Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jill Stein On Why Trump AND Clinton Are Dangerous
#1


1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#2
Clinton is actually more dangerous than trump, her closest political allies are the same neocon consortium of nincompoops that gave us the Iraq war.
Reply
#3
(08-19-2016, 11:29 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: Clinton is actually more dangerous than trump, her closest political allies are the same neocon consortium of nincompoops that gave us the Iraq war.

I think she is certain danger due to what you have mentioned. Trump is unknown and that as well as his rhetoric/attitude also makes him dangerous. I do not trust either of them.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#4
Bush II gave us the Iraq War, and those neo-cons are unlikely allies of Clinton II, since Clinton I didn't give us any such neo-con wars or had neo-con allies.

There are dangers associated with Hillary; she is more hawkish than Obama, but that does not prove that she would start preventive wars of choice as Bush II did. Even if she voted for one, and didn't want to leave one, she is willing to say now that it was a mistake. Her recommendation to send arms to the Syrian rebels was correct. She is aware that involvement in those current mid-east wars must be limited, and I think she means it. Having just gotten involved in a new war against the Islamic State, and still involved in the war from 2001, we Americans have just passed the USA war cycle, and whatever you think of the idea that things move in cycles, it's unlikely that a war-weary USA public would support another major war at this time, unless severely attacked; which is also unlikely. So even if Trump is elected, that would be unlikely; and I think it also means that a nincompoop like Trump is unlikely to be elected at a time when new American wars are very unlikely. But the unfinished wars are unlikely to be given up on by a Hillary admin either. I have some hope from cosmic indications that 2017 will be a good year for potential resolutions. So that's what I'm predicting, which implies also that former Secretary (and now President) Hillary will nominate a good qualified person for Secretary of State.

Come on you guys, you all know now about the Jupiter war cycle. So if you have to eat your words, don't blame me.
https://youtu.be/WAoeW5fXJYU

The indicators instead show that there might also be some kind of breakthrough in long-distance travel in 2017, since that happened when Saturn was previously in Sagittarius in such years as 1957, 1927 and 1869.

The danger of Hillary also is that she will be like the other recent Democratic presidents and compromise too much with the business world and still buy into the Reagan memes too much. How well she can focus in a passionate way is unclear. The appointment of Salazar to the transition team is a very bad sign. She needs to veer to the left, as the platform did, to meet the needs of the times. She seems to get that, so why did she appoint Salazar? Jill Stein may be right (I am of course a former supporter of hers; whether I vote for her in 2016 is still undecided). Stay tuned, I guess.

I think it's a horrible travesty that candidates such as Stein and Johnson are not in the debates. That's not real democracy. The primary debates included obvious failures who had no support, such as Lindsay Graham, just because they were Republicans, or O'Malley just because he is a Democrat. Come on; that is not fair at all!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#5
(08-20-2016, 02:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Bush II gave us the Iraq War, and those neo-cons are unlikely allies of Clinton II, since Clinton I didn't give us any wars.

There are dangers associated with Hillary; she is more hawkish than Obama, but that does not prove that she would start preventive wars of choice as Bush II did. Even if she voted for one, and didn't want to leave one, she is willing to say now that it was a mistake. Her recommendation to send arms to the Syrian rebels was correct. She is aware that involvement in those current mid-east wars must be limited, and I think she means it. Having just gotten involved in a new war against the Islamic State, and still involved in the war from 2001, we have just passed the American war cycle, and whatever you think of the idea that things move in cycles, it's unlikely that a war-weary USA public would support another major war at this time, unless severely attacked; which is also unlikely. So even if Trump is elected, that would be unlikely; and I think it also means that a nincompoop like Trump is unlikely to be elected at a time when new American wars are very unlikely. But the unfinished wars are unlikely to be given up on by a Hillary admin either. I have some hope from cosmic indications that 2017 will be a good year for potential resolutions. So that's what I'm predicting, which implies also that former Secretary (and now President) Hillary will nominate a good qualified person for Secretary of State.

The danger of Hillary also is that she will be like the other recent Democratic presidents and compromise too much with the business world and still buy into the Reagan memes too much. How well she can focus in a passionate way is unclear. The appointment of Salazar to the transition team is a very bad sign. She needs to veer to the left, as the platform did, to meet the needs of the times. She seems to get that, so why did she appoint Salazar? Jill Stein may be right (I am of course a former supporter of hers; whether I vote for her in 2016 is undecided). Stay tuned, I guess.

Where is the source for your info on Bush II starting the Iraq war so i can read it
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#6
What nonsense, Tara. If you don't know even that, you don't belong here. Go learn just a little bit of history. Grow up. Goodbye again. Jeeez!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#7
(08-20-2016, 03:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What nonsense, Tara. If you don't know even that, you don't belong here. Go learn just a little bit of history. Grow up. Goodbye again. Jeeez!

People are right. You are a troll. Btw I am a foreigner so i have a higher chance of not knowing what is going on in your county's history. Could you say what happened in my country's past? No, you couldn't. If you cannot provide proof you are talking out your ass as far as i am concerned.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#8
(08-20-2016, 03:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What nonsense, Tara. If you don't know even that, you don't belong here. Go learn just a little bit of history. Grow up. Goodbye again. Jeeez!

Oh and btw .... why so hostile? What is wrong with wanting evidence backing up your claim? If you asked for evidence on something about my country's past i would give it without question because p.s. the world does not revolve around NZ just like it does not revolve around America. I do belong here because guess what? This is not a site purely for American politics. This is a site dedicated to the generational theories of Strauss and Howe or have you forgotten you little troll?
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#9
(08-20-2016, 02:22 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(08-20-2016, 02:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Bush II gave us the Iraq War, and those neo-cons are unlikely allies of Clinton II, since Clinton I didn't give us any wars.

There are dangers associated with Hillary; she is more hawkish than Obama, but that does not prove that she would start preventive wars of choice as Bush II did. Even if she voted for one, and didn't want to leave one, she is willing to say now that it was a mistake. Her recommendation to send arms to the Syrian rebels was correct. She is aware that involvement in those current mid-east wars must be limited, and I think she means it. Having just gotten involved in a new war against the Islamic State, and still involved in the war from 2001, we have just passed the American war cycle, and whatever you think of the idea that things move in cycles, it's unlikely that a war-weary USA public would support another major war at this time, unless severely attacked; which is also unlikely. So even if Trump is elected, that would be unlikely; and I think it also means that a nincompoop like Trump is unlikely to be elected at a time when new American wars are very unlikely. But the unfinished wars are unlikely to be given up on by a Hillary admin either. I have some hope from cosmic indications that 2017 will be a good year for potential resolutions. So that's what I'm predicting, which implies also that former Secretary (and now President) Hillary will nominate a good qualified person for Secretary of State.

The danger of Hillary also is that she will be like the other recent Democratic presidents and compromise too much with the business world and still buy into the Reagan memes too much. How well she can focus in a passionate way is unclear. The appointment of Salazar to the transition team is a very bad sign. She needs to veer to the left, as the platform did, to meet the needs of the times. She seems to get that, so why did she appoint Salazar? Jill Stein may be right (I am of course a former supporter of hers; whether I vote for her in 2016 is undecided). Stay tuned, I guess.

Where is the source for your info on Bush II starting the Iraq war so i can read it

The invasion of Iraq was a horrible decision that damaged the USA and helped Iran.

Quote:https://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War
… "seeking no further UN resolutions and deeming further diplomatic efforts by the Security Council futile, Bush declared an end to diplomacy and issued an ultimatum to Ṣaddām, giving the Iraqi president 48 hours to leave Iraq. The leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and other countries objected to this buildup toward war.”…
 … whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Reply
#10
Between the 2 the hildabitch warmonger is the more dangerous. The Donald is just a dumbass. Vote Jill
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#11
(08-21-2016, 08:39 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Between the 2 the hildabitch warmonger is the more dangerous. The Donald is just a dumbass. Vote Jill

Either Trump or Clinton will become the next President. I prefer Trump.
 … whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Reply
#12
This is the exact kind of ignorant/moronic Nader Nuts thinking that got us 'W' Bush in 2000 and the invasion of a country based on lies that is still, today, causing a cluster-F in the Middle East.

Clinton is not Bush, and Kane is about as far from being a Dickhead Cheney as any pol can get.

Wake the F up before its too late.
Reply
#13
Quote:Clinton is actually more dangerous than trump, her closest political allies are the same neocon consortium of nincompoops that gave us the Iraq war.


For what it's worth, Rand Paul, for one, agrees with this.
"It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger, for these pined away being consumed for want of the fruits of the earth" - Lamentations 4:9
Reply
#14
(08-21-2016, 04:25 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote:
Quote:Clinton is actually more dangerous than trump, her closest political allies are the same neocon consortium of nincompoops that gave us the Iraq war.


For what it's worth, Rand Paul, for one, agrees with this.

Good reason not to agree, if Rand Paul says he agrees. It's absurd; they are not the same group of nincompoops.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#15
(08-21-2016, 08:39 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Between the 2 the hildabitch warmonger is the more dangerous. The Donald is just a dumbass. Vote Jill

hahahahaha hildabitch i love it! Big Grin
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#16
(08-21-2016, 08:14 AM)radind Wrote:
(08-20-2016, 02:22 PM)taramarie Wrote:
(08-20-2016, 02:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Bush II gave us the Iraq War, and those neo-cons are unlikely allies of Clinton II, since Clinton I didn't give us any wars.

There are dangers associated with Hillary; she is more hawkish than Obama, but that does not prove that she would start preventive wars of choice as Bush II did. Even if she voted for one, and didn't want to leave one, she is willing to say now that it was a mistake. Her recommendation to send arms to the Syrian rebels was correct. She is aware that involvement in those current mid-east wars must be limited, and I think she means it. Having just gotten involved in a new war against the Islamic State, and still involved in the war from 2001, we have just passed the American war cycle, and whatever you think of the idea that things move in cycles, it's unlikely that a war-weary USA public would support another major war at this time, unless severely attacked; which is also unlikely. So even if Trump is elected, that would be unlikely; and I think it also means that a nincompoop like Trump is unlikely to be elected at a time when new American wars are very unlikely. But the unfinished wars are unlikely to be given up on by a Hillary admin either. I have some hope from cosmic indications that 2017 will be a good year for potential resolutions. So that's what I'm predicting, which implies also that former Secretary (and now President) Hillary will nominate a good qualified person for Secretary of State.

The danger of Hillary also is that she will be like the other recent Democratic presidents and compromise too much with the business world and still buy into the Reagan memes too much. How well she can focus in a passionate way is unclear. The appointment of Salazar to the transition team is a very bad sign. She needs to veer to the left, as the platform did, to meet the needs of the times. She seems to get that, so why did she appoint Salazar? Jill Stein may be right (I am of course a former supporter of hers; whether I vote for her in 2016 is undecided). Stay tuned, I guess.

Where is the source for your info on Bush II starting the Iraq war so i can read it

The invasion of Iraq was a horrible decision that damaged the USA and helped Iran.

Quote:https://www.britannica.com/event/Iraq-War
… "seeking no further UN resolutions and deeming further diplomatic efforts by the Security Council futile, Bush declared an end to diplomacy and issued an ultimatum to Ṣaddām, giving the Iraqi president 48 hours to leave Iraq. The leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and other countries objected to this buildup toward war.”…

Thank you a direct source to Bush's involvement. I have had a double shift and will again tomorrow and have had no sleep but i will save this and read when i can.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#17
(08-21-2016, 02:58 PM)radind Wrote:
(08-21-2016, 08:39 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Between the 2 the hildabitch warmonger is the more dangerous. The Donald is just a dumbass. Vote Jill

Either Trump or Clinton will become the next President. I prefer Trump.

As you say, we have different worldviews Smile

I prefer to have a sane person at the helm of our country. Just me, I guess......
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What if the FBI is on to Hillary Clinton? nebraska 0 489 01-06-2018, 07:26 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Africans are being sold at Libyan slave markets. Thanks, Hillary Clinton. nebraska 0 424 12-31-2017, 08:36 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy Eric the Green 219 116,105 05-31-2017, 02:25 PM
Last Post: David Horn
  Bill Clinton's lonely, one-man effort to win white working-class voters Dan '82 1 965 11-13-2016, 03:23 PM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  Yes, Hillary Clinton is still winning. And yes, the media is lying to you. naf140230 25 8,241 09-30-2016, 07:27 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Millennials Have Cooled on Hillary Clinton, Forcing a Campaign Reset Dan '82 33 13,220 09-23-2016, 07:06 AM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  What will happen if Clinton is elected President MillsT_98 44 13,499 09-14-2016, 11:09 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  These 2 polls on how Hispanics feel about Trump and Clinton may surprise you Dan '82 1 900 09-01-2016, 09:13 AM
Last Post: Anthony '58
  BREAKING: Clinton Campaign Floored As Wikileaks Releases Hillary’s Financial Ties To taramarie 7 4,250 08-05-2016, 03:48 PM
Last Post: Ragnarök_62
  Jill Stein on vaccines: People have ‘real questions’ Dan '82 3 1,347 07-31-2016, 11:38 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)