NBC/WallSt Poll: Hillary now only leading Bern by 2 points in Cali!

[Zorkorist]

Hillary is scary as shit.

-John

 

[ivwshane]

Hillary is scary as shit.

-John

Sure, when you are drunk!

 

[sportage]

Speaking of Hillary, I don't know why she gave that anti Donald Trump national security speech today 6/2.
I mean, no one was paying attention.
The press paid attention, but all they were looking for were responses from Donald.
And it is still all about Donald Trump.
Hillary too has become consumed with the celebrity of Donald Trump.

It's hard to reason away and try to make some point of how terrible a Donald Trump presidency would/could be. And say that with a straight face. And with the last name of Clinton.
Considering as far as national tragedy and security goes, it was a previous Clinton that embraced NAFTA and started that giant sucking sound Ross Perot warned people about.
I would call THAT a true national security disaster.
Bill need not used launch codes nor nukes to blast the heart out of the middle class when he was president. And while there were no mushroom clouds overhead, Bill's actions sure started a lot of sucking sound. Sucking that continues unto today.

And Hillary warning of national threat under a Trump presidency, could it get any worse than 9/11?
We had all the smart guys in the room. Elected all the "reasonable" leaders and that never stopped 9/11 from happening.
So she says Donald would be worse?
Hillary has one major flaw with her argument. Proof.
Proof that anything Trump might do could be any worse.

And nothing the political establishment has done has helped controlling illegal immigration.
So why not give that wall a try?
Why not try something else that may or may not work, but would not be any worse?

Hillary's reasoning and examples rely on a past of success and worthiness. Proven track record. That track record Hillary proclaims as success just isn't there.
The past is a poor example to build her reasonings on.
In case Mrs Clinton hasn't noticed, the past hasn't been all they great.
Especially for the very people she promises to defend, the middle class worker.
Maybe she needs to address and rant about hubby Bill first before focusing on Donald Trump.
I guess Hillary likes listening to herself talk, because no one else seems to.
The media listened, but their interest was only to be there should conflict between Donald and Hillary explode.
Otherwise, Hillary isn't changing any minds or warning of anything new that has not already taken place in various forms under past "reasonable" political leadership.

This is just so screwed up.
If Hillary really wants to win, she needs to go about it an entirely different way.
All her bitter rage hasn't made a dent in this hurricane known as Donald Trump.
And frankly, the more she talks the more the electorate are becoming pissed off with her.

 

[ivwshane]

-snip

You sure talk alot but you don't say much.

I don't know if you actually watched the speech but she was pretty clear about what the results of trumps policies would be. She went down the list one by one. Maybe you should re watch it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You sure talk alot but you don't say much.

I don't know if you actually watched the speech but she was pretty clear about what the results of trumps policies would be. She went down the list one by one. Maybe you should re watch it.

Our handling of the Arab Spring, Libya and Syria are tastes of what Clinton foreign policy will look like, similar to her husband's policies or lack thereof for the Balkans, Africa and south/Central America.

Trump used alarming rhetoric to get media coverage, but at its core, he is more of an isolationist. I don't know if American isolation is the right answer, but the Clinton approach of half baked engagement and the Bush approach of Neocon "all-in" have not exactly been foreign policy successes either.

 

[K1052]

Our handling of the Arab Spring, Libya and Syria are tastes of what Clinton foreign policy will look like, similar to her husband's policies or lack thereof for the Balkans, Africa and south/Central America.

Trump used alarming rhetoric to get media coverage, but at its core, he is more of an isolationist. I don't know if American isolation is the right answer, but the Clinton approach of half baked engagement and the Bush approach of Neocon "all-in" have not exactly been foreign policy successes either.

I'll take another four years of Obama like foreign policy over somebody who thinks it's no big deal to start a nuclear arms race in some of the most unstable regions in the world thanks very much. Or who's big flapping incredibly ignorant mouth could get us into innumerable conflicts both economic and military.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Lol! Yep and the three million more votes she got was because those voters were all on the payroll!

/S

There is an epidemic in this country, stupidity has reached a new height!

The power of propaganda. You know how well all of it was worked out to insure a Hillary coronation.

 

[Hugo Drax]

You sure talk alot but you don't say much.

I don't know if you actually watched the speech but she was pretty clear about what the results of trumps policies would be. She went down the list one by one. Maybe you should re watch it.

We know things will get worse under Clinton. This in the middle east got worse due to her lack of experience and our economy is still slowly imploding.

All she will do is continue more years of payday loans,more outsourcing,more wars,more erosion of the middle class, more taxpayer spending to provide free millitary protection to europe so that they can afford to retire while they want to cut our retirements.


Trump is a wildcard but i will rather roll the dice at this point and hope for the best VS continuing on the exact same losing path with clinton.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'll take another four years of Obama like foreign policy over somebody who thinks it's no big deal to start a nuclear arms race in some of the most unstable regions in the world thanks very much. Or who's big flapping incredibly ignorant mouth could get us into innumerable conflicts both economic and military.

Obama didn't have a foreign policy, and the Middle East is arguably more unstable due to Clinton's miscalculations, particularly the emergence of ISIS. It really comes down to a belief in deterrence vs triangulation. I am not a fan of nuclear proliferation, but I also believe that sometimes you need to deter crazy with crazy. I've yet to see triangulation work as a foreign policy strategy. Deterrence has some precedence of success.

 

[K1052]

Obama didn't have a foreign policy, and the Middle East is arguably more unstable due to Clinton's miscalculations, particularly the emergence of ISIS. It really comes down to a belief in deterrence vs triangulation. I am not a fan of nuclear proliferation, but I also believe that sometimes you need to deter crazy with crazy. I've yet to see triangulation work as a foreign policy strategy. Deterrence has some precedence of success.

The emergence of an ISIS like entity and the consequent sectarian conflict was inevitable unless we were willing to stay in Iraq basically forever at any cost. This is also not the sum total of foreign policy decisions from his presidency.

You say you aren't a fan of nuclear proliferation but lay out a rationale that justifies it. Interesting.

 

[Jhhnn]

The emergence of an ISIS like entity and the consequent sectarian conflict was inevitable unless we were willing to stay in Iraq basically forever at any cost. This is also not the sum total of foreign policy decisions from his presidency.

You say you aren't a fan of nuclear proliferation but lay out a rationale that justifies it. Interesting.

You mean that the emergence of ISIS is the direct result of the invasion of Iraq?

Say it isn't so!

 

[Starbuck1975]

The emergence of an ISIS like entity and the consequent sectarian conflict was inevitable unless we were willing to stay in Iraq basically forever at any cost. This is also not the sum total of foreign policy decisions from his presidency.

You say you aren't a fan of nuclear proliferation but lay out a rationale that justifies it. Interesting.

There are other forms of deterrence. Force projection. Joint military exercises. Coalitions. If I were President I would push for the establishment of a NATO like force in the Middle East.

 

[feralkid]

nm

 

[K1052]

There are other forms of deterrence. Force projection. Joint military exercises. Coalitions. If I were President I would push for the establishment of a NATO like force in the Middle East.

You referenced deterrence in the context of nuclear proliferation. I could only presume that's what you meant.

So which sect are we going to back to create this middle eastern NATO?

 

[hal2kilo]

You sure talk alot but you don't say much.

I don't know if you actually watched the speech but she was pretty clear about what the results of trumps policies would be. She went down the list one by one. Maybe you should re watch it.

It's weird what comes out of Sportage. I think he's convinced himself that Trump's going to win...cause. Now he going back and forth trying to rationalize it.

 

[kage69]

Obama didn't have a foreign policy, and the Middle East is arguably more unstable due to Clinton's miscalculations, particularly the emergence of ISIS. It really comes down to a belief in deterrence vs triangulation. I am not a fan of nuclear proliferation, but I also believe that sometimes you need to deter crazy with crazy. I've yet to see triangulation work as a foreign policy strategy. Deterrence has some precedence of success.

Blaming Clinton for the ME going extra nutty as well ISIS doesn't do much for your credibility I'm afraid.

Might want to get the basics down first before addressing responsibility (and I say that as someone who otherwise appreciates your posts and opinion)

 

[glenn1]

You mean that the emergence of ISIS is the direct result of the invasion of Iraq?

Say it isn't so!

Yeah, we sooooooo should have preferred the days when Saddam was in power and just brutally repressed or outright genocided the people who form ISIS now. Because massive human rights catastrophes are much better when overseen by a monstrous head of state recognized by the world rather than some self-proclaimed caliphate state doing it freelance.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, we sooooooo should have preferred the days when Saddam was in power and just brutally repressed or outright genocided the people who form ISIS now. Because massive human rights catastrophes are much better when overseen by a monstrous head of state recognized by the world rather than some self-proclaimed caliphate state doing it freelance.

So you want to volunteer us to be SJWs in the middle east.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, we sooooooo should have preferred the days when Saddam was in power and just brutally repressed or outright genocided the people who form ISIS now. Because massive human rights catastrophes are much better when overseen by a monstrous head of state recognized by the world rather than some self-proclaimed caliphate state doing it freelance.

I can't tell if that was sarcastic or not? Are you saying a stabilized middle east was worse for America safety than what we have now? Or are you saying that human rights violations should be taken seriously and stopped at all costs?

 

[ivwshane]

So you want to volunteer us to be SJWs in the middle east.

I think what he is saying is that he supports Hillary Clinton's foreign policy.

 

[hal2kilo]

I think what he is saying it's that he supports Hillary Clinton's foreign policy.

Funny isn't it.

 

[chowderhead]

Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination. The superdelegates annointed Clinton long before Sanders emerged as a viable alternative and well before her email issues escalated as a viable attack vector for the Republicans.

Sanders has every right to take his argument to the convention floor, and a CA victory lends credibility to his argument.

why should the superdelegates overturn the will of the people and give the nomination to someone who has only been a Democrat for less than 2 years, has 3 million less votes than Clinton, has 270+ fewer pledged delegates, and has won fewer states? How is overturning the will of millions of Democratic primary voters democratic?

 

[hal2kilo]

why should the superdelegates overturn the will of the people and give the nomination to someone who has only been a Democrat for less than 2 years, has 3 million less votes than Clinton, has 270+ fewer pledged delegates, and has won fewer states? How is overturning the will of millions of Democratic primary voters democratic?

That friggin math.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Blaming Clinton for the ME going extra nutty as well ISIS doesn't do much for your credibility I'm afraid.

Might want to get the basics down first before addressing responsibility (and I say that as someone who otherwise appreciates your posts and opinion)

That's fair. The basics on ISIS pre-date Clinton, Bush and even the foundation of America. ISIS, the Taliban and every other militant faction that's recently emerged in the Middle East tends to evoke historical events and religious themes that date back to the very emergence of Islam. The provocation of the Middle East has its origins in the collapse of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, Balkanization of the Middle East after WW1 and most recently the machinations of the Cold War and the world's increased dependence on fossil fuels.

It's a complex stew, and we can't blame it all on Clinton. I did not mean to suggest that Clinton is responsible for the emergence of ISIS. She is responsible for architecting our failed response to it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You referenced deterrence in the context of nuclear proliferation. I could only presume that's what you meant.

So which sect are we going to back to create this middle eastern NATO?

I would start with Egypt, Jordan and the UAE. There is some precedence of working along side those nations. There were military officers representing all three of those nations in my OBC class, and some even had a presence in Kosovo due to our mission there primarily being to protect Muslim minorities from the Serbs.