Which Presidential candidate is least likely to get us more involved in Syria?
- Thread starter Boston.Knight
- Start date
Really wish Garyd run for a NM congressional position. Could actually win & have some sort of impact. Going to take a LONG time to truly defeat the D-R establishment. (Obvious the Donald is a nice start ;-) )
I like how that snuck into the debate. Unscathed by post debate analysis. I thought Hillary made it clear - she wants to escalate Syria. Trump should stick to message about working with the Russians to get rid of ISIS.
Here is the thing with that dude. How about I'll vote for Johnson, you vote for Trump. My vote doesn't matter, but your vote does. Does that sound fair? Seriously, I'm concerned for this country.
What's your biggest concern?
Last knight, They said Nuclear is the biggest threat to the US. They didn't say Nuclear what.
Let it out. What are you scared of?
All votes matter. Or they all don't.
I love it. Hillary supporters say voting 3rd party is voting for Trump. Trump supporters say voting 3rd party is voting for Hillary. Neither is true.
I'm terrified of having Hillary as President. She's on record for wanting to escalate military confrontations across the board. She's unstable and has a narcissistic personality and is probably bi-polar too.
This is one area where Trump is truly more conservative. I'm with him, let's work with the Russians and get rid of ISIS.
WUT!?!? I thought Republicans liked wars and Democrats don't like wars.
Here is the good news or bad news depending on "your side", we have virtually been in perpetual wars since 1950s regardless whether a Democrat or Republican was in office. So that tells you they both like wars.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like or support any war over the last 60-70 years. That's one of the reasons I'm voting Libertarian. Sounds like you should too.
I don't really care who likes what. I'm not aligned with any party at the moment. I go with whomever represents my values the most. Right now, that's Trump.
They're both true right now until a serious third party emerges. You waste your vote. You pick the candidate that you agree most that has a chance to win to stop the people you absolutely don't agree with on anything. It's like choosing to have a skateboard as your only transportation instead of picking between a Prius or an Excursion.
The only vote wasted is one cast for someone you don't believe in. To state otherwise is to discount the ability to think for yourself. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between the two major party candidates IMHO. They're both liars, cheats, and corrupt the core. I can't in good conscience vote for either of them.
Your analogy couldn't be more wrong. Voting third party is like buying a Tesla compared to a Prius or Excursion. It's still a quality ride, it's just more inconvenient to fill up.
People seem to be forgetting most things you say about a candidate can be said about the other.
Regardless of who is elected, you cannot get rid of ISIS without going into Syria. And yes, let's join the Russians! Maybe we can help them and the Assad regime bomb some more hospitals.
My analogy is perfect. You're wasting your vote if you vote third party.
OMG. We agree on something. If you want to start a third party, start it at a more local level. A third party candidate will not win the presidency until that occurs. End of story.
Absolutely. Conservatives should vote for the most conservative candidate that has a chance to win. Liberals should vote for the most liberal candidate that has a chance to win. Until a true third party emerges from the grassroots you're wasting your vote. The Libertarians keep putting up the same retreads with the same losing strategy every year, they're never going to accomplish anything. You need to elect people to Congress, and to local/state councils/Congress like bq said. They have no strategy for anything but Presidential elections if you even want to call what they do every four years a steategy. Things would change if they actually started to put people into office down ticket.
I think its said that around 50% of the voters are registered independent. If they voted for the candidate that they wanted instead of one of 2 choices, we would have a 3rd or even 4th option. How is it that we have some 300+ million people, but only 2 options for president? Your type of thinking is a big part of the problem and what is holding this country back.
In Florida - definitely. It could come down to a couple hundred votes either way just like with Gore. Which by the way, I still voted in Florida back then and had voted for AlGore by mail ballot. So to show, I'm not aligned with anyone.
I thought he had a lot of good ideas at the time, and didn't like Bush. Proved to be right on both accounts.
One of the problems is the 24/7 media coverage that results in reporting every single detail and moment of candidates' lives. (Omigosh, he forgot to feed his dog once...HE CLEARLY HATES ANIMALS AND PROBABLY PEOPLE TOO!)
A lot of good potential candidates don't want that for their families, so they decline to run. I bet there are quite a few good potential candidates that won't run because of this.
.
When I saw her get all robot mode about going into Syria and cleaning up. It really, seriously scared me. Think "Cross the red line" on steroids.
In other words, will Hillary have the restraint to let false flags play out? She has diminished capacity with the brain clots. I feel bad for her, but that's reality.
Boston, why don't you just stick to what you know best.... Telling ppl to BUY GOLD!!
Ummmm ... http://BalancedRebellion.com (match up with someone of the opposite party on Facebook, hold them accountable)
If over 1/3rd of America "wastes their vote" (and nearly 40% of young people are, all but 10% for Johnson!) then Johnson has a great chance of being President.
Bill Clinton didn't get much beyond 40% in 1992, and became President. But unlike 1992, it's not between 2-3:1 Republican / Democratic, but almost 1:1 Johnson is pulling. Because he's slightly pulling more from Clinton (first Libertarian to do such), because Clinton is even more "authoritative" than Trump.
That means if Johnson gets 35%, he may take it. If he's in the debates, he's good for another +15%, easily. 2/3rds of Americans side with Johnson's views more than Clinton or Trump. Don't believe me? Take the Quiz.
Knowing who you are (not who the US media says) ...
- https://ucf.forums.rivals.com/threads/knowing-who-you-are-not-who-the-us-media-says.45633/
Johnson is the most serious third party candidate in modern times, even more than Perot, polling better this late, in all 50 states + DC (took nearly 1M written signatures aggregate in all states -- unheard of), etc... He has a freak'n proven record in New Mexico, a border state, far better than Bill Clinton ever did in Arkansas.
The 1950s+ subsidy of the Democratic and Republican parties has to end. If the Libertarians capture more than 5%, it opens up all sorts of doors in 2020 that no party has since Perot's short-lived Reform party. And unlike Reform, Libertarians keep showing up ... again, and again, and again.
Last edited:
Nice, thanks BS, I'm gonna show that to all my like minded colleagues. That said, Massachusetts is now Clinton "leaning" instead of solid. That's what I was told. Hard to believe though, but if that should change materially, I would vote for Trump.
I just wish AlternativePAC wouldn't have gotten such a late start. Hopefully we'll see more of this in 2020 ... much earlier.
I refuse to vote 'lesser of 2 evils.' We deserve what we get if we vote that way.
In all honesty, I fear if Trump wins, he'll be another Hoover ... at the mercy of the '20s he didn't create, but Wilson did, just like Obama. Even W. walked into a recession in 2001 that he's still blamed for, that was not his doing at all (although Iraq and the Housing bust were on his watch).
As a reminder, Hillary Clinton strongly argued in favor of a no fly zone ever since October 2015, just days after Russia began a bombing campaign aimed at maintaining the stability of the Syrian government. "I personally would be advocating now for a no fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air, to try to provide some way to take stock of what’s happening, to try to stem the flow of refugees," said Clinton in an interview with NBC in October 2015.
Despite the warnings, the former Secretary of State and current presidential candidate, who has a well-known hawkish position towards regime change and matters related to Russia, has continued to advocate this position which has gained traction in recent weeks among top US diplomats.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-disaster-drill-days-after-us-general-warns-w
Despite the warnings, the former Secretary of State and current presidential candidate, who has a well-known hawkish position towards regime change and matters related to Russia, has continued to advocate this position which has gained traction in recent weeks among top US diplomats.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-disaster-drill-days-after-us-general-warns-w
The Obama administration is likely going to be very poorly remembered for foreign policy, not because people disagreed ... but because the Obama administration reversed 180 degrees from their first 6-7 years in their final 1-2. Specifics?
- Withholding THAAD from allies that the Clinton administration (before W.) promised would receive the system, including not deploying THAAD (which is 100x more area sensory capable than PAC-3) to South Koream well after the equivalent sensory/tracking S-300VM and S-400 systems had already been developed, "caught up" (THAAD was 20 years ahead in sensory back in the '90s) and deployed to China and North Korea (let alone also sold to Iran)
- Halting the late Clinton, and finalized during W., NMD program out of Chinese and Russian austerity, only to restart it in haste after North Korea showcases MRBM and even a (still only partially accurate) ICBM program, which the GAO now says will be 7 years late, at 250% the cost, for far less the capability than scheduled for, as a direct result of halting prior
- Stopping Freedom of Navigation (FoN), as policy, the first time since the US became defacto FoN enforcer since 1956 and the Suez Incident, especially in the China Sea, and letting China build artificial islands, only restarting under threat from Japan and Vietnam who were going to restart FoN on their own, without the US
- Increasing spending in German to 200% the levels at the end of the W. administration, for 1/4th as many troops, using it to prop up local German economies instead of actual capability, while the Germans let their commitments drop to under 1% GDP (when 2% GDP is mandatory in NATO membership, 4% for US)
I am no Obama fan but I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that at least two of your points are lacking so much context that you could call them blatantly wrong. Now, the current administration should be remembered as a foreign policy disaster, but you have the wrong information proving it so. I don't really blame you though, as the media is generally pretty damn inept nowadays.
Which points? I'm open to criticism/clarification.
As far as media, 0 of this comes from the media. In fact, the US media virtually never mentions things I do here at all.
It quite obvious that former 2 term Governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld, will capture the state for the Libertarian Party.
![[smoke]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/smokin.r191677.gif "Cool [smoke]")
Is Assad really as evil as the U.S. says he is? He's American educated, Syria was very stable before things started unraveling with foreign interventions. Look what happened in Libya after Gadaffi was deposed. What a mess now, and he is orders of magnitude worse than Assad ever was.
Hillary is on record as being very hawkish on Syria. In the first debate, she made it very clear that we need to be militarily active in getting rid of Assad. Trump, on the other hand, wants to work with the Russians to get rid of ISIS. I would say Trump has his priorities straightened out and H doesn't.
The "red line" that was crossed was nothing more than a false flag. To think that Obama was within a whisker of sending in ground troups again into an Arab country under false pretense is very disturbing, especially after WMD in Iraq. Hillary is speaking out of both sides of her mouth - she changed her tone on Syria in the third debate - probably because she polled poorly on the subject. This goes to her "public versus non-public" opinion on things revealed in wikileaks.
I have no doubt that crazy lady is going to get us into some unwanted and unnecessary war and lose of precious American lives. She has something to prove that she is "tough". and you know the military industrial complex is pouring millions into the Clinton foundation buying them political favor come decision time.
I don't like Trump either, but he's the cleanest sheet in a pile of stinky dirty laundry. He talks about keeping America out of wars and trying to negotiate peace deals between Isreal and the Arabs. So he's a geek who made some remarks in poor taste. That pales in comparison to what the Clintons have done over the years - illegal, crooked things.
Hillary is on record as being very hawkish on Syria. In the first debate, she made it very clear that we need to be militarily active in getting rid of Assad. Trump, on the other hand, wants to work with the Russians to get rid of ISIS. I would say Trump has his priorities straightened out and H doesn't.
The "red line" that was crossed was nothing more than a false flag. To think that Obama was within a whisker of sending in ground troups again into an Arab country under false pretense is very disturbing, especially after WMD in Iraq. Hillary is speaking out of both sides of her mouth - she changed her tone on Syria in the third debate - probably because she polled poorly on the subject. This goes to her "public versus non-public" opinion on things revealed in wikileaks.
I have no doubt that crazy lady is going to get us into some unwanted and unnecessary war and lose of precious American lives. She has something to prove that she is "tough". and you know the military industrial complex is pouring millions into the Clinton foundation buying them political favor come decision time.
I don't like Trump either, but he's the cleanest sheet in a pile of stinky dirty laundry. He talks about keeping America out of wars and trying to negotiate peace deals between Isreal and the Arabs. So he's a geek who made some remarks in poor taste. That pales in comparison to what the Clintons have done over the years - illegal, crooked things.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
OT: War in Israel, anti Israeli protests across college campuses- Latest: greenvilleSC_knightfan
