I'm a yuuuge Bernie nuthugger, but Trump is my second choice.

[Jack V Savage]

You keep saying this like it's a fact, but your facts don't add up.

Look at her positions and record. Look at his. It's not really disputable that he's significantly more hawkish. And unquestionably way worse on the environment and the economy. How many people do you think his worse policies in those areas would kill?

Duh. But the fact is that one of them voted for it, the other did not.

Yeah, so what's the point in saying he didn't vote against it? Further, remember that the vote wasn't whether to invade Iraq.

Trump has nothing on his record to indicate that he'd make a more hawkish president than Hillary or a more assassinaty guy than John Wilkes Booth.

As long as you ignore his statements and positions and base everything on him not voting when he had no ability to vote.

Wrong.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._decisions_in_the_history_of_the_country.html

"People don't realize Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. So we took -- we just hand it to them on a silver platter. How could we have been so stupid? Very sad. I mean, honestly, to me, it's a sad subject to talk about,"

 

[Forkfoot]

Look at her positions and record. Look at his. It's not really disputable that he's significantly more hawkish.

I have and I did. I came to very different conclusions and you have yet to show me clearly where I'm wrong.

And unquestionably way worse on the environment and the economy.

Environment yes (though it's not like Dem presidents have been very helpful toward that end anyway), economy no.

How many people do you think his worse policies in those areas would kill?

I see no evidence that they'd kill anyone. He'll go after ISIS just like any president will have to, he wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better, and I think he'll be good for jobs.

Yeah, so what's the point in saying he didn't vote against it? Further, remember that the vote wasn't whether to invade Iraq.

Because she did. If Clinton participated in a lynching of an innocent man while Trump was hundreds of miles away, she's still the one who participated in the lynching, regardless of the fact that he was too far away to do so himself. And the fact is that Trump has been speaking out against it far longer and far more strongly than Hillary has.

And it sure as fuck was a vote for invading Iraq. That is so intellectually dishonest. Bush made no secrets about what he wanted to do.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._decisions_in_the_history_of_the_country.html

"People don't realize Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. So we took -- we just hand it to them on a silver platter. How could we have been so stupid? Very sad. I mean, honestly, to me, it's a sad subject to talk about,"

Please explain how you think this supports your claims and refutes mine.

 

[fightfan2355]

So pander to a violent radical group rather then stick up against it...that a weak leader. ..a strong leader would choose the noble path and remind those blm, how disgusting their culture is and the last time went to war with the white man they were enslaved

Speaking of leaders, I found a recent picture of yours...

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have and I did. I came to very different conclusions and you have yet to show me clearly where I'm wrong.

I think it's true to say that I have showed you, but you have decided to ignore the evidence.

Environment yes (though it's not like Dem presidents have been very helpful toward that end anyway), economy no.

I can only assume that you haven't followed any news on the environment in the past seven years. The stimulus alone had $90B for green energy, and has led to huge spikes in wind and solar energy, there was higher standards for gas mileage in cars, energy efficiency in appliances, etc. And that's before the major international treaties. Also, I can't even fathom how you wouldn't see a huge difference (in Clinton's favor) on the economy.

I see no evidence that they'd kill anyone. He'll go after ISIS just like any president will have to, he wants to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better, and I think he'll be good for jobs.

In reality, bad economic policy does lead to people dying, and bad environmental policy leads to a lot of people dying. To take him at his word that he'll replace the ACA with "something better" seems to me to me impossibly naive. Again, if you like hawkish foreign policy, think that climate change is a hoax, believe that gov't transfer income is immoral, etc. I understand favoring Trump over Clinton, but otherwise, it makes no sense.

And it sure as fuck was a vote for invading Iraq. That is so intellectually dishonest. Bush made no secrets about what he wanted to do.

There you go again with the bullshit personal attacks. Read the signing statement. Among many other parts I could have quoted is this:

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Please explain how you think this supports your claims and refutes mine.

He's saying we should have plundered the country's oil. Is that not clear?

 

[Bloodworth]

Has a police officer ever attacked someone? Police are a violent radical hate group, then.

Police are college educated and offer

Speaking of leaders, I found a recent picture of yours...

So if your against people rushing a mic, and rioting your a racist. What did I say that was racist??. I was pointing out facts.
But if you say anything towards a certain group , it's racist...just turn a blind eye to the rioting the lack of family values..
As power turn a blind eye , it turns out all those same people are given all the gov benefits.
So in 2016 normal people are supposed to give up their money to allow gov benefits to such a group.

 

[Desdinova]

WTF? Trump promised to "bomb the hell out of ISIS," put ground troops in Syria, take Iraq's oil, extract a tribute from allies, etc. This is just a baffling statement. He's way the hell more hawkish than Clinton, and more than almost anyone else in the race. This is what happens when knowledgeable liberals don't correct dishonest right-wing attacks on Clinton. It's very Bush/Gore with some people.

Didn't Trump just criticize Bush for the war in Iraq in front of a pro Bush republican audience? Dispute the booing he was outspoken about it being a mistake.

 

[BoxingFan123]

If bombing the hell out of ISIS makes one a warhawk then Bernie is one as well. In terms of Jack V Savage, Hillary has to said she wants boots on the ground to defeat ISIS.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...solationist-foreign-policy-attacked/?page=all

 

[dempseyroll]

 

[Forkfoot]

I think it's true to say that I have showed you, but you have decided to ignore the evidence.

I think it's true to say that I ignored nothing, just openly dismissed it as insufficient.

I can only assume that you haven't followed any news on the environment in the past seven years. The stimulus alone had $90B for green energy, and has led to huge spikes in wind and solar energy, there was higher standards for gas mileage in cars, energy efficiency in appliances, etc. And that's before the major international treaties. Also, I can't even fathom how you wouldn't see a huge difference (in Clinton's favor) on the economy.

I can only assume you don't understand the state of our ecosystem if you think that's more than a drop in the barrel. Bernie's the only one who might take anywhere near sufficient action on the environment.

There you go again with the bullshit personal attacks. Read the signing statement. Among many other parts I could have quoted is this:

"I will vote for this because it's politically convenient, but I want Bush to take the blame for the inevitable consequences." Yes.

He's saying we should have plundered the country's oil. Is that not clear?

It's perfectly clear, but it's unclear how that makes him more of a warmonger than Clinton? He's talking about oil policies we should have taken once we were there to make the best of a shitty situation.

 

[Uchi Mata]

It's not that strange. They're the two most populist candidates in the election.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

So crazy thought: Trump might actually be my second choice among viable candidates after Bernie. He's the only other candidate who seems unlikely to drag the U.S. into another evil act of military interventionism, speaking about making "deals" (aka diplomacy) with Russia and other countries, dismissing the cut-and-dry, black-and-white narrative other Republican candidates have running on ISIS ("We don't even know who our allies are!"), and is the only major candidate besides Bernie to unequivocally condemn the Iraq invasion. I kinda think a U.S. President's most fundamental job is to keep the peace and try not to get people killed, and everyone besides Sanders and Trump is scarily hawkish, including Hilary.

Less importantly but still worth noting, Trump is also like Bernie in that (unlike Hillary) they're both outspoken critics of the TPP, NAFTA, and other job-killing free trade agreements. They've both pledged not to try and get rid of social security or medicare, they're both vocal about wanting to repair America's infrastructure, and neither of them is beholden to large campaign donors, albeit for very different reasons. I'd be a lot more comfortable seeing these two guys square off in November than anyone else. It's bizarre, but I think I'm actually pulling for the guy.

I'm in the same position. I'd rather see Bernie win, but if he doesn't, Trump is the only other candidate that could make a meaningful difference if elected IMO. I don't like Trump's stance on immigration or Native American rights, but as you said he isn't beholden to campaign donors nearly as much and that would in itself be a refreshing change.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

I want to see a shake up in the country. I would like to see Bernie get a chance to lead the crazy, but if he can't get in then Trump seems to be the only alternative. Everyone else will basically be politics as usual. I want to see the 2 party system come to an end. I don't like Trump as a person, or his policies, but he will turn the system on it's head.

Exactly, the system needs some serious revamping and none of the other candidates with exception of Bernie will do that. A lot of people say if so and so gets elected i'm moving to...blah, blah, blah...But i'm serious. If Clinton or Cruz get elected, I already have dual citizenship with Canada, i'm gone.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

If you think about it Kasich and Rubio are the only candidates that aren't feared and/or loathed by the country.

Cruz and Clinton are seen as diabolical geniuses fueled by the lust for power who will stop at nothing to radically alter the country in a horrible way.

Trump and Sanders are seen as wild eyed outsiders with kooky ideas. They'll turn the whole country into a laughing stock while screwing up everything that's good about the status quo due to ineptitude and misguided populist ideals.

Jeb is another Bush, and that means we're living under an aristocratic dynasty. No longer a democracy.

 

[Forkfoot]

I changed my mind. Fuck Trump.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

I changed my mind. Fuck Trump.

I don't think any of us were ever serious enough to vote for the guy. It was a nice thought experiment though.

I think I'm going with Hillary. A Clinton victory would rustle so many people I don't like that it's worth it.