Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Except, of course, when you want to repeat it.

I repeat what I said in the "Never" thread: I find Trump's statements on nuclear weapons less objectionable Hillary's.

I saw NOTHING in Trump's statements that he was a proponent of "first strike". If that's your interpretation, please point out to me where he said so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Trump's truthfulness as compared to Hillary's depends greatly on which questions you include in the tally.

If you include questions like ....

Did you know what "c" meant on documents?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Were you aware of the State Department's policy on using State Department servers for State Department business?
Who advised you to use a private server?
Did you purposefully delete emails to avoid upcoming or received subpoenas?
How many devices did you use to access your emails?
Were they secure?

..... then Hillary's PANTS ON FIRE! count zooms into the stratosphere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

It seems even Politifact isn't exactly unbiased, since you can create (or hide) a story by relevant information selection.

BTW, a fair number of "liberal media" and "mainstream media" outlets like HuffPo, Salon, and CNN, clearly have an axe to grind, since they aggressively squash negative news about Hillary by (among other things) firing their own contributors.

---

Quote:

---

TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain. Somebody hits us within ISIS — you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?

second: Mr Trump, if the Pulse nightclub killer in Orlando had been ISIS, would that count as being hit first by ISIS?

TRUMP: mumbles something about You’re damn right it is!

MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They’re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?

---

Quote:

---

Who is more insincere when making promises to the American voter? Hillary or Trump? Personally, I think Trump is far better at making big promises than Hillary. Maybe that is why he should be President. He knows how to sell a promise like he will deliver the goods. But it is only a promise, it is not the goods, it is not even a legally enforceable contract between Trump and the voters. His promises are really only Trump’s bad breath and hot air, which is why he has been bankrupted, divorced and sued thousands of times.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Trump, because he horrifies stock traders and bankers and the CIA and transnationals and "intellectual property" owners (who back the TPP) will be stonewalled by Congress and the deep state, and will get little done as well, but at least we won't be making "progress" in the wrong direction.

That, I fear, is the best we can hope for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


Trump's truthfulness as compared to Hillary's depends greatly on which questions you include in the tally.

If you include questions like ....

Did you know what "c" meant on documents?
Were you aware of the State Department's policy on using State Department servers for State Department business?
Who advised you to use a private server?
Did you purposefully delete emails to avoid upcoming or received subpoenas?
How many devices did you use to access your emails?
Were they secure?

..... then Hillary's PANTS ON FIRE! count zooms into the stratosphere. It seems even Politifact isn't exactly unbiased, since you can create (or hide) a story by relevant information selection.

BTW, a fair number of "liberal media" and "mainstream media" outlets like HuffPo, Salon, and CNN, clearly have an axe to grind, since they aggressively squash negative news about Hillary by (among other things) firing their own contributors.



--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Why build them if you're not going to use them? (Or, using them doesn't gain an advantage?)

You would not make them and then advertise that you would never use them because indeed, what would be the point?

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, it's the "liberal media!"

---

Quote:

---

George Bush gave every indication that he would be as inconsequential as, say President Warren G. Harding, but then he got ambitious, didn’t he?

---

Quote:

---

Why build them [nuclear bombs] if you're not going to use them? (Or, using them doesn't gain an advantage?) You would not make them and then advertise that you would never use them because indeed, what would be the point? - SIGNY

They were built to make money, at least in the USA.- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

But Trump can talk about creating new jobs and corporate profits by rebuilding the nukes. Obama already started. Trump could expand the program. Why stop at $1 trillion? Obama and Hillary are weak on defense, while Trump is strong! Trump can make it $4 trillion! Congress would go along, too.
www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/04/18/Why-US-Spending-1-Trillion-N
uclear-Weapons

---

Quote:

---

Why would Trump worry about cost? It is traditional in politics to promise more than you can deliver. But I have to give Trump credit for realizing the he could take this much farther than any politician ever has. He understands that you flatly don't need to bother with reality at all. Just promise everything and claim that it will all be easy, a total piece of cake once the government isn't staffed by morons. The voters will eat it up and the press will shrug.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND
I'd like to wrap up my responses to you regarding Hillary if possible.

And how does Hillary fit into that "first, do no harm" approach? Is she that kind of person or has she been promoting USA aggression throughout her entire political career?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Yeah, it's the "liberal media!"

---

Yes, it is and I'm glad you finally recognized that!


As I've mentioned lo these many years ago, I listen to a VARIETY of sources: Xinhua, NPR, RBTH (Russia Behind the Headlines), BBC, Reuters, RT, Zerohedge etc. My attention is directed by my email group to minor but still informative sources such as Katehon or South Front. I even occasionally get out the popcorn and listen to Infowars.

I rarely am able to listen/ view/ read entire articles, but I DO manage to scan the headlines quite frequently, and I find that the various media outlets seem as if they're not even covering the same PLANET, let alone the same issues.

At the same time that ZH was trumpeting that Chinese G20 officials showed profound disrespect for Obama by failing to provide a "red carpet" airport landing and then the USA press getting into a tussle with Chinese officials over who had control over protocol ("This is our airport! This is our country!")

NPR was blathering on about the "warm welcome" that Obama received in China.

You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Not only should you disabuse yourself of the pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders, you should also disabused yourself about that little fairy tale about our "liberal press' being some sort of agenda-less "objective" reporting agency.


pockets

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND
I'd like to wrap up my responses to you regarding Hillary if possible.

And how does Hillary fit into that "first, do no harm" approach? Is she that kind of person or has she been promoting USA aggression throughout her entire political career?

---

Hillary is not Moses and she won’t make the USA into the promised land. The little good she can do will only be small things: not repeal Obamacare when Trump would and not appoint a Scalia clone to the Supreme Court when Trump would.

Who are these Presidents you imagine that come up to your standard of “first, do no harm”? Are they Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Truman? They all did a great deal of harm to citizens and deeply offended others. Americans moved to Canada because of Washington. FDR had prison camps for Japanese Americans. His Social Security and its payroll taxes are still considered to be hugely unfair. Lincoln was reviled in the North and South. Truman nuked civilians and thus started an arms race with Russia.

Your standard “do no harm” might work with Canadian Prime Ministers, but not with any US Presidents or any Presidential candidates who had a real chance of being elected. People such as the libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Party’s Jill Stein or even Bernie never had a hope of being President. Not enough Americans would vote for them. Maybe Canadians would elect them, but not Americans. I guess I should say it plainly. Americans really like Presidential candidates that they feel might do some real harm to the rest of the world. Hillary has to fake her belligerency and she overdoes it, while Trump is ready to go to war or sue in court 5 days a week. He is not faking belligerency like Hillary.

Most conversations about politics don’t change minds, but only strengthen preexisting beliefs. A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And how does Hillary fit into that "first, do no harm" approach? Is she that kind of person or has she been promoting USA aggression throughout her entire political career?

---

Quote:

---

Obviously - like you do with much of your "analysis" - you hear/read one small thing and then you assume the rest instead of doing any kind of complete review. And especially if you can align it with your pre-accepted ideas/agenda. You maybe should try and get a broader, more complete view. It's why your analysis can never be trusted.

---

Quote:

---

There is very little liberal media in the US. MSM is decidedly far right. Always has been since Reagan.

---

Quote:

---

How To Destroy A Presidential Candidate? Make him (or her) look weak on defense.

---

Quote:

---

Who are these Presidents you imagine that come up to your standard of “first, do no harm”? Are they Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Truman? They all did a great deal of harm to citizens and deeply offended others. Americans moved to Canada because of Washington. FDR had prison camps for Japanese Americans. His Social Security and its payroll taxes are still considered to be hugely unfair. Lincoln was reviled in the North and South. Truman nuked civilians and thus started an arms race with Russia.

---

Quote:

---

Your standard “do no harm” might work with Canadian Prime Ministers, but not with any US Presidents or any Presidential candidates who had a real chance of being elected.

---

Quote:

---

Most conversations about politics don’t change minds, but only strengthen preexisting beliefs. A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

second

Is THAT what you're implying?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And Obama offered his Senate vote AGAINST the war in Iraq in contrast to Hillary's vote FOR the war as proof that he was sincere about his promise and that he had to guts to make it stick.

And many people who were already sick to death of war, war, and more war voted for Obama on the hope that he would bring peace. So you can take that whole argument about how There is a price to pay for a liberal domestic agenda at home, and that price is "war abroad" and you can stuff it back wherever it came from. In fact, I think that you're really afraid that making nice with Russia is one of Trump's stronger arguments, because you've done everything you can to derail it.

---

Quote:

---

Is THAT what you're implying?- SIGNY

I’m not implying, I’m saying.= SECOND

---

Quote:

---

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s National Security Advisers are a “Who’s Who” of the Warfare State. Gen. David Petraeus, Michael Chertoff, and Mike Morrell might be more than window dressing to make Hillary look tough.

---

Quote:

---

To get elected, Hillary has to look tough.

---

Quote:

---

Once elected, Hillary has to look tough if she wants to be reelected. The next election campaign starts immediately after this election and next time the Republicans might pick a better candidate than Trump. But they will be picking somebody as belligerent and enough voters are in love with toughness and war-like talk that peace-mongers like Bernie or Michael Dukakis or George McGovern or Jimmy Carter (1980 run) can NOT get elected or reelected.

---

Quote:

---

The Republicans voters were enraged that Carter did not invade Panama, but instead just gave the Canal Zone back.

---

Quote:

---

The voters were really enraged that Carter did not invade Iran to free the hostages.

---

Quote:

---

If the USA is to become a more peaceful nation, it needs a more peaceful electorate.

---

Quote:

---

And Obama offered his Senate vote AGAINST the war in Iraq in contrast to Hillary's vote FOR the war as proof that he was sincere about his promise and that he had to guts to make it stick. And many people who were already sick to death of war, war, and more war voted for Obama on the hope that he would bring peace. So you can take that whole argument about how There is a price to pay for a liberal domestic agenda at home, and that price is "war abroad" and you can stuff it back wherever it came from. In fact, I think that you're really afraid that making nice with Russia is one of Trump's stronger arguments, because you've done everything you can to derail it. = SIGNY

America is at war because Americans want war.= SECOND

---

Quote:

---

I’d say Obama won in 2008 because he campaigned against an incompetently run Iraq War. He was NOT campaigning against war, but he was stuck with the anti-Iraq war theme because he had used it against Hillary. His big advantage over John McCain was he wasn’t Republican and he wasn’t a third term for Bush and his incompetent Secretary of Defense. Except Obama did keep the same Bush team in charge of the Pentagon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
The only person who Obama fired was a Republican General that ran his disrespectful mouth to Rolling Stone magazine. Voters may have been fatigued by Mideast wars, but Obama was not.

---