- This topic has 219 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
I don’t think either of these two candidates are particularly good choices for running our country, but it does look like these are the options that we’re going to have come November. So who do you think would be worse in regards to:
The American economy?
American foreign policy and national security?
Supporting Israel?
Both.
Clinton will be eight more years of Obama, though perhaps the first two with a Democratic Congress (cf 2009-2010 and all the mischief that was done, also assume several radical left-wing Supreme Court justices, which will seriously threaten our community.
Trump is unknown. He’s basically a a Nixon or Eisenhower type Republican, but with made for TV clown behaviors. His anti-immigraiton and anti-trade policies could cripple the US, but Hillary won’t be all that different. He might back down from those policies, and especially form his anti-Muslim and anti-Hispanic policies, since Trump’s nativism seems to be a media stunt. His actual policies probably will be normal for a moderate Republican, and he might throw some bones to the conservatives.
Sanders would be devastatingly bad. (think “Yevsektzia”).
You would have supported anyone against Mussolini had you known what he was going to do to you.
This is no different.
That even a single Jew could even consider a vote for the candidate of Louis Farrakhan and David Duke shows that we do not learn the lessons of history.
“That even a single Jew could even consider a vote for the candidate of Louis Farrakhan and David Duke shows that we do not learn the lessons of history. “
Dr. Hall,
I believe that you know that Trump has a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren. Why antisemites will vote for him is beyond me.
BTW a grand wizard of the KKK in California just recently endorsed Hillary.
Going out on a fence here…
But looking at everything from an outside point of view, I don’t think its so radical for a Presidential candidate to endear himself to all different sorts of people. He wants the votes from anyone and everyone – even if they have a shady, disgusting following.
Okay, you can stone me now – but use only small pebbles please.
That even a single Jew could even consider a vote for the candidate of Louis Farrakhan and David Duke shows that we do not learn the lessons of history.
Says the voter for the candidate of Jeremiah wright
Louis Farrakhan did not actually endorse Trump. Actually, he wrote on his Facebook wall recently that a Trump presidency would make the country to go hell or some such nonsense.
Trump’s seeming encouragement of violence among his supporters is the main thing that troubles me (since there are certainly parallels with Mussolini’s blackshirts and Putin’s thugs). Building a wall with Mexico is actually a pretty reasonable security measure and administrative policy (Hillary was even for it at some point).
Which is worse, Canada or New Square?
Charlie – you are raving. I don’t know if you actually believe what you say about Trump or if you are just so in love with your candidates that you are willing to spew whatever drivel you think helps discredit their opponents.
Remember, Farrakhan supported Obama openly… called him the messiah. Lots of super shady characters endorse and fawn over your favorite characters, and I don’t think it bothers you a bit there.
Squeak, if Trump declares war on Mexico to make it pay for the wall, are you volunteering for the Army?
Trump says so many different things that it is hard to know what he thinks. He rails against corporations leaving America but his name-brand clothes are made in China. He was endorsed by Duke (although he repudiated him) but is proud of his frum gioret daughter and Jewish grandchildren (kashia on Duke). Clinton, on the other hand, is a known enemy of Jewish rights to EY, a professional liar (she was fired from a staff position on the Watergate committee for unethical behavior) and may jsut be indicted (in Obama doesn’t pardon her just before he steps down).
No, I won’t be volunteerin for the army. Why do you ask? And why do you think there is going to be a war against Mexico? It doesn’t sound very plausible to me.
This is what politics in the U.S. has come to: A bloviating bully or a female Richard Nixon. The evil of two lessers. I have voted in every general election since 1964, either in person of by absentee ballot, but I think I may sit this one out.
mdd: Wars are declared for, and paid for, by Congress. The same goes for walls.
Trump is a media personality based on the character he developed for his shul. What he’ll be like when he decides to “get real” is anyone’s guess, but its unlikely that its as bad as the loudmouth bully he played on TV.
We have a good sense who Hillary Clinton is and who she would surround herself with in office. Trump on the other hand is much harder to read. I would expect him to do what Ross Perot did when we get closer to the general election time in the fall and that is to try to unify the country by bringing in some Dems as aides like Perot did with the late Hamilton Jordan.
apukerma: There is not a scintilla of evidence that The Dumpster is anything else than what we see. He is a bully, a narcissist, a liar and he has already destroyed the Republican Party. If you doubt that, note what he said this morning on one of his favorite TV programs -I heard it on radio,btw-He was asked whom does he consult with on important matters. His answer? “Myself- I have a good brain”.
Narcissism on steroids and totally unsuitable to be President.
Schwartzy: see above. Not a scintilla of evidence that he is anything than what you see.
rabbiofberlin: If Trump is such a nativist, why did he marry two foreign women, and why did he not disown his daughter for converting to Judaism – unless his nativism is an part of the act. Trump claims to be against foreign trade, yet he’s an international businessman whose global businesses depend on free trade. Most politicians will “say” what their listeners want hear, and most politicians tend to be highly narcissistic (honestly, humility in a politican would be a severe handciap). We can tell from his record, in areas where his past actions match his rhetoric, that Trump is for big government, not worries about debts, and has no problem with government confiscating people’s property – positions that would make him into a liberal Republican or a Democrat (think Rockefeller or Nixon – not Goldwater or Reagan). While we can be certain of Hillary’s mediocrity, we can’t be certain what we would be getting with Trump, which may or may not be good.
apukerma: You cannot have it both ways. If you think that he is such a practical person an that he is only telling people what they want to hear- then how can you trust him on anything??? Neither Eienhower not Nixon were ever that cynical. In my eyes-and many other people’s eyes- he is crass, crude and has no principles whatsoever. Not exactly the kind of person you want to become President. We may not like Hillary but she is a pretty constant figure- not mediocre at all -and sometimes you prefer the devil you know to the devil you don’t know.
The difference between Trump and Clinton is like, if you have to get to your sisters wedding and your car broke down. You can either take a $150 car service and pay lots of money and its bad cuz you have to lose a lot of money. But you know it’s bad and how bad it is. Or you can hitchhike which could mean you get there for free and it’ll be awesome. But the amount of pontential disaster is unknown because you could find yourself at the end of the night in someone’s trunk tied up, or worse, in Baltimore. (And Bernie sanders is like taking your $150 for the cab and burning it then hitchhiking). Do I need to explain the nimshal??
All the name calling in the world won’t help your cause.
As American politicians sink lower and lower, people keep saying how frustrated they are, and how disgusted they are, and how disconnected they feel. People want change. That was even a campaign slogan once.
Here you have someone who stands up and says I can do better. He is transparent, he is different, he is famous, he is interesting, he is exciting. People want that more than they want another bland corporate puppet chanting tired and empty slogans.
I believe Trump will be interesting. I do not believe for one second that he will discriminate against Muslims or against Hispanics. I do not believe that he will build a wall with Mexico, but even if he does I don’t believe he will ever even suggest declaring war on Mexico to pay for it. That is just an absurd fabrication by the media to manipulate the weak minded.
If nothing else, as I’ve said before, I prefer Trump to any of the politicians simply because at this point it clear that anyone who is capable of getting himself elected president has no business being president.
Squeak, DENIAL is not a place in Egypt. Details later.
I’m not sure if I would vote for trump if he was the nominee (however, if the nomination gets taken away from him for being a little short I probably would
squeak: Trump’s attacks against freedom to protest, free speech, and (most importantly, by far) freedom of the press set a terrifying dictatorial precedent.
Clinton is worse. Democrats and Establishment Republicans want to establish tyranny in the US. Google and YouTube: Agenda 21 (UN Proposal). Since both Democrats and Establishment Republicans HATE Trump he gets my vote -enemy of my enemy is my friend (usually).
Squeak, declaring war on Mexico –an absurd fabrication by the media to manipulate the weak minded? Really? Trump repeatedly promised to build a wall on the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it. Now, for Mexico to do so would be a tremendous national humiliation. They will not do it unless defeated in a war or forced into it by very crippling international sanctions.So which one is Trump doing?
Since when being interesting, famous or exciting are good qualities for a presidential candidate?
He says he can do better. And you take him at his word?!?
What about his obvious and huge flaws? (See above posts.)
To vote for Trump is to risk another Mussolini or Hitler.
Doomsday, and voting for Trump is not risking having a tyrant as a president?!?
The problem with Hillary is that she won’t be able to defend us in this scary world! Even Obama had terrorism here in California.
She couldn’t even defend the embassy in Libya!
Trump also can’t defend us. He’s a draft evader.
Health……….
The Secretary of State is NOT responsible for defense of embassies. The Secretary of Defense is.
Trump is the worse choice.
CTL: The Secretary of State is responsible for implementing security policies that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel on official duty abroad.
Ctlawyer,
From the government website when googled Secretary of State responsibilities
“Ensures the protection of the u.s. Government to American citizens, property and interests in foreign countries”
I think a lawyer just got lawyered
Joseph……….
Lawyers like to split hairs.
I stated that the Secretary of State is not responsible for the defense of embassies, the Secretary of Defense is.
I stand by it because the defense of a US embassy is done by Marine Corp personnel who fall under the DOD, not State Dept. This has nothing to do with the SOS being charged with implementing policies. She has to request Marine or other armed forces from the DOD and they are the defenders.
Coffee Addict>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ensuring the protection of the US Govt to US citizens, property and interests in foreign countries has nothing to do with what goes on on embassy or consular properties.
It means that if a US citizen, corporation and or its holdings are subject to action by a foreign country, the embassy staff does its best to see they are treated fairly..meaning no different than citizens of the host country. Since Embassy/Consular grounds are treated as if US soil, the protection you cite is off those grounds.
Point/counterpoint..match.
Ctlawyer,
It means that if a US citizen, corporation and or its holdings are subject to action by a foreign country, the embassy staff does its best to see they are treated fairly..meaning no different than citizens of the host country. Since Embassy/Consular grounds are treated as if US soil, the protection you cite is off those grounds.
Do you have a supporting proof for this besides yourself?
Additionally, the words “property and interests” disputes that claim, also if it is us soil then there was an attack on america’s land (a cause for war) even if it was “because of a YouTube video”
Since we’re using sports term I guess I’m calling a penalty on you
Ctlawyer -“The Secretary of State is NOT responsible for defense of embassies. The Secretary of Defense is.”
“She has to request Marine or other armed forces from the DOD and they are the defenders”
You’re twisting the logic – typical Democrat!
She was negligent in knowing what the actual threat was to the embassy. Who said the DOD knew the seriousness of the situation?
She had to inform them!
“Trump is the worse choice.”
Why are you posting this? Because you must vote Democrat, even if it puts the country in danger!
I just proved that you can’t trust Hillary. Give s/o else a chance.
Hillary is a hands on murderer. Whether its actively bumping off whitewater threats or taxi drivers in NY, or through negligence by ignoring impending terror threats, she has more layers of blood than skin on her hands.
Hillary is a liar. She says whatever works in the moment, whether its defending her husband or pretending snipers attacked her. Today she says Israel is her priority, tomorrow she’s kissing Arab terrorists.
Hillary is as corrupt and as buyable as they come, whether its selling pardons for votes or taking absurb fees for speaking from wall street companies. There is nothing she w9nt do for the right price.
If anyone is a potential mussolini, its her. Imagine if Hitler came to power while whe was president. Do you think she would oppose him or befriend him? Only blindness or expeftation of personal gain could bring you to vote for her.
Health…
not twisting logic, splitting hairs..It’s what lawyers do. I also am not defending Hillary. I have not committed my vote (and I am a state delegate). I made a statement that Trump is worse than Hillary., in the end the Marines are DOD employees, not State. That’s what I pointed out.
It doesn’t matter if the Secy of Defense knew of the danger or not
There are at times Republicans who have rec’d my vote, and may again in the future. I don’t vote party line. Hillary’s speaking fees are much lower than either George Bush..so who cares. It’s not your money paying her, it’s private business..they have to answer to their partners or stockholders not you.
Squeak…Hillary never has had the authority to pardon anyone, so your accusation is false. Bill, OTOH had that power as governor and President.
Ctlawyer -“I made a statement that Trump is worse than Hillary., in the end the Marines are DOD employees, not State. That’s what I pointed out.”
This isn’t a court of law! Trump is Not guilty of negligence that caused the death of an ambassador & other Americans!
“It doesn’t matter if the Secy of Defense knew of the danger or not”
It does matter – it absolves him of negligence. OTOH, it was Hillary’s responsibility to protect the embassy in Libya!
Ctlawyer,
I still don’t have a support to your claim, in other words a lawyer is making up his own laws, which doesn’t stand up in court
Additionally, the ambassador emailed Clinton for more security, why would he do that if its not her job?
Ctlawyer,
Hillary’s speaking fees are much lower than either George Bush..so who cares
You’re comparing apples to oranges Hillary was never president compare bill’s to bush and Hillary to Laura bush or even Michelle Obama or to Colin Powell
Health
Wrong…it has nothing to do with negligence and absolution. You want absolution see the Pope.
The Marines that protect US Embassies are under the control of the DOD.
That is a fact, it has nothing to due with a court of law and an imagined charge of negligence that has never been brought by a prosecutor.
We are a nation that operates under laws, rules and regulations. Just because you want the Secretary of State to be responsible for physical defense of those within an embassy or consulate building, doesn’t make it so. The only non-DOD official who may direct the marines is the President who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Health…
it’s obvious you dislike Clinton and seem to like Trump.
I despise Trump and haven’t said I’m supporting Clinton. My opinion is that Trump is worse.
Neither would be my first choice.
Checkmate
Additionally I also think trump is worse, he is a classic rino
Ctlawyer -“Health…it’s obvious you dislike Clinton”
Obviously!
“and seem to like Trump.”
No, I’m not for Trump, but another Republican.
Ctlawyer -“The Marines that protect US Embassies are under the control of the DOD.”
No one said not! Stop confusing the issue.
“That is a fact, it has nothing to due with a court of law and an imagined charge of negligence that has never been brought by a prosecutor.”
Just because it wasn’t prosecuted, doesn’t mean she isn’t responsible!
Again, it was Hillary’s responsibility to protect the embassy in Libya!
So why do you keep defending her?!?
Health……………
No one was talking about responsibility. Your earlier posts said she was negligent.
That is a finding of fact in criminal and/or tort that cxan only be made by judge or jury.
No indictment, no trial, no finding of negligence.
It has very specific legal meaning, and just because you think her action was negligence doesn’t make it so. Neither have her actions or inactions been shown to be the proximate cause of a single death on embassy or consular soil. There were intervening superseding acts.
CTlawyer -“No one was talking about responsibility. Your earlier posts said she was negligent”
Your posts are extremely funny, if they weren’t so sad! This is an internet blog, not a legal brief!
Therefore I can use the word negligent, even it’s not correct legally.
Please don’t take yourself so seriously.
BTW, I’ve written legal briefs in state & federal courts, all the way up to the US Supreme Court and I’m not a lawyer!
CTL,
Hillary herself said at the Benghazi hearings that she as SOS was responsible for the State Department’s people all over the world. And you just said above that the SOS is responsible for calling the marines to defend embassy personnel. You can split all the hairs you want but the fact is that a few officials at the State Department were dismissed as a result of the Benghazi hearings, basically taking the fall for their superior. And what upset a lot of people was her pretending this was a random act, and not the act of muslim terrorists. Something her boss continues to do up to and including the Brussels attacks.
Islam, according to Hillary and her distinguished boss, is a religion of peace.
If you think we need a president who truly believes that and will act accordingly, please vote clinton in November.
As for me, she lost me when she kissed suha arafat.
How do you prove a democrat wrong?
When he doesn’t answer your question
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.