President Donald J. Trump

[21st Century Man]

All of which The Trump Thing is guilty of.

I'm not going through the round robin again but you know what I think of the Clintons.  I'll leave it at that.

[136 or 142]

You don't even know which if those were actual presidents.

You mean which OF those?

1.Harry Truman
2.Dwight Eisenhower
3.John Kennedy
4.Lyndon Johnson
5.Richard Nixon
6.Jimmy Carter
7.Ronald Reagan

I was referring to Russia/The Soviet Union and ended off at the end of the Cold War.  Had I continued in terms of those advocating military usage, I would have added:
1.George H W Bush
2.Bill Clinton
3.Bob Dole
4.George W Bush
5.John Kerry
6.Barack Obama
7.John McCain
8.Mitt Romney

Not all of these were militaristic or were warmongers.  There is a tradition of U.S Presidents since the start of the Cold War advocating the possibility of military engagements should the U.S or NATO be threatened.  Trump is part of this in regards to taking on ISIL. He is not part of it in regards to Russia either because he is an admirer of Putin and believes he'd get along with him, or because he's, as usual, trying to take all sides on all issues.

In so far as Trump knows less about foreign policy than George H W Bush's dog Millie, I wouldn't take any of his positions on foreign affairs or anything else seriously.  Alleged SciFi Author does so because he's Dunning Kruger.

[SciFiAuthor]

Do people seriously not see Trump as a person who would go to war? He's driven by ego and if a bomb goes off somewhere over there he's not going to sit back and talk about the budget deficit. He'd be at least as bellicose as Hillary, if not more so. I'm amazed that people don't see that.

He would go to war, I don't doubt that at all and in fact I expect him to in regards to ISIS. But intentionally ramping up tensions with Russia, which is the last country on earth the US needs to be ramping up tensions with, just to try to deflect from the content of hacked emails, which have not been proven to be of Russian origin, is flagrantly reckless. Threatening to respond militarily to cyber attacks is reckless. No-fly zones in Syria are reckless.

There are much better, and globally safer, policies. A Hillary presidency at least guarantees a new cold war if not outright conflict and that frankly trumps every other concern. I do not want the world taken down the path of the 20th century over inconsequential shitholes like Syria and Ukraine. Ramp tensions down with Russia, not up, and Trump's the only one suggesting that.

[GravitySucks]

He would go to war, I don't doubt that at all and in fact I expect him to in regards to ISIS. But intentionally ramping up tensions with Russia, which is the last country on earth the US needs to be ramping up tensions with, just to try to deflect from the content of hacked emails, which have not been proven to be of Russian origin, is flagrantly reckless. Threatening to respond militarily to cyber attacks is reckless. No-fly zones in Syria are reckless.

There are much better, and globally safer, policies. A Hillary presidency at least guarantees a new cold war if not outright conflict and that frankly trumps every other concern. I do not want the world taken down the path of the 20th century over inconsequential shitholes like Syria and Ukraine. Ramp tensions down with Russia, not up, and Trump's the only one suggesting that.

If Russia was trying to influence the election by releasing hacked emails, we would have already seen the ones that Hillary had deleted.

Including all of the ones between her and Obama.

[SciFiAuthor]

Most hawkish Presidential candidate in a century?  You know your history as badly as you know everything else Dunning Kruger appeaser.

More hawkish since 1948 and start of the Cold War (only counting Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates):
1.Harry Truman
2.Dwight Eisenhower
3.Richard Nixon
4.John Kennedy
5.Barry Goldwater
6.Lyndon Johnnson
7.Jimmy Carter
8.Ronald Reagan
9.Walter Mondale

I don't know enough about Thomas Dewey in 1948 or Adlai Stevenson in 1952 or 1956 to have an opinion on their foreign policy positions.

No comparison. She's running on a platform that promises a new cold war, if not outright conflict. It isn't sane policy.

[136 or 142]

No comparison. She's running on a platform that promises a new cold war, if not outright conflict. It isn't sane policy.

No, she's running on a policy of not appeasing Putin, who has already stated that there is a new cold war and who has already threatened to use nuclear weapons.

[21st Century Man]

He would go to war, I don't doubt that at all and in fact I expect him to in regards to ISIS. But intentionally ramping up tensions with Russia, which is the last country on earth the US needs to be ramping up tensions with, just to try to deflect from the content of hacked emails, which have not been proven to be of Russian origin, is flagrantly reckless. Threatening to respond militarily to cyber attacks is reckless. No-fly zones in Syria are reckless.

There are much better, and globally safer, policies. A Hillary presidency at least guarantees a new cold war if not outright conflict and that frankly trumps every other concern. I do not want the world taken down the path of the 20th century over inconsequential shitholes like Syria and Ukraine. Ramp tensions down with Russia, not up, and Trump's the only one suggesting that.

Exactly.  I don't get why Hillary is so desperate to start a new Cold War.  Their is no benefit to either country in going there again.  Maybe the military industrial complex is pressuring her.

[21st Century Man]

No, she's running on a policy of not appeasing Putin, who has already stated that there is a new cold war and who has already threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Yeah, but notice he doesn't use the same sort of rhetoric when talking about Trump.  Just Obama and Clinton.

[theONE]

There you go projecting again. lol

21, you are so slow,...he is posting his selfie again, come on 21 I thought that you will get that at the first glance
/DN is the middle/ he desperately is asking [even more DN is begging for attention here]

[SciFiAuthor]

No, she's running on a policy of not appeasing Putin, who has already stated that there is a new cold war and who has already threatened to use nuclear weapons.

Actually she's more interested in insulting him and baselessly claiming that he hacked Podesta's horrifically unethical emails.

[theONE]

No, she's running on a policy of not appeasing Putin, who has already stated that there is a new cold war and who has already threatened to use nuclear weapons.

136,..provide quote or STFU

[SciFiAuthor]

Exactly.  I don't get why Hillary is so desperate to start a new Cold War.  Their is no benefit to either country in going there again.  Maybe the military industrial complex is pressuring her.

I expect that's probably it. An arms race is in their interest, and the neocons have basically switched sides, so it's just them raising their ugly heads again.

[136 or 142]

Exactly.  I don't get why Hillary is so desperate to start a new Cold War.  Their is no benefit to either country in going there again.  Maybe the military industrial complex is pressuring her.

Are you serious?  You're the moron that falls for the nonsense that the U.S military is 'hollowed out' and needs to be increased from the $600B annual budget it already has.  If anybody is a shill for the military industry complex, it's you.

You're not even smart enough to know when Trump's taking one side of an issue conflicts with him taking the other side of the same issue. 

Trump "We need to rebuild our hollowed out military in order to face foreign challenges like Putin, but at the same time we should appease Russia and not provoke a new cold war."

You: the U.S military is hollowed out, but Hillary Clinton wants to provoke a new cold war to please the people in the military industrial complex.

Are you just joking around again, or are you really this stupid?

[21st Century Man]

Are you serious?  You're the moron that falls for the nonsense that the U.S military is 'hollowed out' and needs to be increased from the $600B annual budget it already has.  If anybody is a shill for the military industry complex, it's you.

You're not even smart enough to know when Trump's taking one side of an issue conflicts with him taking the other side of the same issue. 

Trump "We need to rebuild our hollowed out military in order to face foreign challenges like Putin, but at the same time we should appease Russia and not provoke a new cold war."

You: the U.S military is hollowed out, but Hillary Clinton wants to provoke a new cold war to please the people in the military industrial complex.

Are you just joking around again, or are you really this stupid?

I believe in having the strongest defense in the world. That tends to keep potential enemies in check. I don't believe in going to war unless we or our allies are truly threatened. You're a moron if you don't understand that concept.

[136 or 142]

136,..provide quote or STFU

As Russian Federation tanks and troops poured across the border into eastern Ukraine, Vladimir Putin threatened to use his country’s most destructive weaponry. “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations,” he said. “This is a reality, not just words.”

http://conservativepost.com/vladimir-putin-threatens-nuclear-war-over-ukraine-2/

More recently from a supposed Putin ally:
"Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it’s war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/2998588/vladimir-putin-ally-threatens-nuclear-war-if-americans-vote-for-hillary-clinton/

I would just add to this that for Donald Trump supporters the election day is November 28.

[136 or 142]

I believe in having the strongest defense in the world. 

So, you admit you support the military industrial complex.  Good, that clears that up.

[21st Century Man]

So, you admit you support the military industrial complex.  Good, that clears that up.

Peace through strength.  I'm sure you have heard of that.   We could get into particulars of the military industrial complex but that would be a waste of time for both of us.

[theONE]

Ok, I get that. But let's not forget that Bill was excoriated for his behaviors, even though in many situations there was a consensual aspect. Let's not also forget that Ken Starr spent millions and found little. Let's not forget that Ken Starr interviewed Juanita Broaddrick and chose to not have her as part of his prosecution. Let's also not forget, that even if you don't believe there was a right wing conspiracy against the Clintons many do believe that. Let's not forget that there is a cottage industry that continues to spew information that has been proven false.

As to Trump, it may seem frivolous to many but that doesn't mean it is frivolous. I won't pretend to know what it takes to be president. However, to many, his lack of respect for women is quite troubling.

onan,..from reading many of your posts to me looks that you don't know how to think logically, you are thinking with your emotions, not with your brain

[SciFiAuthor]

I believe in having the strongest defense in the world. That tends to keep potential enemies in check. I don't believe in going to war unless we or our allies are truly threatened. You're a moron if you don't understand that concept.

Peace through strength, détente, etc. though I would imagine 136 only vaguely may have heard of those things and can't be bothered to read about them.

[136 or 142]

onan,..from reading many of your posts to me looks that you don't know how to think logically, you are thinking with your emotions, not with your brain

At least onan, unlike you, has a brain.  Not a one and not theONE either.

[136 or 142]

Peace through strength.  I'm sure you have heard of that. 

Of course I've heard of that.  That's basically Hillary Clinton's position.  You're the one who advocates, at least when it comes to Russia, appeasement and letting the expansionist dictator Putin have free reign over Eastern Europe.

[21st Century Man]

Peace through strength, détente, etc. though I would imagine 136 only vaguely may have heard of those things and can't be bothered to read about them.

Thanks, SF.  It seems 136 has a problem understanding that concept.

[theONE]

This goes into all the flaws that Hillary brings to the table and attempts to show why she is still a better bet than Trump. I know it won't convince any of you but I thought it was worth posting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACDqFL8mW3s

SV,..good luck with people watching 2-1/2 hours of ..this stuff, I clicked on it and the moment I saw how long this video is, I'm gone,,,

[136 or 142]

Peace through strength, détente, etc. though I would imagine 136 only vaguely may have heard of those things and can't be bothered to read about them.

I understand them as concepts beyond the slogans.  That's beyond your very limited abilities, Dunning Kruger.

[136 or 142]

Thanks, SF.  It seems 136 has a problem understanding that concept.

No, you have a problem applying the concept to the real world situation.

[theONE]

Do people seriously not see Trump as a person who would go to war? He's driven by ego and if a bomb goes off somewhere over there he's not going to sit back and talk about the budget deficit. He'd be at least as bellicose as Hillary, if not more so. I'm amazed that people don't see that.

SV,..slowly I'm loosing respect for you-----you starting to 'sound' delusional and incapable of logical and realistic thinking

[Dr. MD MD]

Morning Joe Scarborough was a Republican member of the U.S House from the Florida 1st district.

Well, he's clearly a Democrat now. 

[SciFiAuthor]

Of course I've heard of that.  That's basically Hillary Clinton's position.  You're the one who advocates, at least when it comes to Russia, appeasement and letting the expansionist dictator Putin have free reign over Eastern Europe.

No it isn't. Her position is proactive confrontation such as the imposition of no-fly zones, threat of military force in response to cyber attacks, etc.

[21st Century Man]

Of course I've heard of that.  That's basically Hillary Clinton's position.  You're the one who advocates, at least when it comes to Russia, appeasement and letting the expansionist dictator Putin have free reign over Eastern Europe.

When he tries to invade Poland, I'll join you in the condemnation of Putin.  Until then,  I'll consider your exaggerations a bunch of hot air.  Free reign over Eastern Europe.  lol.  I mean really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exm7FN-t3PY

[136 or 142]

Well, he's clearly a Democrat now. 

My understanding is that his schtick is to criticize the Republican and advocate the Democratic position until about a week before the election when he suddenly turns and explains why his viewers need to vote Republican after all.