I'm endorsing Donald Trump, because I can't put my life in Hillary's hands

Here's a link to this guys thread. (The thing he called a new forum.)

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/475925-am-i-disqualified-politics-because.html

He acknowledges that when someone wrote, "but not knowing who Charles Lindbergh is...is like not knowing who Buzz Aldrin is"...

...and he said HE HAD TO GOOGLE BUZZ ALDRIN to find out who he was!

 

I gave THREE LINKS to your none. You have absolutely no right or standing or ability to call me ignorant, or to proclaim I 'made false accusations'. In fact, it is YOU that proves that quote to be true.

 

Still confusing fact with opinion are we?
That % is not even a fact...You can say It's a fact the poll posted that %...but what was the polling questions and answers to come up with that? Cause I never saw it, or got a telephone call.

So as per you own link...

"Monday, September 19, 2016

Thirty-one percent (31%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey for the week ending September 15"

So 31% of 2500 people asked on a poll saying it's going in the right direction does not = 69% of Millions of Americans thinking the country is headed in wrong direction. See how that works.

 

Gee, I didn't cook up a Wiki listing. I referred you to an actual book! (one that won the Pulitzer Prize, BTW).

Intellectual that you are, you proclaimed that you can't be bothered with an actual book,this afer admitting that never heard of one of the most famous Americans of the last 100 years.

You have proclaimed your ignorance, made false accusations, and tried to pomtificate on a subject yoi admit you know nothing about.

Any high school kid can tell you who Charles Lindberg was.

Stick to comic books son, theu're your speed.

 

I said three links, including that one. And no, I cannot be BOTHERED to read a biography on a guy that you suggested, and definitely when I look at a site like History and I now KNOW that you deliberately defamed the guy in his death bed. You're going to have to give proof.

And he's not famous, or I would've bothered to add him to my memory bank. But apparently, he is important to you and a few others(after defaming him no less). It's quite a sad spectacle, and I make note that it's these aged adults who run the world of today.

So it comes of no surprise to me, this is the limit of what our past generations are capable of.

 

And Obama has done little to stray from Bush's destructive actions in the Middle East. In fact with continuous drone strikes, he's done more to destabilize the region and foster hatred for the US. Not to mention the destabilization of Libya, Syria, etc. So when Trump says we should go after terrorists' families, we already are under Obama. As well, Hillary pledged to continue Obama's policies, and her actions with Libya. The difference of course is Trump wants to take a more Isolationist approach, which I think would be more beneficial than our current interventionist actions.

It is because of that, I think Trump is in fact more liberal than Hillary and the Democrats, as they've adopted all of the destructive actions as the Neocons.

 

I am voting for Trump. The Democrats persuaded me.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Trump would be far more destructive than Clinton. At least Clinton would try to act with some sort of plan.

Trump makes it up as he goes along. He'll have drones filling the sky one minute, and peace envoys the next. And then he won't understand why none of it works.

 

My point is to demonstrate that Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats are just as destructive as Bush and the Neocons. Which is why I can't support Hillary. In Obama's term the instability of the Middle East went from two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, to six or more. Not to mention that the US is currently helping ISIS in Syria. That plan overall is far more destructive than any non plan Trump has.

 

There's only one Presidential candidate that wants to tighten the rope around Putin's neck. You think the flyovers and Navy passes are intense now? Wait until warhawk Hillary puts all of Europe in jeopardy when she backs Putin into the last corner. Sad that people support that. I would think people would want to avoid war with Russia. I hate being wrong.

 

That's ridiculous.

You're telling us you're supporting Trump because you think Hillary will continue with drone strikes????????

You do realize that Trump has loudly proclaimed his intention to do that and more. In fact, he has called for both a military invastion (we all know how well that turned out), and a long term military occupation (so we can steal the oil).

If that's what you're telling us, it makes no sense at all. In fact its totally ridiculous......... but perhaps I misunderstood your point.

 

You're indeed misunderstanding my point. The key difference between Hillary and Trump is simple. Hillary already has a record of interventionism that would make Neocons blush in envy. Look at the destruction she wreaked in Libya as Secretary of State. Along with giving support to "rebel" groups which later joined ISIS in Syria. Meanwhile Trump just has words to appeal to the would be hawks of the Republican party. Hillary stated (in addition to her record) that she plans to continue Obama's policies which have been more disastrous in the Middle East than even Bush. Bush only destabilized two countries, Obama, more than that. To continue these actions is beyond ridiculous.

 

I like Trump and can even forgive him for firing Gary Busey and Mr. Sulu from the Apprentice, but even if he doesn't make it to the White House, Hillary might be a good alternative.
I mean, if she's ever having a bad day she'll hit that nuclear button at the drop of a hat..

 

You're still not making any sense. You appear to be pretending that Trump did not call for either military intervention or long term occupation, both of which he has.


Trump has beat has chest and rattled his sabre for a year now, and you're trying to make him sound like a conciliator. That's nonsense!

I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Libya. We did not start the civil war in Lybia, nor did we lead NATO. In fact, we came in late. Every right wing hypocrite who is now falsely screqming that Clinton "invaded" Lybia (never mind that she had no authority) were just as busy attacking Obama for not doing what they now falsely claim we did.

It's idiotic.

 

All words, Hillary has done more than that. Trump may not even mean his rhetoric while Hillary has actually caused destabilization.

 

I don't support either one of them because I know they are both unqualified to be POTUS. However, you have made some outlandish comments that I could not resist correcting for the record and for the sake of truth. I will only deliver the facts. Nothing more. Just the facts.

It was the Bush 43 Administration that caused Libya. When Neocons illegally invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, dethroned Saddam and erected yet another false flag of freedom in the middle east, the so-called Arab Spring which had previously been the unspoken Arab Autumn by or media elite, finally came to the forefront and those people who would have eventually dethroned Gaddafi anyway finally found some additional public facing leverage. Meanwhile, all CIA and MI6 clandestine operations that have been attempted since the Reagan Administration, which in part gave rise to the unspoken Arab Autumn, all failed to result in physical regime change.

Gaddafi's days were numbered long before 2008 and both the British and the United States have been trying to do what finally got done long before Hillary began running State. These are just the facts.

ISIS = MOSSAD + CIA + MI6. Real Islamic Terrorist groups and organizations do not initiate their existence in the world using English letters and English language. They are not native English speaking, nor is English their primary language. That in an of itself should tell you that "ISIS" is more about the "Marketing" of "Terror" than the actual terror itself. Al Qaeda and the Taleban, as just two of several authentic examples, were no doubt brought into existence via US/British intervention and corrupt foreign policy engagement, but they represent organizations that were initially developed as home grown grass roots countermeasures to what people felt were intrusions into their way of life.

ISIS, on the other hand was put directly under the nose of the public by the Israeli Secrete Intelligence Service and was fomented to attract those whom we now call Radical Islamic Terrorists into the organization, so that it can become a self fulfilling prophecy. ISIS, is part of the middle eastern Hagelian Dialectic, where a problem is first instantiated by those who later emerge as the problem solvers. Essentially, the arsonist who starts the fire, allows it to reach the level of raging inferno and then calls the fire department while trying to "help" put out the fire. This is the sickening truth about our foreign policy in this part of the world and it has been this way for decades now. We should all be up to speed on this. These are just the facts.

All of the diabolical threats from the middle east, both the United States and the British have created. All of them. There was not a single terrorist threat against the United States or Britain, prior to Project T/P Ajax in 1953/1954 Iran. That was the launching point as the Iranian People, never forgot what the CIA/MI6 regime change brigade did and eventually took out their frustrations on 52 American hostages for over 400 days during the Carter Administration in 1979. Any diabolical threats coming out of the middle east directed at the United States and/or Western Europe, comes directly out of middle 20th century Western Foreign Policy to strip Iran of its oil while controlling its future oil production. These are just the facts of history.

There is no contrast and the question itself is a false question, born of the false presupposition that Arab People and Islamic People, simply woke up one morning and decided to hate the West because we are allegedly free. However, a Black Person can be shot and killed in the "free" streets of America, while a bad foreign policy created "terrorist" who detonates pressure cooker IED on the streets of New York, gets to see his day in court, alive. Freedom for some, while summary execution in the streets for Black People with their hands held high in the air and while presenting no threat to the State. These are just the facts.

A war we partially started is something to "nevermind" because it is simply not true. We in the West have initiated all of the conditions on the ground in the middle east that would direct their venom towards us today. It was the British Empire that began doing this with making claims on middle eastern territories for the sole purpose of controlling and expanding its territories. This gets back to the much deeper issue having to do with Imperial Colonization of the entire planet, which the British tried to accomplish. Thus, the saying - The sun never sits on the British Empire. These kinds of statements don't come into the public consciousness without there being a good reason. We (The West) created the enemies we now face in the middle east. The middle east never sent Colonizers to our shores. However, we have a long standing history of bad foreign police that injected ourselves directly into the lives of those who now hate us. This is simply historical truth.

Our Veterans are suffering because of decades of bad foreign policy decisions that put them into harms way for no good reason, short of World War II itself, even though our entrance into WWII was brought about through another False Flag, as we knew that Japan, already had carriers in the water and were headed specifically towards Pearl Harbor. Because we never learned the correct lessons from World War I, about how to remain in control of our Republic, we allowed the Queen of England to manipulate us. That manipulation brought us into many conflicts around the world ultimately and began to later express itself in bad foreign policy decisions that we would later make on our own in various places around the world.

Black People suffering, is caused by an entire System of Oppression that has been operating in the United States of America for the past 431 years. Neither Donald Trump, nor Hillary Clinton, have any intentions whatsoever to solve that problem - nor can they solve that problem as it extends throughout the entire country and has systemic pathological and psychological roots deeply embedded in the American Psyche of those who are not Black People.

Our National Security is suffering only in the minds of those who do not understand what they are saying, and who do not have a firm grasp of our nation's history of foreign policy engagements into the lives of those who live in what we have called the "Middle East." The United States of America would have no terrorist threat levied against it, if it had not intervened in the lives of so many millions and in such destructive ways over the decades. No one from these lands initiated war with the United States of America or Britain. It was our greed, arrogance and lust for natural resources that we did not own that caused the creation all National Security concerns we have today that come directly out of the middle east.

Your vote is your vote. However, when that vote is predicated upon false presupposition and superficial political rhetoric without being rooted in real World History, then that's a horse of another color entirely. When we examine real World History, we find out that all of the issues you bring up today as your justification for supporting one candidate or the other, have been completely misconstrued and highly misunderstood.

 

All "words", which are fact.

So, now your excuse is yhat Trump gets a pass because he might not mean his warmongering!

That's the kind of extremely weak rationalization that Trumpsters usually back themselves into.

And a tacit admission that you argument for Trump is nonsense.

 

And Hillary's a proven warmonger, your point? You've yet to show anything that suggests Trump would be more militaristic than Hillary, yet I've demonstrated the opposite is true. Oh well, might as well get used to endless war since Hillary will likely win.

 

You're dealing with people who no nothing about history, will deny documented facts, and make up ridiculous rationalizations. All they know is that Trump beats his chest like a cowardly schoolyard bully, and they think that os strength.

 

This criticism from the people who voted for Barack Obama primarily because he was Black and had a great speaking voice and SHRIEKED "Hope and Change!" as a substitute for meaningful policies. Not a lot of credibility there when it comes to criticizing Trump supporters.

 

I'm a Brit and i've heard that Hillary took flak over the murder of Ambassador Stephens and some of his staff in Libya; what's the story there?

 

That's idiotic.

I guess you were asleep when he ranted about "bombing the hell out of them" over and over again at his rallies.

I guess you were asleep when he advocated nuclear proliferation.

I guess you were asleep when he suggest a long term military occupation of Iraq for the purpose of stealing their oil (that was with Matt Lauer), although he had made the suggestion before.

This is all easy to document. We can even give you video.

You haven't demonstrated anything. You cannot document taht Trump won't be a warmonger, because his public remarks are full of warmongering. Your attempt to rationalize that away by suggesting that Trump might not mean what he says is ridiculous. You're going to vote for a man who you claim is a peacemaker, because you don't think his warmongering rants reflect what he really means. Or, maybe it's because Trump tends to say whatever he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear, and that nothing he says means anything. (Which is true).

If so, that's a weak and dangerous argument for supporting anyone.

I guess you were asleep last weekend when he suggested a coalition to invade the Middle East, although he wasn't specific about where, mainly because he doesn't know anything about the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton advocated for US involvement with NATO in Lybian airstrikes. So did every right winger on talk radio, Fox Noise, and on this forum. Now, you're playing the hypocrite and yelling out of the other side of your mouth.

Hillary voted for Mr Bush's war. Of course, Trump supported it to, but now lies openly about that. And all the people yelling on this forum about that vote are hypocrites too.

Hypocracy seems to be the only constant with the alt right.

 

The Deplorables are indeed a rising force. Went to zazzle.com (tee-shirts and such) and fouund thousands of products endorsing the Depolarbles. "Mission Deplorable" store on zazzle has some cool stuff that sends the message well!

 

Never give your opposition a rally cry.

Hillary did.