Two Advantages Trump Has Over Clinton

Bush was a damn good president, if you look past the liberal media brainwash. Remember when 2008-era Obama promised to "close Gitmo" and "bring all troops home" by the end of his first year? We conservatives knew better; we knew that Bush was acting according to intelligence and in the best interests of the nation, and that Obama, once he got his reality check, would do the same.

And it happened just like that.

 

Andrew Jackson? Now that was a clown. What a jerk.

 

Donald Trump stood up in a national presidential debate and told the truth about what happened in Iraq. He was booed and ridiculed, but he didn't back down. I admire him for that. Hillary just ain't got that in her. If she had to face such a hostile audience, believe me her position would have been to swear that Bush keep us safe and that it was right to invade Iraq. That's the way she and Bill operate. They don't stand up in the face of stiff opposition for the sake of principle. They just follow the political wind.

Hillary's foreign policy accomplishment is that she was stupid enough the drink that Ariel Cohen hater aid and ruin relations between the US and Russia.

 

I am going to say it again. Trump stood up to a very hostile audience in a national presidential debate and told the truth about Iraq and Bush. He was booed and ridiculed and did not back down. That took guts. He is to be commended for that.

You don't know who its going to sway. Its the truth and intelligent people will understand that.

 

If his current position is all that matters, then he does not have an advantage over Hillary Clinton, since she now admits that her vote was a mistake.

 

No he does have the advantage because Hillary Clinton would not have stood up in such a political environment and said that. Not only that but she knew full well that she was giving an implicit endorsement of the Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine of pre-emption, but she did it anyway. Furthermore that admission was likely made under political pressure. Again her problem is that she is sympathetic to the neocon war mongering ideology. She actually believes in it. That's the problem with her.

 

Just stumbled on a couple of things that give you an idea of what Saint Hillary is about.

Here's some video footage of Gaddafi's death

[video=youtube;sGm492qVEzA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGm492qVEzA[/video]

Here's Hillary's response

[video=youtube;Fgcd1ghag5Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y[/video]

That's cold blooded.

 

Poor Hillary. I actually feel very sorry for her. Actually she is a good person. It's just that her mind has been poisoned by fools.

 

This took guts

[video=youtube;H4ThZcq1oJQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4ThZcq1oJQ[/video]

Trump told the truth.

 

Hillary Clinton's idea of US "leadership" is to support endless violent coercion around the world to achieve US hegemony on a global scale. However, this notion has been ill thought out. The problem is that the US simply does not possess the financial or ideological resources to achieve this end. Why? Because not everyone in the world agrees with the views of the financial, military, and media elite here in the US. These people live in a bubble that is insulated from the sufferings that common people face. They don't realize that human dignity is a basic need, and that when you go into these places and impose solutions through violent coercion, it comes at the cost of human dignity. The problem that we have in dealing with Russia is that the majority of the people of Russia simply don't want the solution that Hillary would like to impose there, part of which involves getting rid of Putin. So Hillary and her war monger pals have created various schemes to try to create the conditions that will change all of that. That is the big problem and it has manifested itself as the current mess we see in Ukraine, and it has spilled over into the mess in Syria. Hillary, because she has partaken of the cup of war monger poison, will lead the US into a position such that an armed conflict with Russia is inevitable. We don't need that.

 

What people need to realize is that Hillary Clinton goes to places like the Council on Foreign Relations to figure out what the US needs to be doing. Back in 2006, while Bush was still president, the CFR concluded that the US should not seek to form a relationship with Russia based on partnership. At the time the CFR noted that the economic standards for Russians were improving

So that was not the problem with Russia, as the CFR saw it. The real problem that the CFR had with Russia is that they didn't like how Putin was running the country.

Because at the end of the day, what they really want to do is get rid of Putin. Therefore, they concluded back in 2006, way before Ukraine, way before Syria, that a partnership with Russia was out of the question at the present time.

And that dear friends explains the mess in Ukraine, and partly explains the mess in Syria.

Because Hillary Clinton has embraces this ideology of confrontation with Russia, she is dangerous. Not only that but anyone who becomes president that believes in this ideology of not having a partnership with Russia, but one based on confrontation, is dangerous.

 

1. Hillary has also said that the Iraq War and her vote on it was a mistake. The vote was made under false pretenses from the Bush Administration that Saddam Hussein had nuclear materials.

2. It wouldn't surprise me if Trump exploits the Senate Republican's dereliction of duty and appoints Putin to the Supreme Court.

Even the RNC hates Trump. He is starting to fade in the primaries. It wouldn't surprise me if the RNC suddenly decided on Super Delegates to force a 2nd vote at the Republican Convention.

 

Hillary Clinton only said it was a mistake because of political pressure. Initially she said that anyone who was looking for a candidate for president, who felt that Iraq was a mistake, could look for someone else. Furthermore, Hillary was advised, just like the Bush administration, that it was likely that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMDs. She and Bush didn't want to listen to that, and the rest is history.

That is a bunch of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and is a gross distortion.

 

I could say that about your whole post. Thanks for the cherry picked BS 20/20 hindsight on Hillary and the Iraq War. Luckily, Trump didn't have to make that decision, so he can feed you any BS he thinks his minions want to hear. Trump is openly a fan of Putin, and apparently you are too. Your trust in this carnival barker is grossly misplaced.

 

You can say what you want, but what I said about Hillary saying Iraq is a mistake due to political pressure is fact. What you said about Putin being put on the supreme court is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

If you are saying what Hillary said was a fact, where is your source?

 

It's a known fact that Hillary did not initially say that the war was a mistake. IN FACT, she said that anyone looking for a presidential candidate that thought it was a mistake could look somewhere else. Here's an article from 2007

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/clinton-tries-new-approach-on-iraq-vote/?_r=0

She only changed after much political pressure.

 

Yeah. And she lost the nomination. Also, the American people turned vehemently against the war in Iraq after 2007 and Hillary Clinton, like any good representative of the people, adjusted her position. She explained that in her book "Hard Choices" that her vote to authorize military force in Iraq "was a mistake. Clear and Simple".

You still didn't provide a link to the statement you made about her position that you claimed was a FACT. Just like all right wingnuts, you can't back the BS you call FACTs.

 

Like I said, and supported with a source, THE FACT IS THAT SHE INITIALLY REFUSED TO SAY IT WAS A MISTAKE, AND ONLY DID SO AFTER MUCH POLITICAL PRESSURE.

Can you read? What I said was

That's exactly what I said concerning her position. I backed it up with a source.

 

That source said absolutely nothing about changing her position in 2007, so I am still saying your FACT is BS. I already said why she changed her position and it wasn't for political expediency like you claim. Why don't you just admit you have not basis for your statement, which you don't. She adjusted her position and announced it in 2014 before she made her bid. Just spewing a bunch of weasely blather isn't sourcing or justifying your claim.

 

The source clearly said that she refused to say it was a mistake. If you can't understand that. There is nothing to discuss.

 

Thank you for completely and thoroughly retreating in defeat that what you said is not a FACT, but a poorly constructed and inaccurate opinion based on false assumptions and conjecture.

 

Amazing. Alexander Hamilton had a point.

 

Thank you for your pointless blather.