Heâs a vile cunt , stop backing him up.
In fairness to labane what heâs trying to say is that they are both vile cunts. One of them is a proven war monger as well and it ainât Trump
3 Likes
[quote=âanon7035031, post:2504, topic:19437â]
loook at the cast of idiots gaining in popularity in Europe, le Pen, Farage, etc.[/quote]
A fair point, but none of these fucks will have an apocalypse-bringing nuclear arsenal at the tip of their pinky finger come January 2017, if we make it that far.
They are both vile cunts Harry, her cuntishness is just more polished from 30 years of practice. As a European you should be far more worried about Hillary than Trump, she is that combination of incompetent feckless hawkishness that has led to global conflict in the past. If there is a war with Russia, and itâs not as unlikely as some think, it will be fought in Europe. While a full scale global nuclear war is unlikely, the flaw in nuclear deterrance theory is that a limited nuclear war is entirely possible, regardless of the devastation involved. The Russian military have always felt they would win a war confined to the European theater.
Hillary Clinton is a âwar mongerâ except when it put her healthcare policy in danger in the 1990s. The unelected First Lady vetoed Bill going into Bosnia and helped perpetuate the genocide ongoing beside NATO territories in Europe.
Of course she still tried to make hay out of Bosnia several years later, she was under sniper fire!
HRC does whatâs good for HRC. She isnât necessarily a war monger, just someone who does whatâs best for HRC.
A full scale proxy war somewhere like the Ukraine is certainly a possibility with the right players on both sides. I think we are still a long way off anyone especially Russia, crossing a NATO border though.
France has a significant nuclear arsenal, and Marine Le Pen is currently polling neck and neck with Sarkozy and Juppe.
Dream on.
Trump has the dim witted vote tied up unsurprisingly
Clearly he would have your vote then
Which is a fairly appalling situation to many French people I know over here.
They are not as mental as Trump/Hilary or Putin though, so I donât think theyâd unleash at the drop of a hat.
Wrong. Trump supported the Iraq War and wanted more extensive action taken in Libya than Clinton did.
@anon7035031 will of course chip in to say itâs irrelevant as he didnât hold a political office at the time he said those things, but heâs made his laughable claim to be âanti-warâ (including his supposed opposition the Iraq War) a central plank of his campaign, so obviously itâs relevant.
As well as his pledge to wage illegal colonial wars of conquest in the Middle East, made while running for office, which is kind of, or should I say definitely, relevant.
1 Like
Trump has made many contradictory statements, but there is zero credibility in the claim that he would wage âcolonical wars of conquestâ. You just made that up. Post up the verified quotes where he has suggested colonial wars of conquest. On the Issues are about as non partisan as you can get, if they havenât highlighted his desire to wage colonial wars, itâs not there.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Foreign_Policy.htm#Mideast
Good man @anon7035031 , you have made the obsessed Sidney spend another 10 hours frantically searching the internet for evidence to disprove your information
Sad Sid is posting approx 72 posts on TFK daily. To put this in context, this is the number of times Kaine interrupted Mike Pence 
Is he going to unleash big steaming piles of shit?
In the past five years, Trump has consistently pushed one big foreign policy idea: America should steal other countriesâ oil.
He first debuted this plan in an April 2011 television appearance, amid speculation that he might run for the GOP nomination. In the interview, Trump seemed to suggest the US should seize Iraqi oil fields and just operate them on its own.
âIn the old days when you won a war, you won a war. You kept the country,â Trump said. âWe go fight a war for 10 years, 12 years, lose thousands of people, spend $1.5 trillion, and then we hand the keys over to people that hate us on some council.â He has repeated this idea for years, saying during one 2013 Fox News appearance, âIâve said it a thousand times.â
Trump sees this as just compensation for invading Iraq in the first place. âI say we should take it [Iraqâs oil] and pay ourselves back,â he said in one 2013 speech.
From a March 2016 interview with the Washington Post:
POST: How do you keep it without troops, how do you defend the oil?
TRUMP: You would⌠You would, well for thatâ for that, I would circle it. I would defend those areas.
POST: With U.S. troops?
TRUMP: Yeah, I would defend the areas with the oil.
Donaldâs a bit thick if he doesnât realise what stealing the oil entails. War, Donald, war.
2 Likes
Absolutely, around Nov 5th he will shit all over her.
Going to?
No coincidence that Superbowel LI (pronounced âlieâ) comes two weeks after his prospective inauguration.
Vox again
On Iraq and oil, the oil Trump referenced ended up in the hands of ISIS after the ill advised hasty withdrawal by Obama and Hillary. So, whatever about spoils of war, the oil should have been protected from falling into the hands of a growing Islamic militia.
Again, as before when I posted that link, youâre not dealing with the quotes, and have failed to say why.
Youâre not dealing with reality.
The decision for the US to leave Iraq was taken by George W. Bush and the Iraqi government, mate.
http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/
In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war heâd launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, âBush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat⌠Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.â
How exactly is he going to win mate? Whatâs his electoral route to the WH?
Canât see it myself. Even if you give him all the in the bag red states plus IA, NC, and then throw in OH and FL, he still comes up short.
You could make massive money on the exchanges if you truly believe in your convictions.