info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hillary Is A Neocon! Only a gullible person would believe she is a better choice to face Trump!
2 views
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
Mar 21, 2016, 7:45:36 PM3/21/16
to
A new website tells the truth. Please help spread it around:
http://HillaryIsANeocon.com
"For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice
will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be." -Robert Kagan
"I have a sense that she's one of the more competent members of the
current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about
how she might perform were she to be president." -Dick Cheney
"I've known her for many years now, and I respect her intellect. And
she ran the State Department in the most effective way that I've ever
seen." -Henry Kissinger
Nobody Beats This Record
* She says President Obama was wrong not to launch missile strikes
on Syria in 2013.
* She pushed hard for the overthrow of Qadaffi in 2011.
* She supported the coup government in Honduras in 2009.
* She has backed escalation and prolongation of war in Afghanistan.
* She voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
* She skillfully promoted the White House justification for the war
on Iraq.
* She does not hesitate to back the use of drones for targeted
killing.
* She has consistently backed the military initiatives of Israel.
* She was not ashamed to laugh at the killing of Qadaffi.
* She has not hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran.
* She is not afraid to antagonize Russia.
* She helped facilitate a military coup in Ukraine.
* She has the financial support of the arms makers and many of their
foreign customers.
* She waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons
to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and
Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
* She supported President Bill Clinton's wars and the power of the
president to make war without Congress.
* She has advocated for arming fighters in Syria.
* She supported a surge in Iraq even before President Bush did.
Please forward this email to tell people about http://HillaryIsANeocon.com
Follow on twitter at https://twitter.com/Hillary_Neocon
Like on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/hillaryisaneocon
Further reading. http://hillaryisaneocon.com/node/2
Videos. http://hillaryisaneocon.com/node/3
-- The RootsAction.org Team
http://www.rootsaction.org
http://HillaryIsANeocon.com
"For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice
will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be." -Robert Kagan
"I have a sense that she's one of the more competent members of the
current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about
how she might perform were she to be president." -Dick Cheney
"I've known her for many years now, and I respect her intellect. And
she ran the State Department in the most effective way that I've ever
seen." -Henry Kissinger
Nobody Beats This Record
* She says President Obama was wrong not to launch missile strikes
on Syria in 2013.
* She pushed hard for the overthrow of Qadaffi in 2011.
* She supported the coup government in Honduras in 2009.
* She has backed escalation and prolongation of war in Afghanistan.
* She voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
* She skillfully promoted the White House justification for the war
on Iraq.
* She does not hesitate to back the use of drones for targeted
killing.
* She has consistently backed the military initiatives of Israel.
* She was not ashamed to laugh at the killing of Qadaffi.
* She has not hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran.
* She is not afraid to antagonize Russia.
* She helped facilitate a military coup in Ukraine.
* She has the financial support of the arms makers and many of their
foreign customers.
* She waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons
to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and
Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation.
* She supported President Bill Clinton's wars and the power of the
president to make war without Congress.
* She has advocated for arming fighters in Syria.
* She supported a surge in Iraq even before President Bush did.
Please forward this email to tell people about http://HillaryIsANeocon.com
Follow on twitter at https://twitter.com/Hillary_Neocon
Like on facebook at https://www.facebook.com/hillaryisaneocon
Further reading. http://hillaryisaneocon.com/node/2
Videos. http://hillaryisaneocon.com/node/3
-- The RootsAction.org Team
http://www.rootsaction.org
jdeluise
Mar 21, 2016, 11:47:53 PM3/21/16
to
acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
Still stumping for Trump? You cowardly ditched the thread the last time
I exposed you.
Still stumping for Trump? You cowardly ditched the thread the last time
I exposed you.
PaxPerPoten
Mar 22, 2016, 1:34:45 AM3/22/16
to
On 3/21/2016 6:45 PM, lo yeeOn wrote:
> A new website tells the truth. Please help spread it around:
>
> http://HillaryIsANeocon.com
Well Hillary is Prison bound and with good damned reason. She is a
> A new website tells the truth. Please help spread it around:
>
> http://HillaryIsANeocon.com
murderous Treasonous bitch! Ask..Would Vince Foster vote for her... Or
his widow?
>
>
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
lo yeeOn
Mar 24, 2016, 7:58:28 PM3/24/16
to
In article <87r3f3m...@wintersun.localdomain>,
What is your problem?
I answered your protestation that "Trump would put boots on Syrian
ground". I believe I have answered more than once. My answer has
always been in effect:
He might have said it to some talk show host one morning in response
to some event the day before. But his predominant sentiment seems
to have been one of getting less militarily involved abroad. This
is an impression shared by many political commentators - not just me
or Code Pink, a group that is both strongly feminist and strongly
anti-war. His distaste for military adventures is reflected by his
concurrent sentiment that we are broke and that other countries,
from Russia, to Japan, to Korea, to the EU countries can shoulder
many of the military things the neocons crave for our government to
achieve. And he expressed these major themes in at least one of the
more important GOP debates before one of the pivotal primaries.
When you kept insisting that I haven't, no smart person would let you
grab him by his hair and drag him out for a public torture show, just
because you take a more aggressive stand? Noooooooo way, no sirieee!
You think I would come and check to see if you unleashed another one
of your slander? Noooooooo way, no sirieee! You've lost credibility
a long time ago by talking about Trump's rug on the get-go. I think
he's more serious about America's problem that his critics have given
him credit for.
For one source, take a look at this article:
Top Republicans say Donald Trump's real problem is that he's too
moderate By Max Ehrenfreund January 22 at 2:09 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/22/its-official-trump-doesnt-go-far-enough-leading-republicans-argue/
For another, check out this one from Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/24/glenn_greenwald_hillary_clinton_has_embraced
JAKE TAPPER: The world would be better off with Saddam Hussein -
DONALD TRUMP: Hundred percent.
JAKE TAPPER: - and Gaddafi in power?
DONALD TRUMP: A hundred percent.
Looking at Assad and saying maybe he's better than the kind of
people that we're supposed to be backing.
And I think Russia can be a positive force and an ally.
But, you know, whether you like Saddam Hussein or not, he used to
kill terrorists.
For still another one, read this one entitled: "neocons declare war on
Trump":
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires
Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between
Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role
he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views
challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the
party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's
runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the
hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted
the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security
non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign
policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion
that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump
in November.
Enough citation. I don't like to hear Trump say that he wouldn't rule
out using nuke on ISIS. But it may just be posturing - just as G W
Bush was posturing when he snarled about the same thing. But Bush did
worse, in my opinion, because he avoided talking about his expansive
neocon military ambition until after he was elected.
I think it's better for everyone to know where you stand now than to
be deceived. G W Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc. are liars. The better
candidates in the general elections should be between Trump and Bernie
Sanders because they are both more independent and also more concerned
about the country's economic well being than Hillary and the other
Republican candidates. And I may vote for someone else that is on the
ballot at election time. In fact, I will if it is between Hillary and
a non-Trump for the GOP.
By the way, terrorism doesn't come out of the blue. Few of us were
aware of the terrorist attack at Moscow's Domodedovo airport in 2011.
Mostly it was because the West was told that it was a freedom fighting
thing for the Chechens - we all know that Russia went to war in
Chechnya some years ago and our freedom fighters were crushed. So,
it's not at all surprising that Chechens hated the Russians. Now in
Brussels, the airport bombing that ISIS has claimed credit for, was,
naturally, also a terrorist attack. But where did ISIS come from?
George W Bush begat ISIS and Hillary Clinton nursed it and raised it
to its current size.
You think terrorism just came out of some evil people's idle thoughts,
like you have described the Tsarnaev brothers? Only uneducated people
want to take a reality out of the causality equation, let me tell you!
So Trump's well-known distaste for intervention and regime change by
aggression and/or violent means is a preferrable approach to those who
embrace the neocons, like Hillary.
Maybe Trump will be just as bad as Obama and George W Bush, in terms
of our liberal aggression / interverntionist regime change foreign
policy. But at least I know that Hillary Clinton would be worse
because she has promised, and with an excellent track record to boot,
will be carrying H2O for the neocons. 'Nough said!
Cheers!
lo yeeOn
Neocons declare war on Trump
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151
Prominent Republican hawks are debating whether to hold their noses
and vote for Clinton instead. By Michael Crowley 03/02/16 05:55 PM EST
Updated 03/02/16 09:51 PM EST
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir
Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the
Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are
we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views
challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the
party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's
runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the
hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the
Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable -
said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never
to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they
could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a
former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a
strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's
election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign
policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it
considerably."
Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but
said he does not identify himself that way, said he would "strongly
prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably if
absolutely no alternative: Hillary."
In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the
Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often
advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for
Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he
said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump."
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP
foreign policy insiders - many of whom are not considered neocons -
that was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the
Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at
its head," It cited everything from Trump's "admiration for foreign
dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of
torture".
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts,
including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide
in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush
Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's
Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official.
Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible
position, constitutionally incapable of voting for Clinton but
repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider
somewhere between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from
their views about American power and values abroad.
. . .
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington
neoconservatives, said he would seek out a third option before
choosing between Trump and Clinton.
. . .
Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the
preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for
"moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights
and democracy.
Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into
public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War
and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump
nomination would force him to cross party lines.
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned.
with foreign policy".
"What it has to do with is the health and safety of American
democracy," he added. "I don't even know what Donald Trump's foreign
policy is. I don't think anybody does."
Though Trump's foreign policy views don't fit any familiar category,
he has outlined several clear positions at odds with neoconservative
doctrine.
While neoconservatives believe America plays a unique role in
defending global order and Western values, Trump has long complained
about America's military presence abroad and the protection the
U.S. provides to prosperous allies like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South
Korea.
Neocons depict Russian President Vladimir Putin as a sinister tyrant
challenging America; Trump calls Putin a strong leader with whom he'd
"get along very well" and proposes a more cooperative relationship
with Moscow.
What it has to do with is the health and safety of American
democracy," he added. "I don't even know what Donald Trump's foreign
policy is. I don't think anybody does."
Though Trump's foreign policy views don't fit any familiar category,
he has outlined several clear positions at odds with neoconservative
doctrine.
While neoconservatives believe America plays a unique role in
defending global order and Western values, Trump has long complained
about America's military presence abroad and the protection the
U.S. provides to prosperous allies like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South
Korea.
Neocons depict Russian President Vladimir Putin as a sinister tyrant
challenging America; Trump calls Putin a strong leader with whom he'd
"get along very well" and proposes a more cooperative relationship
with Moscow.
Neocons believe the U.S. must forcefully defend Israel. But while
Trump insists his presidency would be "the best thing that could ever
happen to Israel," he has alarmed pro-Israel Republicans with his
pledge to be a "neutral" arbiter in talks between Israel and the
Palestinians.
Trump has shown little interest in the neoconservative cause of an
interventionist foreign policy guided by principles like democracy and
human rights. And he says the neocon project of invading Iraq may have
been "the worst decision" in presidential history.
. . .
Danielle Pletka, a defense expert at the American Enterprise
Institute: "[W]hile I will never vote for a Democrat in wolf's
clothing like Trump, I will also never vote for a candidate as
dishonest, as rapacious, as Hillary Clinton," . . .
Neocons have shown little enthusiasm for Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who
has singled them out for scorn. Speaking to Iowa voters in December,
Cruz bashed what he called the "crazy neocon
invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle
East" element of his party.
Cruz has also attacked Rubio in debates for supporting military action
to topple Middle Eastern dictators in Libya and Syria, and has said
the world was better off with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in
power.
But the neocons reserve special scorn for Trump.
. . .
Several other prominent neoconservatives, including former Bush
Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz and Liz Cheney, daughter of former
vice president Dick Cheney, did not respond to requests for comment.
I answered your protestation that "Trump would put boots on Syrian
ground". I believe I have answered more than once. My answer has
always been in effect:
He might have said it to some talk show host one morning in response
to some event the day before. But his predominant sentiment seems
to have been one of getting less militarily involved abroad. This
is an impression shared by many political commentators - not just me
or Code Pink, a group that is both strongly feminist and strongly
anti-war. His distaste for military adventures is reflected by his
concurrent sentiment that we are broke and that other countries,
from Russia, to Japan, to Korea, to the EU countries can shoulder
many of the military things the neocons crave for our government to
achieve. And he expressed these major themes in at least one of the
more important GOP debates before one of the pivotal primaries.
When you kept insisting that I haven't, no smart person would let you
grab him by his hair and drag him out for a public torture show, just
because you take a more aggressive stand? Noooooooo way, no sirieee!
You think I would come and check to see if you unleashed another one
of your slander? Noooooooo way, no sirieee! You've lost credibility
a long time ago by talking about Trump's rug on the get-go. I think
he's more serious about America's problem that his critics have given
him credit for.
For one source, take a look at this article:
Top Republicans say Donald Trump's real problem is that he's too
moderate By Max Ehrenfreund January 22 at 2:09 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/22/its-official-trump-doesnt-go-far-enough-leading-republicans-argue/
For another, check out this one from Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/24/glenn_greenwald_hillary_clinton_has_embraced
JAKE TAPPER: The world would be better off with Saddam Hussein -
DONALD TRUMP: Hundred percent.
JAKE TAPPER: - and Gaddafi in power?
DONALD TRUMP: A hundred percent.
Looking at Assad and saying maybe he's better than the kind of
people that we're supposed to be backing.
And I think Russia can be a positive force and an ally.
But, you know, whether you like Saddam Hussein or not, he used to
kill terrorists.
For still another one, read this one entitled: "neocons declare war on
Trump":
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires
Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between
Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role
he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views
challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the
party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's
runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the
hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted
the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security
non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign
policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion
that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump
in November.
Enough citation. I don't like to hear Trump say that he wouldn't rule
out using nuke on ISIS. But it may just be posturing - just as G W
Bush was posturing when he snarled about the same thing. But Bush did
worse, in my opinion, because he avoided talking about his expansive
neocon military ambition until after he was elected.
I think it's better for everyone to know where you stand now than to
be deceived. G W Bush, Hillary Clinton, etc. are liars. The better
candidates in the general elections should be between Trump and Bernie
Sanders because they are both more independent and also more concerned
about the country's economic well being than Hillary and the other
Republican candidates. And I may vote for someone else that is on the
ballot at election time. In fact, I will if it is between Hillary and
a non-Trump for the GOP.
By the way, terrorism doesn't come out of the blue. Few of us were
aware of the terrorist attack at Moscow's Domodedovo airport in 2011.
Mostly it was because the West was told that it was a freedom fighting
thing for the Chechens - we all know that Russia went to war in
Chechnya some years ago and our freedom fighters were crushed. So,
it's not at all surprising that Chechens hated the Russians. Now in
Brussels, the airport bombing that ISIS has claimed credit for, was,
naturally, also a terrorist attack. But where did ISIS come from?
George W Bush begat ISIS and Hillary Clinton nursed it and raised it
to its current size.
You think terrorism just came out of some evil people's idle thoughts,
like you have described the Tsarnaev brothers? Only uneducated people
want to take a reality out of the causality equation, let me tell you!
So Trump's well-known distaste for intervention and regime change by
aggression and/or violent means is a preferrable approach to those who
embrace the neocons, like Hillary.
Maybe Trump will be just as bad as Obama and George W Bush, in terms
of our liberal aggression / interverntionist regime change foreign
policy. But at least I know that Hillary Clinton would be worse
because she has promised, and with an excellent track record to boot,
will be carrying H2O for the neocons. 'Nough said!
Cheers!
lo yeeOn
Neocons declare war on Trump
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151
Prominent Republican hawks are debating whether to hold their noses
and vote for Clinton instead. By Michael Crowley 03/02/16 05:55 PM EST
Updated 03/02/16 09:51 PM EST
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir
Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the
Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are
we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views
challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the
party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's
runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the
hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the
Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable -
said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never
to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they
could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a
former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a
strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's
election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign
policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it
considerably."
Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but
said he does not identify himself that way, said he would "strongly
prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably if
absolutely no alternative: Hillary."
In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the
Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often
advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for
Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he
said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump."
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP
foreign policy insiders - many of whom are not considered neocons -
that was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the
Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at
its head," It cited everything from Trump's "admiration for foreign
dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of
torture".
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts,
including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide
in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush
Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's
Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official.
Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible
position, constitutionally incapable of voting for Clinton but
repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider
somewhere between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from
their views about American power and values abroad.
. . .
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington
neoconservatives, said he would seek out a third option before
choosing between Trump and Clinton.
. . .
Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the
preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for
"moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights
and democracy.
Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into
public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War
and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump
nomination would force him to cross party lines.
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned.
"The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be."
In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do
with foreign policy".
"What it has to do with is the health and safety of American
democracy," he added. "I don't even know what Donald Trump's foreign
policy is. I don't think anybody does."
Though Trump's foreign policy views don't fit any familiar category,
he has outlined several clear positions at odds with neoconservative
doctrine.
While neoconservatives believe America plays a unique role in
defending global order and Western values, Trump has long complained
about America's military presence abroad and the protection the
U.S. provides to prosperous allies like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South
Korea.
Neocons depict Russian President Vladimir Putin as a sinister tyrant
challenging America; Trump calls Putin a strong leader with whom he'd
"get along very well" and proposes a more cooperative relationship
with Moscow.
What it has to do with is the health and safety of American
democracy," he added. "I don't even know what Donald Trump's foreign
policy is. I don't think anybody does."
Though Trump's foreign policy views don't fit any familiar category,
he has outlined several clear positions at odds with neoconservative
doctrine.
While neoconservatives believe America plays a unique role in
defending global order and Western values, Trump has long complained
about America's military presence abroad and the protection the
U.S. provides to prosperous allies like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South
Korea.
Neocons depict Russian President Vladimir Putin as a sinister tyrant
challenging America; Trump calls Putin a strong leader with whom he'd
"get along very well" and proposes a more cooperative relationship
with Moscow.
Neocons believe the U.S. must forcefully defend Israel. But while
Trump insists his presidency would be "the best thing that could ever
happen to Israel," he has alarmed pro-Israel Republicans with his
pledge to be a "neutral" arbiter in talks between Israel and the
Palestinians.
Trump has shown little interest in the neoconservative cause of an
interventionist foreign policy guided by principles like democracy and
human rights. And he says the neocon project of invading Iraq may have
been "the worst decision" in presidential history.
. . .
Danielle Pletka, a defense expert at the American Enterprise
Institute: "[W]hile I will never vote for a Democrat in wolf's
clothing like Trump, I will also never vote for a candidate as
dishonest, as rapacious, as Hillary Clinton," . . .
Neocons have shown little enthusiasm for Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who
has singled them out for scorn. Speaking to Iowa voters in December,
Cruz bashed what he called the "crazy neocon
invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle
East" element of his party.
Cruz has also attacked Rubio in debates for supporting military action
to topple Middle Eastern dictators in Libya and Syria, and has said
the world was better off with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in
power.
But the neocons reserve special scorn for Trump.
. . .
Several other prominent neoconservatives, including former Bush
Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz and Liz Cheney, daughter of former
vice president Dick Cheney, did not respond to requests for comment.
jdeluise
Mar 25, 2016, 6:58:53 PM3/25/16
to
acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
> When you kept insisting that I haven't, no smart person would let you
> grab him by his hair and drag him out for a public torture show, just
> because you take a more aggressive stand? Noooooooo way, no sirieee!
> You think I would come and check to see if you unleashed another one
> of your slander?
I quoted you exactly and posted a link to where you said "I know Trump"
> When you kept insisting that I haven't, no smart person would let you
> grab him by his hair and drag him out for a public torture show, just
> because you take a more aggressive stand? Noooooooo way, no sirieee!
> You think I would come and check to see if you unleashed another one
> of your slander?
after you wrote a speech for him. This was after you claimed you said
no such thing and accused me of "smearing" you. If anyone has no
credibility, it's you.
Just 'fess up, you'd love Trump to be president. If you think he won't
do the same things or worse than Hillary, you are incredibly naive.
No surprise though, you wear your naivete on your sleeve as it is.
jdeluise
Mar 25, 2016, 7:04:57 PM3/25/16
to
acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
> Enough citation. I don't like to hear Trump say that he wouldn't rule
> out using nuke on ISIS. But it may just be posturing - just as G W
> Bush was posturing when he snarled about the same thing. But Bush did
> worse, in my opinion, because he avoided talking about his expansive
> neocon military ambition until after he was elected.
I take the man at his word. You have invented a fantasy version of him,
>
> Enough citation. I don't like to hear Trump say that he wouldn't rule
> out using nuke on ISIS. But it may just be posturing - just as G W
> Bush was posturing when he snarled about the same thing. But Bush did
> worse, in my opinion, because he avoided talking about his expansive
> neocon military ambition until after he was elected.
it seems. It's obvious you have in fact, you even wrote a speech for him!
That's seriously deluded in my opinion.
If you were really interested in a more peaceful America why not support
Sanders? Trump is a neocon wet dream.
lo yeeOn
May 20, 2016, 9:25:22 PM5/20/16
to
In article <87d1qit...@wintersun.localdomain>,
I said "I know Trump" - if I did say that at all, which is unusual,
because I have learned to be very careful with forming my sentences so
that the gotchas type like bmoore and you won't waste my time to reply
and correct - I meant I have either heard him talk or read lots and
lots of articles about what Trump had or hadn't said and come away
feeling comfortable with the assessment that he is leaning toward the
sentiment that we've had too much war and that the wars that have been
waged in our names are dragging America down. To the extent that
Trump is averse to keeping that phony "war on terror" going, yes I
feel comfortable that I know Trump.
Such an assessment has now gained widespread acceptance to the point
that the New York Times is seen as supporting my view:
The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton for president, echoed
these observations in April, noting Hillary's extreme belligerence
"will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets
in the general election."
Trump, now the presumed GOP nominee, has not "demonstrated anywhere
near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has,"
the Times wrote, adding "Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left
in the race."
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/candidate_in_race_most_like_bush_and_cheney_is_hillary_clinton_says_gop_strategist/
The observations the Salon article alluded to above are those conveyed
by a certain GOP strategist by the name of Steve Schmidt. (See the
article for details.)
It's not that I care that the NYT agrees with me. It's just so
remarkable that what I have seen as an open Trump secret for many
months have now finally be an official assessment of an influential
propaganda outlet for the neocon warmongers.
As for whether I support Trump, I have repeatedly said that the best
for America would be a Trump-Sanders matchup. And my family certainly
has been an unfailing supporters for Bernie's candidacy, both in terms
of moral and financial support. I shall not repeat what I have said
in this regard.
If it gives you joy to think that I wear "naivete on my sleeve" or
"incredibly naive", I am glad for you. (I know you enjoy this type of
sophomoric thing very much because you used words derived from "naive"
twice in as many sentences!)
But of course it is my assessment, as well as in the NYT editorial
board's and many leading neocons' that Trump is not nearly as willing
to go to war as Hillary Clinton. The latest talk of the town is that
Trump would be willing to meet Kim Jong-un face to face. Since George
W Bush called North Korea a member of the axis of the evil, it's been
taboo for US presidents or presidential aspirants to think of the NK
chiefs as anything but "monsters".
So, what did Hillary do?
Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton responded by decrying his
"bizarre fascination with foreign strongmen".
The statement, from one of her aides, added that Mr Trump's foreign
policy "made no sense"
Now, outside of the neocon think, one might wonder why it is bizarre
to say that a President Trump would be willing to meet with his North
Korea counterpart for the sake of peace and disarmament.
In fact, Trump's latest peace gesture did not come out of a vacuum.
Trump has repeatedly said that South Korea has contributed "peanuts"
to its own defense. And the implication is that, in his as well as
many others' view, our military presence on the 38th parallel has been
over-long and overly expensive. It's time that North Korea and South
Korea reunify. The German and the Vietnamese have done that and the
world has been a better place, especially for the peoples in those
countries.
So when a presidential candidate like Trump makes peace gesture to
Kim, Hillary thinks it's "bizarre fascination" with the monsters (on
her sh*t list) that "makes little sense"?
No doubt, NYT knew who would be their next water carrying girl:
Clinton's extreme belligerence "will likely set her apart from the
Republican candidate she meets in the general election," the Times
explains, noting "neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of
Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military
engagement abroad that Clinton has."
The NY Times is absolutely right - she's a bigger hawk than the
Republicans.
According to Ben Norton who writes for Salon:
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/
The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton for president, echoed
these observations in April, noting Hillary's extreme belligerence
"will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets
in the general election."
Trump, now the presumed GOP nominee, has not "demonstrated anywhere
near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has,"
the Times wrote, adding "Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left
in the race."
How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk Posted on April
29, 2016 by Yves Smith
Yves here. It was hard not to notice the awfully convenient timing
of the publication of the New York Times story, Top Gun: How Hillary
Clinton Became a Hawk. If you have not read it, you need to, ASAP.
It makes painfully clear how much Hillary believes that the US
should continue to act as if it were the worlds' sole superpower,
when those days are past, is deeply enamored of aggressive military
men, and is in synch with neocons. A sobering article.
By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of
Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at
WhoWhatWhy
So, no great surprise there when Hillary Clinton's campaign calls
Donald Trump's peace gesture to NK's Kim "bizarre fascination with
foreign strongmen" and that his "foreign policy `made no sense'".
But the contrast of sentiment between the two candidates ought to give
many American voters an unambiguous choice of who to vote for come
November this year!
And I say: separating the North and South Koreans by that artificial
38 parallel makes no sense and we Americans should give it up, after
more than 60 years of American boots on the Korean peninsula.
lo yeeOn
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36318752
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he is willing to
meet the North Korean leader to discuss Pyongyang's nuclear programme.
"I would speak to him, I would have no problem speaking to him," the
businessman said of Kim Jong-un.
The proposed meeting would mark a significant change of US policy
towards the politically isolated regime.
Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton responded by decrying his
"bizarre fascination with foreign strongmen".
The statement, from one of her aides, added that Mr Trump's foreign
policy "made no sense".
In a separate development, the BBC has learned that Mr Trump could
visit the UK before the presidential election in November.
Diplomats expect his visit to the UK could happen after he formally
becomes the Republican party candidate at a convention in July.
Trump could visit UK before US elections
Trump v Clinton on foreign policy
How advanced is North Korea's nuclear programme?
Mr Trump's comments about North Korea emerged in an interview with
Reuters news agency on Tuesday, in which he also expressed disapproval
of Russian President Vladimir Putin's military actions in eastern
Ukraine.
Mr Putin is a figure who Mr Trump has previously said he respects.
On the subject of North Korea, the New York property developer said he
would pursue face-to-face talks and added that he would also put
pressure on China, as North Korea's only major ally.
North Korea first tested nuclear weapons in 2006, in breach of
international agreements, and has made repeated threats of nuclear
strikes against South Korea and the US.
In the Reuters interview, Mr Trump also called for a renegotiation of
the Paris climate agreement, in which more than 170 countries pledged
to reduce carbon emissions.
And he said he would dismantle most of the Dodd-Frank financial
regulations if he is was elected president.
On Tuesday he released financial records claiming he holds $10billion
(#6.9 billion) in assets, although he has so far resisted calls from
Democrats to release his full tax returns.
The visit to the UK is an intriguing prospect given the admission this
week from Mr Trump that "it looks like we're not going to have a very
good relationship" with the UK.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has harshly criticised Mr Trump's
proposed ban on Muslims coming to the US, calling his remarks
"divisive, stupid and wrong".
The new London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has also been in a verbal spat with
Mr Trump, pushing back at the notion put forward by the American
businessman that the Muslim mayor could be an "exception" to the ban.
Mr Trump owns property in the UK, including a golf course in Scotland,
where his mother was born.
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>> When you kept insisting that I haven't, no smart person would let you
>> grab him by his hair and drag him out for a public torture show, just
>> because you take a more aggressive stand? Noooooooo way, no sirieee!
>> You think I would come and check to see if you unleashed another one
>> of your slander?
>
>I quoted you exactly and posted a link to where you said "I know Trump"
>after you wrote a speech for him. This was after you claimed you said
>no such thing and accused me of "smearing" you. If anyone has no
>credibility, it's you.
No, between you and me, it's you who has shown your slimy self. When
>acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
>> When you kept insisting that I haven't, no smart person would let you
>> grab him by his hair and drag him out for a public torture show, just
>> because you take a more aggressive stand? Noooooooo way, no sirieee!
>> You think I would come and check to see if you unleashed another one
>> of your slander?
>
>I quoted you exactly and posted a link to where you said "I know Trump"
>after you wrote a speech for him. This was after you claimed you said
>no such thing and accused me of "smearing" you. If anyone has no
>credibility, it's you.
I said "I know Trump" - if I did say that at all, which is unusual,
because I have learned to be very careful with forming my sentences so
that the gotchas type like bmoore and you won't waste my time to reply
and correct - I meant I have either heard him talk or read lots and
lots of articles about what Trump had or hadn't said and come away
feeling comfortable with the assessment that he is leaning toward the
sentiment that we've had too much war and that the wars that have been
waged in our names are dragging America down. To the extent that
Trump is averse to keeping that phony "war on terror" going, yes I
feel comfortable that I know Trump.
Such an assessment has now gained widespread acceptance to the point
that the New York Times is seen as supporting my view:
The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton for president, echoed
these observations in April, noting Hillary's extreme belligerence
"will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets
in the general election."
Trump, now the presumed GOP nominee, has not "demonstrated anywhere
near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has,"
the Times wrote, adding "Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left
in the race."
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/candidate_in_race_most_like_bush_and_cheney_is_hillary_clinton_says_gop_strategist/
The observations the Salon article alluded to above are those conveyed
by a certain GOP strategist by the name of Steve Schmidt. (See the
article for details.)
It's not that I care that the NYT agrees with me. It's just so
remarkable that what I have seen as an open Trump secret for many
months have now finally be an official assessment of an influential
propaganda outlet for the neocon warmongers.
As for whether I support Trump, I have repeatedly said that the best
for America would be a Trump-Sanders matchup. And my family certainly
has been an unfailing supporters for Bernie's candidacy, both in terms
of moral and financial support. I shall not repeat what I have said
in this regard.
If it gives you joy to think that I wear "naivete on my sleeve" or
"incredibly naive", I am glad for you. (I know you enjoy this type of
sophomoric thing very much because you used words derived from "naive"
twice in as many sentences!)
But of course it is my assessment, as well as in the NYT editorial
board's and many leading neocons' that Trump is not nearly as willing
to go to war as Hillary Clinton. The latest talk of the town is that
Trump would be willing to meet Kim Jong-un face to face. Since George
W Bush called North Korea a member of the axis of the evil, it's been
taboo for US presidents or presidential aspirants to think of the NK
chiefs as anything but "monsters".
So, what did Hillary do?
Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton responded by decrying his
"bizarre fascination with foreign strongmen".
The statement, from one of her aides, added that Mr Trump's foreign
policy "made no sense"
Now, outside of the neocon think, one might wonder why it is bizarre
to say that a President Trump would be willing to meet with his North
Korea counterpart for the sake of peace and disarmament.
In fact, Trump's latest peace gesture did not come out of a vacuum.
Trump has repeatedly said that South Korea has contributed "peanuts"
to its own defense. And the implication is that, in his as well as
many others' view, our military presence on the 38th parallel has been
over-long and overly expensive. It's time that North Korea and South
Korea reunify. The German and the Vietnamese have done that and the
world has been a better place, especially for the peoples in those
countries.
So when a presidential candidate like Trump makes peace gesture to
Kim, Hillary thinks it's "bizarre fascination" with the monsters (on
her sh*t list) that "makes little sense"?
No doubt, NYT knew who would be their next water carrying girl:
Clinton's extreme belligerence "will likely set her apart from the
Republican candidate she meets in the general election," the Times
explains, noting "neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of
Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military
engagement abroad that Clinton has."
The NY Times is absolutely right - she's a bigger hawk than the
Republicans.
According to Ben Norton who writes for Salon:
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/27/democrats_this_is_why_you_need_to_fear_hillary_clinton_the_ny_times_is_absolutely_right_shes_a_bigger_hawk_than_the_republicanse/
The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton for president, echoed
these observations in April, noting Hillary's extreme belligerence
"will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets
in the general election."
Trump, now the presumed GOP nominee, has not "demonstrated anywhere
near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has,"
the Times wrote, adding "Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left
in the race."
How the New York Times Helped Hillary Hide the Hawk Posted on April
29, 2016 by Yves Smith
Yves here. It was hard not to notice the awfully convenient timing
of the publication of the New York Times story, Top Gun: How Hillary
Clinton Became a Hawk. If you have not read it, you need to, ASAP.
It makes painfully clear how much Hillary believes that the US
should continue to act as if it were the worlds' sole superpower,
when those days are past, is deeply enamored of aggressive military
men, and is in synch with neocons. A sobering article.
By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of
Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the
Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at
WhoWhatWhy
So, no great surprise there when Hillary Clinton's campaign calls
Donald Trump's peace gesture to NK's Kim "bizarre fascination with
foreign strongmen" and that his "foreign policy `made no sense'".
But the contrast of sentiment between the two candidates ought to give
many American voters an unambiguous choice of who to vote for come
November this year!
And I say: separating the North and South Koreans by that artificial
38 parallel makes no sense and we Americans should give it up, after
more than 60 years of American boots on the Korean peninsula.
lo yeeOn
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36318752
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he is willing to
meet the North Korean leader to discuss Pyongyang's nuclear programme.
"I would speak to him, I would have no problem speaking to him," the
businessman said of Kim Jong-un.
The proposed meeting would mark a significant change of US policy
towards the politically isolated regime.
Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton responded by decrying his
"bizarre fascination with foreign strongmen".
The statement, from one of her aides, added that Mr Trump's foreign
policy "made no sense".
In a separate development, the BBC has learned that Mr Trump could
visit the UK before the presidential election in November.
Diplomats expect his visit to the UK could happen after he formally
becomes the Republican party candidate at a convention in July.
Trump could visit UK before US elections
Trump v Clinton on foreign policy
How advanced is North Korea's nuclear programme?
Mr Trump's comments about North Korea emerged in an interview with
Reuters news agency on Tuesday, in which he also expressed disapproval
of Russian President Vladimir Putin's military actions in eastern
Ukraine.
Mr Putin is a figure who Mr Trump has previously said he respects.
On the subject of North Korea, the New York property developer said he
would pursue face-to-face talks and added that he would also put
pressure on China, as North Korea's only major ally.
North Korea first tested nuclear weapons in 2006, in breach of
international agreements, and has made repeated threats of nuclear
strikes against South Korea and the US.
In the Reuters interview, Mr Trump also called for a renegotiation of
the Paris climate agreement, in which more than 170 countries pledged
to reduce carbon emissions.
And he said he would dismantle most of the Dodd-Frank financial
regulations if he is was elected president.
On Tuesday he released financial records claiming he holds $10billion
(#6.9 billion) in assets, although he has so far resisted calls from
Democrats to release his full tax returns.
The visit to the UK is an intriguing prospect given the admission this
week from Mr Trump that "it looks like we're not going to have a very
good relationship" with the UK.
British Prime Minister David Cameron has harshly criticised Mr Trump's
proposed ban on Muslims coming to the US, calling his remarks
"divisive, stupid and wrong".
The new London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has also been in a verbal spat with
Mr Trump, pushing back at the notion put forward by the American
businessman that the Muslim mayor could be an "exception" to the ban.
Mr Trump owns property in the UK, including a golf course in Scotland,
where his mother was born.
lo yeeOn
May 20, 2016, 10:10:58 PM5/20/16
to
In article <878u16t...@wintersun.localdomain>,
Well, if he's a "neocon wet dream" why are so many leading neocons
opposed to him? Are Max Boot, Jen Rubin, and Jimmie Weinstein also
wrong about what he wants?
About your claim "I take the man at his word": I have to be
incredulous and say "really?" If I had "invented a fantasy version of
him", you didn't sound very confident of your accusation, did you?
"cause you added "it seems."
Of course by now, everybody knows that alas, if I did (invented a
fantasy version of [Trump]), then the NYT editorial board has done
exactly the same. And last I checked, it hasn't retracted it's
assessment that Trump is not nearly as hawkish as Hillary - in fact
the NYT was so certain that Trump lacks "appetite for military
engagement abroad that Clinton has [demonstrate]", it chose to use its
enormous prestige to endorse hawkish Hillary Clinton for president.
The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton for president, echoed
these observations in April, noting Hillary's extreme belligerence
"will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets
in the general election."
Trump, now the presumed GOP nominee, has not "demonstrated anywhere
near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has,"
the Times wrote, adding "Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left
in the race."
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/candidate_in_race_most_like_bush_and_cheney_is_hillary_clinton_says_gop_strategist/
The observations the Salon article alluded to above are those
conveyed by a certain GOP strategist by the name of Steve Schmidt.
(See the article for details.)
Again, as I have said in more than one occasion, Bernie Sanders is my
man and my family's. But if the Democratic Party chooses so foolishly
to keep Bernie out and Hillary in, I will have to be a Trump voter,
unless I hear something from him that contradicts my assessment of him
regarding his desire to bring America home.
Finally, I want to bring this to your attention.
Trump has misspoken about Hillary's gun stand.
It shows that he will have work to do to convince the Bernie bros that
he's worthy of them. In other words, we'll never have a chance to see
if Trump will prove me wrong about him. But that's not something for
Hillary to celebrate. Independent of my assessment of Trump, Hillary
has made it clear that she remains eager to serve the neocons.
And regarding Hillary and guns ---
Is Clinton the 'Most Anti-Gun' candidate ever?
I wish it were true.
Hillary Clinton is only against the Second Amendment - citizens' right
to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but Hillary is not at all
anti-gun.
Hillary advocates militarizing police to bring denizens to heel.
Hillary advocates using big guns to effect regime change around the
world.
Hillary is one of the most hawkish US politicians of our time, like
her friends, Henry Kissinger, John McCain, George W Bush, and her
philandering husband Bill Clinton.
In short, Hillary has the same frightening dictatorial tendencies that
have been the hallmark of the neocon crowd.
lo yeeOn
----
Trump to NRA: Clinton Is 'Most Anti-Gun' Candidate Ever
by Alexandra Jaffe
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-nra-clinton-most-anti-gun-candidate-ever-n577711
Louisville, Ky. - Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton "the most
anti-gun" candidate ever to run for office and pledged to defend the
Second Amendment during an address at the National Rifle Association's
national convention here on Friday.
"The Second Amendment is under threat like never before," Trump told
the crowd. "Crooked Hillary Clinton is the most anti-gun, anti-Second
Amendment candidate ever to run for office."
lo yeeOn
opposed to him? Are Max Boot, Jen Rubin, and Jimmie Weinstein also
wrong about what he wants?
About your claim "I take the man at his word": I have to be
incredulous and say "really?" If I had "invented a fantasy version of
him", you didn't sound very confident of your accusation, did you?
"cause you added "it seems."
Of course by now, everybody knows that alas, if I did (invented a
fantasy version of [Trump]), then the NYT editorial board has done
exactly the same. And last I checked, it hasn't retracted it's
assessment that Trump is not nearly as hawkish as Hillary - in fact
the NYT was so certain that Trump lacks "appetite for military
engagement abroad that Clinton has [demonstrate]", it chose to use its
enormous prestige to endorse hawkish Hillary Clinton for president.
The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton for president, echoed
these observations in April, noting Hillary's extreme belligerence
"will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets
in the general election."
Trump, now the presumed GOP nominee, has not "demonstrated anywhere
near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has,"
the Times wrote, adding "Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left
in the race."
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/candidate_in_race_most_like_bush_and_cheney_is_hillary_clinton_says_gop_strategist/
The observations the Salon article alluded to above are those
conveyed by a certain GOP strategist by the name of Steve Schmidt.
(See the article for details.)
man and my family's. But if the Democratic Party chooses so foolishly
to keep Bernie out and Hillary in, I will have to be a Trump voter,
unless I hear something from him that contradicts my assessment of him
regarding his desire to bring America home.
Finally, I want to bring this to your attention.
Trump has misspoken about Hillary's gun stand.
It shows that he will have work to do to convince the Bernie bros that
he's worthy of them. In other words, we'll never have a chance to see
if Trump will prove me wrong about him. But that's not something for
Hillary to celebrate. Independent of my assessment of Trump, Hillary
has made it clear that she remains eager to serve the neocons.
And regarding Hillary and guns ---
Is Clinton the 'Most Anti-Gun' candidate ever?
I wish it were true.
Hillary Clinton is only against the Second Amendment - citizens' right
to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but Hillary is not at all
anti-gun.
Hillary advocates militarizing police to bring denizens to heel.
Hillary advocates using big guns to effect regime change around the
world.
Hillary is one of the most hawkish US politicians of our time, like
her friends, Henry Kissinger, John McCain, George W Bush, and her
philandering husband Bill Clinton.
In short, Hillary has the same frightening dictatorial tendencies that
have been the hallmark of the neocon crowd.
lo yeeOn
----
Trump to NRA: Clinton Is 'Most Anti-Gun' Candidate Ever
by Alexandra Jaffe
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-nra-clinton-most-anti-gun-candidate-ever-n577711
Louisville, Ky. - Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton "the most
anti-gun" candidate ever to run for office and pledged to defend the
Second Amendment during an address at the National Rifle Association's
national convention here on Friday.
"The Second Amendment is under threat like never before," Trump told
the crowd. "Crooked Hillary Clinton is the most anti-gun, anti-Second
Amendment candidate ever to run for office."
lo yeeOn
jdeluise
May 21, 2016, 6:12:02 PM5/21/16
to
acou...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:
>
> As for whether I support Trump, I have repeatedly said that the best
> for America would be a Trump-Sanders matchup.
Sanders teaming up with a narcissist billionaire who is only running to
>
> As for whether I support Trump, I have repeatedly said that the best
> for America would be a Trump-Sanders matchup.
increase his own wealth and power? *guffaw*
0 new messages