44 thoughts on “Hillary On Trump”

  1. I don’t see anything scarier in his positions than in hers. The “reset” with Russia, Benghazi, the email imbroglio… No. Going with Hillary is not the sane thing to do if one is worried about Trump being a foreign policy disaster. If one truly believed it, running around in circles and screaming “we’re all doomed!” would be a more rational approach.

  2. I have major concerns regarding Trump on foreign policy. He is, clearly, a guy who might start a needless war.

    He’s running against a woman who’s actually started two (She voted for Iraq, was the ringleader on Libya, and for good measure played a central role in destabilizing both Egypt and Syria, thereby creating ISIS) .

    I’ll go with “might” over “Proven track record of” any day.

    1. Arizona CJ, I’m curious, I’m not being snarky: Given what you knew in 2002, if you were a Senator, would you have voted against the Iraq war?

      1. (I would have voted for it – I was frustrated with Bill Clinton for not removing Saddam from power in the 1990s.)

      2. Excellent question, Bob.

        Given what *I* knew (or thought I knew) in 2002, I’d have voted for the Iraq war. Mainly, because I wrongly believed what was being said regarding the WMD issues (basically, that ignoring all other reasons and focusing only on WMDs as the reason for war meant they had a slam dunk case – a rather stupid assumption on my part), and also because I was unaware of the plan to do nation-building in postwar Iraq (I knew Bush had been against nation-building, and wrongly assumed that still was true).

        However, had I been a senator, I’d have had access to better info, plus the ability to ask questions. So, based upon what a senator could reasonably be expected to have known or found out, I’d guess I’d have voted against, but I have to admit it’s far from a sure thing.

        There are other senators who voted for that war whom I don’t condemn for it. The reason I condemn Clinton for it is her later track record, including in starting unneeded, unwise wars (Libya) plus her actions regarding Egypt and Syria, etc. I can forgive one mistake. What I cannot forgive is the inability to learn from it.

        1. ignoring all other reasons and focusing only on WMDs as the reason for war

          That’s the media narrative, but it’s not true. Go read the 2003 State of the Union address.

          1. I stand corrected. Thanks, Rand.

            However… in fairness, the Bush administration’s own pronouncements did focus largely on the WMD issue, though not exclusively as I’d said.

          2. That was Tony Blair’s fault, because he insisted on trying to get UN authorization, and that was perceived to be the only rationale they would accept (which is why Powell had to make his speech).

  3. Has anyone compared outcomes from trump university to any given gender studies program? For that matter, how do liberal arts degrees in general compare? Seems like there’s already a big scam going.

    1. Do instructors in gender studies target low income single parents and “hard sell” them to take out credit cards and charge $35,000 dollars for courses?

      2. Yes, they do. They target minorities in colleges and tell them they will never succeed because of the patriarchy and white privilege. They do this and charge tens of thousands of dollars per year in tuition and housing.

    2. Would you want a President who’d scammed students into getting worthless gender studies degrees?

      1. How about a President whose husband shutdown government, so that he could private time with a 22 yr old intern on her knees?

  4. While the Hildabeast was secretary of state 2 dictators who were keeping the peace were pushed out in favor of new regimes who have been far less successful by that measure, Egypt and Libya. Our soldiers have been saddled with rules of engagement that prevent them from effectively fighting real enemies. Nominal allies were routinely snubbed and betrayed. Forces have been supported with curiously close ties to what turned out to be a deadly enemy. And if she’s allowed back in the White House I expect more of the same.

    1. I think it is very strange to describe Qadhafi as “keeping the peace”, given that the UN authorized the NATO-led military intervention in the context of a civil war in Libya that was already very brutal and where a massacre on an much larger scale was hours away. I’m sure you could make your point about “Hildabeast” and the interests of United States without describing the Libyan civil war of 2011 as “keeping the peace”.

      Also, if you’ll entertain an alternative history scenario for a moment: I wonder whether you voted for John McCain, and if he had won in 2008, I wonder whether you would have been dismayed by the way he would have handled the Libyan civil war in 2011?

      1. strange to describe Qadhafi as “keeping the peace”

        Nice use of a claim with quote that didn’t come from Peter, liar.

        1. Peter said, right here, on this page, in his comment just above my comment, “2 dictators who were keeping the peace were pushed out in favor of new regimes who have been far less successful by that measure, Egypt and Libya.”

          1. Ok, fair enough. I retract, if you will claim it is strange for people to claim Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was keeping the peace.

          2. I don’t see why your retraction should be conditional, since Peter said what he said regardless of what I say now, but: Of course, Saddam wasn’t keeping the peace — in addition to war against Iraqi Shiites in the South and war against Iraqi Kurds in the North, he was firing on US warplanes as they enforced the UN mandates which ended the first Gulf war. And then there was the deception of the UN weapon inspectors, which I think should have responded to with overwhelming military force to create a deterrent from having that ever happen again There was ample justification to remove Saddam from power in the 1990s and as I said above, I was frustrated with Bill Clinton for not doing it.

          3. I don’t see why your retraction should be conditional

            Because I doubt Peter actually thinks any dictator is peaceful. However, Qhadafi did renounce nuclear weapons, and relations with the Libya and many western nations improved. But then he decided to nationalize the oil production in his country, probably after a discussion with Hugo Chavez. Before he mentioned it, violations of UN Human Rights didn’t seem to be an issue with anyone. Libya was more about a war for oil than Iraq ever was.

      2. There was no mass massacre imminent. That was a lie told by Obama and Hillary to justify regime change. They haven’t shown any regard for the well being of Libyans since that lie was made.

        Apparently actually massacres, slavery, mass rape, and other brutalities don’t warrant action.

    3. It seems clear that the US aggression against Iraq, Syria, and Libya were based upon punishing those dictators’ efforts to destabilize the petrodollar system.

      Iraq started selling their oil in Euros in 2001. We invaded.

      Kadafi proposed a new currency called the Gold Dinar in 2010 to replace the US dollar for selling their oil. We bombed them massively and caused a regime change.

      Syria moved away from the US dollar in 2006, Iran did the same in 2008.

      Now these actions span multiple administrations, but it sure seems like Bush, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, et al, are simply doing what they are told.

      1. Is this supposed to be a parody of the worst the left has to offer, or are you serious?

        For Iraq, how does Saddam’s success at deceiving the world about his WMD programs figure into your theory? How does Sept 11, 2001 figure into your theory?

        For Libya, how does the Arab Spring and Libyan civil war of 2011 figure into your theory?

        For Syria, how does our lack of a massive intervention figure into your theory?

        1. And, don’t forget, all the money and manpower we had to expend to keep him in his “box”, the sanctions that were being blamed for killing more people than even were later claimed to have died in the war, and the fact that the entire edifice was disintegrating as various nations moved toward open trade with Saddam’s Iraq and the ending of UN sanctions.

          The only alternative to war was letting Saddam emerge free and unfettered, certain to restart his WMD programs and destabilize the region entirely. Saddam was a boil that had to be lanced. All the handwringing and whingeing now is simply the 20/200 (sic) eyesight of people for whom the threat is now remote.

          1. “The only alternative to war was letting Saddam emerge free and unfettered, certain to restart his WMD programs and destabilize the region entirely”

            The Iran deal sets up these same conditions but tries to counter war by saying Iran has the right to nuclear weapons.

        2. Parody of the worst the left has to offer? LOL, you’ve got that moniker for life, Bob.

          The CIA involvement in the ME since the 50’s is well documented…

          * CIA helped Saddam as he gassed Iran in the 80s
          * CIA helped topple the governments of Syria in the late 40s and Iran in the early 50s.
          * CIA then sponsored the bombing effort trying to oust Saddam when he fell out of favor in the 90s
          * CIA built a network of secret prisons to conduct torture interrogations
          * CIA has armed and trained virtually every faction in the current Syrian conflict

          What are your own thoughts on 9/11? I think there is a lot more to the story than what we have been told. For example, no real explanation on why WTC 7 collapsed.

          1. My thought on 9/11 is that a major attack on a US city prompted the Bush administration to decide to stop Saddam before he could develop WMDs or deploy WMDs or supply them to terrorists. And that’s it. I don’t think Saddam was behind 9/11, I don’ t think the 9/11 truthers are on to anything, I just think 9/11 made a bigger attack on US soil conceivable enough that there was bipartisan support for removing the Iraqi regime from power.

            That answers your question. I have no idea why you started talking about the CIA when I expressed disbelief about your petrodollar theory.

          2. “CIA helped topple the governments of … and Iran in the early 50s.”

            So many people buy into the leftist narrative. I’ve read Kermit Roosevelt’s book, as well as other contemporaneous accounts. The lefty narrative is BS.

            Mossadegh was a communist Tudeh stooge, a doddering old man who had dissolved the courts and the Majlis (parliament) and assumed dictatorial powers. We helped the opposition, but were actually stunned that Operation Ajax seemed to work. The CIA had given it up for lost when a popular uprising seemed to come out of nowhere and finished the job.

            Did we meddle in Iran? Sure. Were other powers meddling in Iran? You betcha. This idea that we were somehow uniquely involved, and should be faulted because we were, however inadvertently, successful is pure propaganda, a lefty fairy tale.

          3. “CIA helped Saddam as he gassed Iran in the 80s”

            This is also misleading. When it looked like Iran would prevail in the war, the US offered Saddam reconnaissance information as to where Iran’s troops would next attack. That helped Saddam to concentrate his troops to fend off the incursions. That was the main extent of our help.

            Yes, Saddam did use chemical weapons at some of those engagements. But, the alternative was having the repugnant regime in Iran take over, and change the entire balance of power in the region, and not for the better.

            We did not provide the chemical plant to create those weapons – that was mostly German and French firms. Some US firms were caught selling banned materials to Iraq, and were prosecuted. But, it was a drop in the bucket to Iraq’s programs.

            And, we did not provide a significant amount of Iraq’s conventional arms, either. Russia, China, and France were major suppliers.

          4. You are right, Bob, I should have provided more information, I will try to do better…

            Money is behind everything. Kissinger conceived the concept of the petrodollar when Nixon took the US off the gold standard, and getting the Saudis to push global oil trades in US dollars in exchange for military equipment and protection enabled the Fed to inflate their balance sheet by trillions and trillions over the subsequent decades. Those balance sheets are now so out of whack that any proposal for an alternative to the petrodollar is perceived (and quite accurately) as a serious threat to the US because the Fed could never absorb the worldwide return of all that reserve currency. Inflation would be horrendous. Therefore it is necessary to eliminate any government that even intimates an alternative to the petrodollar. All of the countries I referenced earlier proposed alternatives to the petrodollar and have either been eliminated or are under attack.

            Who can engineer overthrows of foreign governments? The CIA has a well documented history of doing just that. It has so many black budgets, so many secret employees, that it is the ideal organization for an extra-Constitutional power to also control the US. Do you think that the Director of the CIA knows, understands, manages, and approves everything that goes on in that organization to a similar degree as, say, the CEO of Coca-Cola knows, understands, manages, and approves what goes on there?

            Add to that the known operations such as Paper Clip, Gladio, Northwoods, CoIntelPro2, and it is not a stretch to believe that the CIA could be the primary mechanism that global elites use to wield power and that our federal leadership is involved, or is being lied to, or they are being blackmailed.

      2. “….but it sure seems like Bush, Obama, Clinton, Kerry, et al, are simply doing what they are told.”

        Who would you suggest are giving those orders?

        1. I think the orders are coming from the “military industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address…the world elites that make up the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, the super-sized philanthropic orgs like Carnegie, Ford, Gates, Rockefeller, Pew, etc. This also would include the world banking leaders and other 20th century industrialists.

          The book “The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline” offers a fairly compelling case that neither the GOP nor the Dems are running things.

    4. Don’t forget that the Clintons lied us into Kosovo (‘mass graves of hundreds of thousands of people!’) and started the whole mess we live in today.

      If Clinton wins, America is heading straight to civil war. If Trump wins… it might not.

      1. There could be civil war if Hillary bans guns as she is promising. Should Trump win, or any Republican for that matter, there will be 4 or 8 years of constant riots and violence directed by the Democrat party against xer enemies.

        1. Every time the Usual Suspects riot, they turn more people against the left. Trump couldn’t buy better publicity than viral videos of anti-Trump violence from the left.

  6. Mark Cuban went after Trump the other day and pointed out that Trump has two loans from German bankers. He only had to report that they were 50 million or more, not the actual amount.

    I do not like the idea that a Presidential candidate is in hock to the tune of 100 million plus from a foreign country and how that could work on policy matters.

    1. A foreign bank not an actual county. Do banks usually blackmail people? Would blackmailing a sitting President of the USA play out well?

      Its a large sum to borrow but I don’t know the context of the loans. Were they for business?

      I am far more concerned about the billions raised in the Clinton’s pay to play business. Their arrangements come with the explicit promise of buying government. Hillary even said she was going to put Bill in charge of “the economy” which is the perfect position to provide their investors with the promised return on investment. And it wouldn’t be an official position so no chance of accountability.

  7. Hillary said that you have to know what these world leaders are like or they would eat your lunch. She would know. Putin ate her lunch, her breakfast, and all the ice cream in her fridge.

    Stupid how Democrats keep saying that it is praiseing and siding with Putin to notice how poorly the Obama administration and Hillary got worked over by them. Its one of the most disgusting attacks against loyalty to country.

    And thin skinned Donald hasn’t taken any movie makers to the supreme court despite having the means and many many movies made about him.

    I don’t think Trump would go to war over an insult. Hillary said she will take us to war against Iran though.

    1. The current Iranian government is a great threat to peace. But at the moment they appear to be fighting against ISIS, a greater threat to peace and world stability. May Iran and ISIS beat each other to bloody pulps, ready for other more civilized powers to move in.

      When the dust settles I’d like to see an independent Kurdistan.

    1. Reads like he believed Obama’s and Hillary’s lie about impending genocide.

      The article has a few out of context comments, so we don’t get to read the questions leading up to the aswers. Does anyone think a cruise missile wouldn’t have been preferable to how Libya went down, especially ending with the anal rape of Gaddafi on international TV?

Comments are closed.