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

You have no leg to stand on. Stop defending indefensible. Facts are stubborn things.

Hillary Clinton’s war crimes are unforgivable. No real progressive could ever support her.

Hillary Clinton made Libya a failed state

In an April interview with Fox News, President Barack Obama, reflecting on his 7 years as Commander-in-Chief, admitted that ousting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was the biggest mistake of his presidency. While Obama took responsibility for the failure of Libya in that interview, he relied on the input of Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State at the time.

In March of 2011, Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, who was leading the opposition to Gaddafi. As the New York Times reported, Clinton asked Jibril a series of questions about how his coalition planned to fill the power vacuum that would be created by Gaddafi’s ouster. And in the end, it was Clinton who convinced the White House that deposing Gaddafi was the right thing to do:

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

The 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya that took place after Clinton’s visit has since allowed extremist groups to seize power in an unprecedented takeover of much of the country over the last five years.

In 2014, the US State Department shut down the US embassy in Libya and issued a travel warning urging all Americans to stay away from the country. Roughly one year ago, Libya’s central bank, the last remaining institution in the failed state, was forced to flee to a city in the Eastern region of the country due to rebel forces encroaching on the bank’s facility in Tripoli, the capital. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, with thousands of ISIS soldiers using the country as a staging ground.

In an interview on CBS, Clinton laughed about Gaddafi’s slaying, proudly exclaiming, “We came, we saw, he died.”...

http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record/

 

All this post shows, is that you haven't paid attention to the news much(or hell, read Hillary's book.)

-In Hillary's book she professed that a few rebels met with her in some undisclosed location, who knows where and that's where they cried out that Gaddafi was murdering them, torturing them and god knows what else and it led Hillary and Co to make the passionate plea to the President.

Whom was actually reluctant, and today admits it was his WORSE mistake. Everything on Libya is FACTUAL, even Sanders touched on Libya. It was Clinton's call, and she blew it. Clinton herself even later acknowledged via Amnesty International that MANY of the rebels lied about many of the details that led to the coalition in the first place!

Again, if you actually paid attention you'd know these things.

You're also wrong about the Anti-Muslim propaganda video. Geller did not make that flim.

And my "claim"(what actually happened) is true. Terrorists were drawn to her controversial event and before their death, stated that ISIS was in the area. And we know now(no, we really do), that these bastards weren't just hyping up a scare factor. They really do have operations here.

I never stated that the Boston Marathon dealt with the Mexican border. What I said(and we know for a fact) is that ALL of these foreign nationals(even when they're so-called "nationalized") came from overseas and almost always, we fail to properly vet them. Leaving a poor border open is just asking for risk. Even the US Senate held hearings on that issue, a few days after the Marathon attacks.

Hillary Clinton doesn't need to talk about it. To Quote Ms. Le Pen "Hillary's bad for France, for the world. Hillary spells destabilization". And the Neo-cons which the Liberals used to wage war against in 2008, are now your staunchest allies to elect this warmonger.

Has Trump made controversial comments? Yes he has. But guess what? The nuclear codes are in charge of several, not just the President. And we have Congressional oversight that limits his power(as Obama well knows.) We can survive a president Donald Trump.

But we cannot survive Hillary Clinton. Literally.. So all that's left from your sad post is xenophobia and nativist parochialism.. And when a loser like Rick Perry made the statement, I owned it then and I'll own it now: We're ALL Americans. We're all Nativists. To be otherwise, is to betray the oath we all swore to the United States of America.

And I don't know about you, but I never betrayed my oath. And never will.

 

I must have confused you with another poster. I thought you were the one talking about the PPACA saving your life because of a heart condition.

 

I actually read a thread on that. The dude was in Green bay right? But nah, my complaint was shortly after I moved to Detroit, Michigan and basically the insurance I had in Pennsylvania, was not covered in Michigan and so I have to get new insurance. I'm not sure if that requires registering with the State, and there's all sorts of income related issues regarding that and it just sucks.

To me, Democrats have an Anti-Federalist position on Health Care when it comes to Across State Lines. Across State Lines is alot like the Continental Dollar issue and it's just absurd that the party that wants UHC, doesn't support ASL. The only way UHC can really be a thing is across state lines.

 

Yes, facts are stubborn thongs, and your response confirms mine.

The United States did not incite the revolt in Lybia, nor did it invade Lybia.

 

No, but it was a crucial member of the NATO-led operation in Libya and supported the rebels. You can nitpick and not call it an "invasion", but we basically authorized replacing the elected government of Libya without due cause(there wasn't a direct or indirect threat to the United States, Qaddafi's past crimes not withstanding.)

And it all failed to high heavens.(Which is why you haven't countered it, after we showed you the known aftermath of the debacle). The Arab Spring, was this Administration's Iraq moment and you won't hold them to task for it.

 

Geller did not make the film. She was connected to the 'eople who did.

And sorry, but inciting violence with bigotry is not "exposing" anything. It's grandstanding using a lot of innocent people as props.

Referening a right wing fringe candidate in France does not make your case, but it does accent your nativism.

As for your comments on the Boston bombing and the border, your weak attempt to rephrase what you said does not wash. You linked the two in the same sentence.

Saying that several people have the nuclear codes is a very weak excuse for rationalizing Trump's appalling ignorance of just about anything happening to do with foreign policy, or his irresponsible comments.

As for the chest beating about "betraying your oath", I have little doubt that you're patriotic. I would not suggest otherwise.

But nativism, parochialsim, ignorance and fear are not patriotic virtues. Alas, you post drips with all of these things.

Your candidate speaks admiringly of Vladimir Putin, and he celebrates the Russian intelligence hacks of American political parties. He has already given Putin a pass in the Ukraine and Syria.

It's an ironic coincidence that Trump talks about America First.

Eighty years ago, so did Charles Lindberg. He thought we should make a deal with Hitler. Many of the same people who followed him believed in high tarrifs and trade wars, and thought the US had no place on the world stage. As it turned out, thier efforts helped bring on the Second World War.

Isolationism has been a consistant failure for America whenever it has prevailed.

Fear and nativism are not virtues, they are weaknesses, no matter how hard the proponant of this sort of narrow minded and backward thinking may beat thier chests.

Your world view has consistantly failed us throughout history. It has made us weak, impotent, and ineffective. That's what the Trump presidency will be. Especially since its champion is a no nothing.

 

Well said. Liberals have an almost child-like view of reality and the world. Unfortunately, the world has some evil people as well as good people and we must defend ourselves in a rational way. Yet the Clintons themselves have their own history that we should be aware of as well.

Steve

[video=youtube;7LYRUOd_QoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM[/video]

 

Well, the libs would have to reconcile such a claim with the Beast's plummeting numbers among millennials.

 

Still playing games I see.

No, the United States did not initiate the Lybian revolt, and the NATO led operation occurred once the revolt was underway, not as the leader of it.

And the US did not join the NATO operation until it was underway.

It is both ironic and hypocritical that the very same right wingers who push this blatantly false claim, are the ones who criticized Obama for not getting involved in Lybia sooner. But such is the way with the far right wing. It will talk out of both sided of its mouth on a regular basis.

 

The Christian World and the World itself needs a Christian or Hindu Or Buddhist leader that can Stop the barbaric Islamic growth...
This is not possible with Hillary, I am neither sure of Trump, but if I was American Citizen I would chose Trump...

 

You nailed this, Tom.

I see lots of the usual puppets are lambasting you for doing so.

If seeing them do it makes you laugh as much as it does me...you must be having a wonderful day.

Thanks for your comments.

 

I wish it did make me laugh. Alas, it makes me sad and causes me to worry a bit about the future of our country.

I have no doubt that our friend American Nationalist is a sincere patriot, dispite his narrow view.

What scares me is that our leaders may follow this fear induced path to a retreat from leadership. That is tge essence of Trump, dispite the jingoistic rhetoric (cowards bluster the way he does, after all)

Donald Trump represents a total repudiation ofvAmerican leadership in the world. His plans to try and make NATO into a de facto protection racquet will only divide the the Western alliance that has stood for stability since 1945.
His reckless blustering has already emboldened Putin and caused alarm in the capitols of all of our traditional allies.

Nor is this about partisan politics. I knew who qnd what Donald Trump wad before I had ever heard of Hillary Clinton (years before, in fact).He is a liar and a fraud, and always has been. Were he running as the Democratic candidate, my opinion would be exactly the same.

 

Unfortunately, many of the citizens of this country have decided that they DO NOT WANT TO BE GOVERNED.

I personally attribute that kind of thinking to a logical extension of the remarks Ronald Reagan made in his first inaugural address...that government is not part of the solution...government is the problem.

We have to get away from that mindset.

We have to divorce ourselves from the notion that "being willing to be governed" is equivalent to being a sheep being herded.

Government is fundamental to civilization and nationhood. At some point, we have to come to grips with that.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately, many of the citizens of this country have decided that they DO NOT WANT TO BE GOVERNED.

I personally attribute that kind of thinking to a logical extension of the remarks Ronald Reagan made in his first inaugural address...that government is not part of the solution...government is the problem.

We have to get away from that mindset.

We have to divorce ourselves from the notion that "being willing to be governed" is equivalent to being a sheep being herded.

Government is fundamental to civilization and nationhood. At some point, we have to come to grips with that.

 

The U S is probably the only country in the world where a statement like that would not be greeted with bewilderment.

It is undemocratic in a way, and casually irresponsible.

It assumes that people don't believe in thier own government as their tool for a better world, one which they control.

And it absolves the leaders of that government from any responsibility for its failures.

 

Well, your response is all over the place.(Whereas mine was congruent and on topic.) So let's see where we can start off.

-Freedom of speech is a value in this country, as it was in France. What Geller did was the right thing, as the people of France know now to, not to retreat from their secular values that they valued so highly and once upon a time, we valued those same things. Geller's actions did not propel the acts of violence, only the terrorists themselves were capable of acting violently and proved Geller right.

If this country valued what we used to value, we would all universally stand with someone like Geller, or any other controversial American to express their views. But that's not the political discourse of today, as you have demonstrated all so clearly.

She's not merely a "fringe" candidate in France, but she has remodeled and strengthened her political party, with her own political views. If in fact she were an American citizen, she would be the most powerful woman in America. I'm in awe and inspired by her, since she actually looks at the real world with an open view. What will shock the world, very positively is if the National Front gained more seats in the French Parliament and if we're treated to a President Marine. Now that's a female president I'm looking forward to.

I wasn't washing anything as it regards the Boston Marathon and the Border. I said it then in 2013, and I'll say it in 2016 and I'll keep saying it until we get concrete proof of a better border policy: That as long as undocumented people enter this country, we're at risk(as we now suspect a possible terror cell) for extensive attacks, like that seen in Israel.

There was no whitewashing, there's a definitive statement: Either the US border is strong, or we're weak. A weak border, and our pathetic intelligence led to 2013. And for as long as we ignore the problem, who knows how many more will come in the country with negative intentions to so-called "nationalize" themselves. As much as you'd like to claim there's some inconsistency in my statements, there is none. I have a very firm position, and it's the only position this country can take, lest it let itself continue to be attacked.

While so-called "far right" movements in Europe and in the US, realize an internationally-connected attack on our values, it is the Left that is increasingly acting as an ostrich, putting your collective heads in the sand and pretending that none of these problems actually exist! And then you call it parochial that we DARE actually bring it to your attention.

If it's parochial that we recognize an international war against the West, then I must ask one question: Why did the Left desire leadership in the first place? If the values of our country are not sacrosanct to this political party, if the values of our society aren't sacrosanct to your cousins abroad, why did they ever aspire for political power?

Political power is about more than the bully pulpit, it's about more than winning an election. AFTER you win the election, you are charged with the rights, privilege and responsibility of governing. Which means keeping ALL Americans safe, not just a select few. It means balancing everyone's interests, and not disparaging those you don't like. And it means, above all taking the responsibility head on and not admitting, as Obama admitted to Jeffery Goldberg, that domestic issues do not take a priority in his mind.

You'd argue that the Republicans from 2014-2016 have not governed. I won't disagree with you. That's why I seek to replace both in time. But what I do know, is that the Republicans are more assertive with the executive branch traditionally, and are at least a little bit more aware than our party of Ostriches about the challenges that we face.

Trump suggesting that those magazines that advocate terrorism be cited for inciting violence is a such strategy we will not be hearing from Hillary Clinton.

I prefer someone who will do something, as compared to another Ostrich.

And finally, we get to the weird part of your post. Where you try to link Donald Trump to Charles Lindbergh.(Someone I hadn't heard of) and when I wiki'd him, I'm not surprised that you painted a far worse portrayal of events than what actually took place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh It turns out that Lindbergh was accused of Fascist sympathies, but never convicted of any crime whatsoever. Not only THIS. But the Isolationist Lindbergh joined the war effort in 1943 and he even resigned his commission!
Lindbergh's patriotism was clearly on display,for our country. The attacks on his character, are unwarranted.

Especially seeing his positive post-war contributions as well. I'd say your comments on this manner, are very Trump-esque. But don't worry, not expecting any apologies Tom.

But let's discuss strategy here. Was Isolationism wrong? And did it fail the United States? Let me empathically answer: Isolationism didn't fail the US, the US failed to uphold its isolation. As in Libya, as in every case around the world. Things got much worse with US involvement, rather than better. By involving ourselves in WWI(something that to be fair, President Wilson strongly tried not to be involved.) we accidentally created Adolf Hitler(Even though Wilson warned at the time that the French sanctions were much too harsh.)

But much more interesting is World War 2 and Isolationism. Let's dscuss that in more detail. According to many historians, World War 2 was decided when the Anti-Continem Pact was signed. When that pact was signed, Stalin's Russia had gained a neutrality with Hitler's Germany, and had Hitler concentrate on the Western War, while Stalin was building his massive army through the four-year plans and had begun his initiative to sweep Europe while Germany was weakened.

Simply put, Stalin's isolationism, had built the Soviet War machine. As our isolationism had secured our defense to the Pacific and allowed us to build our industrial power. Even better for Stalin was when the said industrial powers of Britain/US voluntarily gave their assistance and helped to eliminate both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

By the time Stalin was done, he had Western Europe under siege, Germany was crushed and Britain was under millions of dollars in debt. It was a complete Stalin victory, as many historians acknowledge. That's why we spent the next 30-40 years with the US-Soviet stalemate leading up to the creation of the "freedom fighters" to give them their Vietnam and us, a temporary victory that ended up outweighing the benefits of said victory

Historically, it's always been better for military powers to be isolated from other powers. At the height of other Empires, they were able to keep others at bay and it was only when competing powers existed, that the dynamic has changed. Isolationism is strength, it is not weakness. But I find the Democrats to be utterly hypocritical that on one end, you don't want to commit ground troops to possibly ending the war on terror, but on the other hand you want to openly criticize isolationism, despite modern empires succeeding due to isolationism and not an over expansion.

In fact, Hitler's over expansion ended up being his downfall.

There's two kinds of fears in this world Tom. Fear that inhibits, and fear that warns. I agree that fear that inhibits action, is not a virtue. Fear that warns us that enemies to the United States want to ATTACK US and we should take every measure to defend ourselves, is not only a virtue, it is the RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT. The Left has abdicated the government of the United States and thanks to your party's abdication, we have been made weak, impotent and ineffective.

I do disagree on Trump with regards to tariffs, and I believe trade deals can be renegotiated along mutual lines. I don't think a new trade war is the answer, nor does it have to happen. But will a Hillary actively look to negotiate fairer trade deals? Probably not, she had to be pushed to the left on the issue by Bernie Sanders and will probably forget it, if elected on November 8th.

What you call nativism, which is loyalty to our OWN country is the highest virtue of honor that our countrymen and women can hold. It is not without surprise(and sadness) that the Left expresses self-hatred of what it means to be an American. The self-hating Left then sees America deteriorate and through the deterioration, rather than take responsibility, you'd rather cast a net of a "vast right wing conspiracy".

Well, I'll leave you with this: Should Hillary Clinton be elected, her predecessor was a democrat president, and SHE herself is a Democrat. Should things get worse and there's a Democratic Senate, there will be NO ONE but fellow left-wing echo chambers who will even remotely entertain your vast-right wing conspiracy.

No, at that moment in 2020 you'll finally have to owe up to your responsibility as a party, for failing to lead our nation. .

 

Is there some leg pulling going on here?????

 

Very well said. Some people simply don't like the idea of government ., or anyone, telling them what to dom

 

No leg pulling. Just observing the facts as I know them to be. The Left has abdicated its responsibility to government, really ever since they were stunned that Americans didn't like the ACA in 2009. Ever since then, they'd been behind on every issue and the Clinton-led initiative with regards to NATO(Seriously, Tom should buy her book. She had gathered the NATO-members, since she knew Russia wouldn't want to participate.) And from there, it was a go. It was a French-US Mission, mostly led by Sarosky.

Tom is right that Neo-CONS(the ones allied with him today) wanted the US to take the spoils of Libya. But I was always against the war. I was even more aghast at the consequences and I was GREATLY outspoken against Obama's actions in Syria, and Syria is playing out just like everyone predicted.

Foreign Policy is not a Democratic Party strongsuit, as CNN admitted. Unfortunately, the Clinton Doctrine is LARGELY responsible for that. Something CNN omitted from its article to try to quantify Hillary on foreign policy. Of course, being awful at foreign policy didn't stop Bush from having two terms, but as we know in 2008: Having an awful domestic policy seals a party's fate and HERE, no one can question the Democratic catastrophe.

I didn't know anyone could polarize us more than the Bush Administration, but here we are. In truth: Only a Liberal can deny the failure of these last 8 years. Republicans, Independents of various stripes all admit the great catastrophe facing us. The only thing we disagree on, is how to replace him without putting the epic failure that is Hillary Clinton there.

The only reason I'm voting Trump really, is that not enough of a size of Americans will go for the third party option.

 

You are an American who did not know who Charles Lindbergh was...

...and you are giving advice on how to vote...and why????

Okay.

I guess that could be.

But anyone who wants to take advice from you considering that...really ought to think twice.

Personally, I think you shoulda said that you WERE just pulling our leg.

In any case, it is my opinion that the idea of giving responsibility for governing a nation as complex as ours to people who think governing is the problem with our nation...is insane.

But now that I know you are serious...good luck.

 

I think there may have been a LINE on Charles Lindbergh in history class a few years ago. But if you seriously think that me not knowing about Lindbergh(and I immediately did some basic research upon reading, as my post indicated) somehow discredits me from political leadership or giving my political opinions on subjects, that's your prerogative.

A prerogative that by the way, equally discredits you in MY mind, and probably discredits you in the eyes of many. We'll see how many agree with you that it was crucial, or even necessary that I know about Charles Lindbergh.

But equally laughable, is to equate my position with Ronald Reagan. Even Tomfitz didn't do that. Because me and Tom have had discussions, and Tom knows I don't subscribe to the conservative political view. But I'm not going to get on that in this thread, because it gave me inspiration to start a new thread actually. Let's discuss the deeper meaning behind Reagan's words, and the argument we should REALLY be having.

I think it isn't too much or too little government, it is EFFICIENT(and able) government, that we should be going for.

 

You have to understand how government works. While in the military, and working in state government I watched bureaucrats build their little castles inside government and their goals were to become bigger. Efficiency isn't in their vocabulary. The more you spend, the bigger your budget grows. Then multiply that by 1000s of departments and sub-departments. Next thing you know they begin fighting each other for power and greater control.

Steve

 

If you want to think that general knowledge is not germane to what we are discussing in the thread and in this forum...not much I can do except to respectfully suggest you rethink that position.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone who supposes that GOVERNMENT is the problem...ought not to be governing.

 

It's in mine, since I studied business. I basically believe the business model can translate very well in a civil form of government. A centralized and controlled group of decision makers, is better than an anarchy which generally leads to that big growth of troublemakers that you allude to. I'd rather have one captain, than many captains. An efficient, small but powerful government will be the new "little engine that could".

 

I don't think anyone is talking about an "either or" government. I'm certainly not. Government is required for many things but it needs to understand its limitations, like the rest of us.

Steve