracy minded members considered that this wall might not be at to keep Mexicans out but to keep Americans in?? Yeah, that's right, Trump and Honecker, Honeker and Trump. Notice all the eminent domain confiscations that will be needed for The Wall? Well, there's form right there for Trump. He knows a thing or two about eminent domain. Truly, I'm surprised that my colleagues who were able to nut out the evil machinations of the Federal Government and FEEMA in Texas can't see this Wall for what it is. An attempt to lock us all in.

[Neurath]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/03/14/military-times-election-survey-donald-trump-bernie-sanders/81767560/

Somebody asked for a reliable link ,about the US Military favoring Trump .Here it is .

More accurately, what this shows is that SUBSCRIBERS of the Military Times favor Trump. They surveyed their Subscribers?! Hardly the same thing as "The Military". For example, if there was a Magazine for Gay Military Folk "Gay Military Times" (I hope there is) and it polled its subscribers I doubt you would take that as saying that "Military Favor Clinton" or whatever now would you? So squire, your post betrays either ignorance or willful misdirection. Perhaps both, but certainly not neither.

[boomerangutang]

For those saying Trump is not a hot-headed war monger, let me insert one of his recent quotes......

"I'd bomb the shit out of ISIS"

It shows how out to lunch his thinking is. For starters, you don't win wars by bombing the shit out of your enemy, particularly when he's hiding among women and children. Secondly, nothing would be better for ISIS recruitment than having an ignorant hot-head dropping bombs on villages in dune regions.

If Trump had an ant infestation in his back yard or in his house, he would probably call out the entire neighborhood to watch as he tossed lit firecrackers at their nests, all the while shouting what a big dick he has.

[helpisgood]

If anyone listened to the speeches you would have heard Hillary and Ted sucking up to the pro-jewish lobby in such a way as to be almost sickening. They were literally groveling at the members feet to get support/votes. No way could either of them deliver on what they spoke about. It was so far out of the ball park in being realistic that you wondered if either of these two actually live in the real world. It was absolutely pathetic and only shows what these politicians will do for votes.

I thought Hillary Clinton's speech was excellent.

This is a better picture of how HRC will be as president than her campaigning. This is a substantive speech, not a campaign rally stump speech. She's isn't so great at those but she's good enough to win.

She is positioning herself very well. To the right of Obama on the USA-Israel relationship but not extremist like Cruz. Cruz of course is about the Christian fundamentalist base which is of course much more right wing than American Jews. It's a funny kind of support considering what many of them believe about the fate of the Jews in their religious dogma.

Of course Hillary Clinton is a seasoned professional politician. Donald Trump is Donald Trump. Bottom line, I don't think the majority of American voters are that stupid to go for that bombastic psychopathic con man. Maybe 49 percent though.

Instead of "positioning herself very well" (i.e., saying anything to get elected), how about being a leader and standing up for good principles. How about what's good for the American people and the lives of the peoples her foreign policy would affect? Are you Machiavellian?

Did she position herself well when she helped out in that coup in Honduras? Well, yes, if you are one of the American companies operating in Honduras and not happy about the raising of wages by Honduras' then president. Not exactly how to export democracy by meddling in another people's country like that. And, that country has suffered thereafter from her actions.

Why watch the speech? That's a waste of time. She just says what her listeners want to hear wherever she may be. Oh, is she for or against the trade bill now? Check the polls to find out.

All she cares about is money, power and her connections to big money. If you support her and you're not wealthy or connected to her political machine, then you are a chump. If it comes down to helping you or her connections, guess who wins?

[anto]

>>All she cares about is money, power and her connections to big money. <<

She likes women too .I mean she really ,really really likes young good looking women .