Two Advantages Trump Has Over Clinton

Did trickle down voodoo Raygun, destroyer of The American Dream, have a reality show too?

Trump attracts birthers ands and teanuts, but that is about it. He will never win the general election, but he will succeed in tearing apart the GO, which is about the only "GREAT" thing he will do.

 

Add a number 3. Trump does not have a body count of dead Americans in his past.

 

Hillary is full of (*)(*)(*)(*). She knew damn well that her vote was an implicit endorsement of the Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine of pre-emption. I don't want to hear that bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

You need to read correctly. I said he CORRECTLY JUDGED THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS NOTHING TO GAIN BY DEMONIZING PUTIN. Get it?

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, that too.

 

Take a deep breath. I asked for you to elaborate on how Trump correctly judged that the US has nothing to gain by demonizing Putin?

 

Neither of these two issues are important to the voters in this election cycle.

 

There's no way you were alive during the Reagan administrations, nor could you have learned about the actual results of his economic policies from a subjective, truthful source. You couldn't be more wrong. America thrived under Reagan.

 

[video=youtube;J1NTjqaAKBo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1NTjqaAKBo[/video]

 

That is not what you asked. But since that is what you want to know, Trump reached out to Putin with respect.

Now that's diplomacy and that's what will enable relations between the US and Russia to mend and get us off the path to nuclear war. What isn't going to get us off the path is Hillary's distorted arrogance.

That was so dumb and infantile until it makes one want to cringe. BTW, I am not the only person who thought that was not wise, there were foreign policy experts who that it was not a good thing to say. How can this person be president unless she changes?

 

If they are not, they should be.

 

Hillary has the FBI to worry about. And, her administrator just got immunity to testify against her.

 

Lets not forget that her husband signed NAFTA and decided that our jobs should go to Mexico. lol

 

She needs to worry about who's going to take her fruit cup from her in the prison cafeteria.

 

Yep. Sure did it. Thanks, forgot about that one.

 

Oh puh-leeze, if Putin does something to anger Trump while he's in Moscow he'll probably launch the missiles on him even though he's there himself. Hillary doesn't like Putin but she never threatened him while she was State. Trump has flat out said he going to nuke just about everyone he disagrees with. "We have all these weapons, we should use them" or something like that, yes?

 

Really, we're supposed to vote based on who was for or against the war?

 

Trump never said he is going to nuke everyone he disagrees with.

What Hillary did while she was at state was put Victoria Nuland in charge of creating problems for Putin in Ukraine. As a result of that, there is a big mess there now, and one could make the case that Putin would not be in Syria now if it had not been for the coup that we helped stage in Ukraine. She didn't not explicitly threaten Putin with nukes, but she did say that she was going to thwart his attempts to form a Eurasian Union. There was nothing wrong with what Putin was trying to do. He was merely doing his job and looking out for Russia's interests. What we should have done instead of going in and overthrowing the government, was to make a better offer to Yanukovych. But see the neocons don't believe in doing things that way. They are arrogant and have this need to show the world that they have power and will destroy anyone who gets in their way. So they helped overthrow the government and our relations with Russia have gone down hill since.

 

No. What I am saying is that Hillary is likely to get the US in a position where war with Russia is inevitable. She is very strongly influenced by the ideas of Ariel Cohen and therefore feels that it is necessary to be hostile towards and demonize Putin. The people of Russia put him in there, so that's who we should deal with. At least Trump has the sense enough to know that deal with someone who is sitting on a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the United States with respect. Not like some child you can order around.

 

there shouldnt be a default assumption that russia will always be an enemy. I mean the revolutionary war was fought vs gb and now they are our best friends. Russia could be an ally in the future and with western europe destroying themselves we may need them.

 

What an utterly hilarious misconception. Comic relief to the max.

 

I was. Defense contractors thrived under him, everybody else started the long slide to the low pay we have now.

 

New business creation was huge under Reagan. It reached levels rarely seen since. Look at the chart on this page:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-american-entrepreneurship-in-five-charts/

The missile programs were a fraction of the overall defense spending. The overall military budget doubled in eight years. And it should've, given the changes in technology and the needs of a modern military.

"Defense spending hit a peak of $456.5 billion in 1987 (in projected 2005 dollars), compared with $325.1 billion in 1980 and $339.6 million in 1981, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26273-2004Jun8_2.html

Also included in the above link: many of the programs were in research and development long before Reagan, and later procured under Reagan. Much of the spending was still in R&D under Reagan.

 

A third advantage is that people like him.

 

On point one; Trump was at that time a civilian. He held no political office and was not accountable to anyone for his opinion. Hillary has admitted several times her decision was wrong. That act of contrition speaks far more than how The Donald currently portrays himself.

On point two; Donald's foreign policy experience from what I have heard thus far is based on his watching the Discovery Channel. If you feel comfortable with that, then there is nothing more to say.

 

Back in 2000, Trump claimed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and that we needed to "carry the mission to its conclusion".

That is not going to sway anyone.

 

Yeah, right...we've already gone through that with this guy everybody wanted to have a drink with...



He left us the bar tab we're still paying off.