11-21-2016, 01:35 PM
(11-21-2016, 09:55 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(11-20-2016, 06:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:(11-20-2016, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:(11-20-2016, 01:14 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(11-19-2016, 11:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: -- who in their right mind wants to pick a fight with Russia? And is stoopid enough to broadcast it before an election? l thought it was just lame ignorance but yeah, it could be socialpathy.
What was stoopid was to think HRC wanted to pick a fight with Russia. She clearly said that a no-fly zone in Syria would have to be worked out so that Russia would not attack it. What is naive is to attribute the ignorance and sociopathy of Donald Trump to the rational and knowledgeable Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was perfectly clear who the sociopath was, and who wasn't. Anyone who can't see that is seriously and willingly not paying attention.
(Insult redacted). Russia considers the Assad regime to be crucial to the survival of Russia otherwise they would never have assigned so many of the military assets to defending it. Shooting down Russian planes would be in effect declaring war on them. If they decide they can not win using conventional weapons then an all out attack with nuclear weapons becomes their only option.
So why does Donald Trump so suck up to President Putin? What does Donald Trump get, and what does he give, in this strange relationship? Why did Vladimir Putin have so much at stake in the election? Why would he support the American nominee for President showing despotic tendencies never before shown in mainstream American politics?
The answer to the last is clear: Putin doesn't want a nuclear war, and he thinks that with Clinton, a nuclear war is more likely.
Quote:It's not ideology. Had the Republican winner been Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Mitt Romney I would not have the same fears. The politician who imposes fear upon those who oppose or turn away from him is far more dangerous than someone with whom I have a simple disagreement on ideology or policy.
Democrats had their chance to vote for Romney in 2012.
As for Kasich and Bush, there it is a matter of ideology: they're closer to Democrats than to Republicans, and Democrats who wanted them could have nominated them for Democratic candidate - or nominated Webb instead of Clinton.
Rmoney, Bush and Kasich have the wrong policies, and Rmoney was also, like Trump, all about money and a flip-flopper on policy. They could never have been nominated by Democrats. Republicans today, including those three, are so far to the right nowadays that Democrats cannot work well with them much less nominate them. Kasich was more moderate, perhaps, but is easily swayed by the Republican majority in congress to tow the reactionary line.
The problem with Trump, is that he combines ludricrous right-wing policies with personal disqualifications and demagogic skills. The other three are regressive; Trump is dangerous.