Considerations: The selfishness of #NeverTrump

[theDoctorisIn]

The Supreme court is important, but not nearly as important as Foreign Policy and National Security.

What good is fighting a war overseas when its becomes a living hell at home?

How has it become a "living hell" at home?

This is the root of the issue right here - in order to justify your support of Trump, you have to believe that all of his fear-mongering nonsense is true, and it's just not.

I have a good job. I make a decent amount of money, I own a few homes. My life is pretty great, and none of my "freedoms" have gone. The same is true for millions and millions of Americans.

Even the poorest Americans have a better life here and now than a majority of the world's population.

 

[Brain357]

The Supreme court is important, but not nearly as important as Foreign Policy and National Security.

What good is fighting a war overseas when it becomes a living hell at home? Any decision the Supreme Court makes has a far more direct impact on your life than would any war overseas.

Trump might pick a more liberal justice. Heck might be omarosa. Maybe meatloaf.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hillary Clinton supported removing SADDAM HUSSIEN from power in Iraq which was the right move.

Apparently not.

From ontheissues.org

"Many Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution [authorizing the Iraq War in 2002]. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake became more painful.

I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton, CBS pre-release excerpts , Jun 6, 2014

Hillary Clinton has supported U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Trump is either against most of those or questions them.

Not really. In 2007, she opposed more funding to the Iraq War. She generally regrets ever supporting the war effort. In your effort to jump a sinking ship, you fell right into the Kraken's mouth. She's a flip flopper. Sounds like she's a very conflicted individual, no more than Donald Trump is. She's trying to tear herself between her pro-war and anti-war proclivities. And you want this woman running our military? She uses the same tactics the Donald does in an effort to shift blame, and she is a blatant liar.

From ontheissues.org

"Hillary had this interview with Joshua Green four years after she voted for the war (as Green recalls it):

Q: Was Bush’s decision to go to war really something she didn’t expect at the time?

A: I’ve said that he misused the authority granted to him.

Q: Most people correctly foresaw the vote as authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. Do you mean you were not among them?

A: Well, I think that’s correct.

But here are the facts. A heated national debate preceded the vote, with the antiwar voices from both the Left and the Right demanding the president seek congressional authority before proceeding. He did so. The measure was entitled, “A Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.” Nothing ambiguous about it--and Hillary voted for it.

Now Hillary claims she didn’t believe that she was voting for war. She doesn’t defend her vote or call it a mistake. She wants to blame it on someone else--because Bush misled her."

Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p. 86 , Jun 5, 2007

From Ibid.

In early Oct. 2002, the Senate prepared to vote on a resolution that would give the president the authority to use military force in Iraq if diplomatic efforts failed. For Hillary, it amounted to the most important vote of her public life.

Coming to a decision involved a knotty set of calculations. Hillary had put down, as she put it, a “pretty pugnacious” marker the day after Sept. 11 by saying that those helping terrorists would face the “wrath” of the US. Retreating from that muscular stance would be tricky. On the other hand, if she voted yes, she would be giving Bush the authority to launch a pre-emptive war--a concept that reminded her of the failed war in Vietnam.

Voting against the resolution would also mean retreating from the policies of another president--her husband. Bill has signed a law in 1998 that contained non-binding provisions calling for regime change. Finally, there was Hillary’s concern that she could never win the presidency if she didn’t prove that she was tough enough.

Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p.240-241 , Jun 8, 2007

From Ibid:

"Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid would later claim that they were not voting to authorize war but only to continue diplomacy. They must not have read the resolution. Its language was unmistakable: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the US as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241 , Nov 9, 2010

"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-N.Y.) - Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Hillary Clinton supports Eastern Europe and NATO as Russia has become aggressive.

Yet she led the the failed NATO bombing campaign against Libya in 2011. Her "support" for NATO does her no good if she can't utilize the alliance in a more efficient manner. What good is a gun if you don't know how to use it?

That should throw your support of her military policy into doubt. She's no more fit to run the military than Trump is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How has it become a "living hell" at home?

It hasn't yet. You automatically assume that all my statements refer to the present situation. I'm referring to a possible future. If Hillary Clinton does become the president, she will appoint more liberal justices to the Supreme Court. While it can't be ruled out that they could turn on her and actually rule based on law and precedent, it is more likely that they will make more rulings favoring liberal interpretation of the law. That could be harmful to the freedoms of numerous Americans. The Supreme Court (at least in the past decade) has been politically divided. That's been the pattern thus far in the current court. On strictly political issues, the court has always divided itself among ideological lines. Gay rights, abortion, freedom of religion, gun rights... all the hot button political issues of this era.

"Living hell" might be too strong a term.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is the root of the issue right here - in order to justify your support of Trump, you have to believe that all of his fear-mongering nonsense is true, and it's just not.

And you can easily just dismiss what I'm saying as "fear mongering" without even considering the possibility of it coming true. Got it.

Also, I haven't been parroting all of his "Make America Great Again" crap. It's childish. You can make America great without having to boast about it. I've heard that mantra spoken in many different forms with failures to do so at the end. I'm not about to fall for that again. I made it clear in the past that I don't agree with all of his policies. Instead of him being "straightforward" like I thought he was going to be, he's foolhardy, gung-ho, impulsive. He exaggerates way to much, he blows everything out of proportion. He's highly immoral, and somewhat misguided.

So no, I don't believe all of his "fear mongering nonsense." That's the thing, people assume that since I support Trump that I buy into everything he says. That couldn't be further from the truth. Most of what he says is pure garbage. That having been said, I was hoping to vote for Ted Cruz, but his recent behavior only confirmed my choice not to vote for him. Rubio took the low road with Trump and lost favorability with me. They were the three candidates I considered when I went to vote. In the end, I voted for Trump. Trump's just as terribly flawed as Hillary is.

I voted for Trump based on his unpredictability. He's not afraid of getting into trouble for doing so. I switch positions a great deal, so does Trump. I'm not ridiculed for it, but he is. I find it unfair to judge someone negatively because he chooses to change his mind. Rigidity of belief bothers me. People should be allowed to question the dogma surrounding their respected/respective political parties, not held forcefully in line.

For the record, I don't like Trump. But since I voted for him, I might as well defend my choice instead of hiding from it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And for people to just sit at home, to let events like that come to pass, if they come to pass, is a terrible risk to take. And it is extremely selfish in my book. I'll take my lumps for this thread, but I'm not backing down.

Good day.

 

[Pogo]

If Hillary Clinton does become the president, she will appoint more liberal justices to the Supreme Court. While it can't be ruled out that they could turn on her and actually rule based on law and precedent, it is more likely that they will make more rulings favoring liberal interpretation of the law.

You uh, do realize that SCOTUS sitters have to be voted in by Congress, and that Congress is Republican, right?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[blackhawk]

I don't speak for the never Trump crowd but as far as I can tell the problem many have with Trump is they see very little difference between him and Hillary. They feel come November they if they vote will be voting for a liberal Democrat either way the only question is how far left are they?

 

[Pogo]

From what I have seen of the Trump campaign, his supporters are voting against the status quo, the party, and the establishment. They are not voting for anything, just against most everything. Trump is a symbol of their discontent.

You might say, he's the Winner of Their Discontent

And I suspect by the time the GE comes around, if he's still in play as a candidate that contingent will have figured that they made their point and go vote for a real candidate, who in effect runs unopposed.

Which is a damn shame.

By the time the election rolls around, Trump will have split the party so badly, That Hillary will need only one slogan, "I'm not Trump".

Ironically the same position Warren Harding found himself in in 1920 -- "I'm not Wilson".

I say 'ironically' since Wilson himself benefited from a similar party split on his way in, where a vociferous New York candidate (TR) ran as a third party after the RP denied him the nomination despite his dominating the primary season, which split the vote three ways, pushing Taft to third place and handing Wilson the Presidency with less than 42% of the vote populi.

Certainly one of the biggest victories for the Deep State the nation has ever seen.

We all know what a traitor to the people Wilson was. . .

With each day, the similarities between Trump and Wilson grow. Trump is every bit the progressive that Wilson was. The difference of course is Wilson had both education in both government administration and political science as well as experience as Governor of New Jersey. However, the biggest difference is Wilson was not bat shit crazy.

And the second, that Wilson like most candidates actually had political positions, whereas Rump is all blusterfluff.

Actually my original parallel is between Rump and (T) Roosevelt, both of whom were/are described by their critics as egomaniacs, both of whom appleal(ed) with emotional bluster, and at least one of whom was spiteful enough to, when the RP denied him the nomination despite winning the primaries, took his ball and went third party, with the results listed. Time has yet to tell if that part of history repeats itself, and if so, whether the same result results.

 

[Never3ndr]

First off I'm going to start with this disclaimer: let it be clear that I'm not telling anyone who to vote for, or demanding that anyone vote at all. This thread is intended to compel the reader to consider the ramifications of their decision to stay home or vote third party, whichever it may be. Once again, do whatever the hell you want, I'm just stating my personal opinion on the subject. Sure, it will sound condescending to some of you, but don't take it personally. I'm not angry with you. If you think it's funny, feel free to press the funny button.

But I want you NeverTrumpers to think about something. Before Hillary ever came along, most of you were preaching of the horrors of what would come to pass if she became president. Then, out of nowhere, Donald Trump began his rapid rise to the top of the GOP presidential field. And then, in a sudden reversal, you began preaching the horrors of what would come to pass if he became the nominee. You wrote him off repeatedly, as a flash in the pan or the like. You kept reassuring yourselves that he would never, ever succeed in his campaign. Suddenly, it became a campaign against Trump, not a unified campaign against Hillary as it should have been.

As the inevitability of Trump's victory began to strike home, more and more of you vowed never to vote for Donald Trump, be it a conflict of values or matters of conscience, out of a fit of anger, or perhaps no matter what. For that, I think you're being selfish, and I'll tell you why. Consider what the future of America would be like if Hillary Clinton were elected president, also consider the possibility that your abstinence could put her there. Is selfishness moral? Is it a virtue, a value you hold dear to your heart? No? Then why? Why would you be so righteously indignant that you're willing to risk the future of America to preserve your own values or conscience? This isn't a noble act, this isn't sending a message, it's downright selfish.

You are all no doubt aware of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely demise earlier this year, as a result, that leaves his seat vacant, ripe for the picking for the next president to fill. You also have four other aging Justices on the bench right now. Over the next decade, there is a likelihood that those four other seats could become vacant. In addition to appointing a successor for Scalia, a president Hillary Clinton could appoint five liberal justices to the bench. Think about that. There could be seven liberal justices on the bench, redefining the conscience of America, and changing her identity.

From then on, on issues of gun rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, or abortion, the rulings could be 7-2 against the conservative arguments. Seven to two. Consider this: In an effort to preserve your values and conscience, by voting third party, or staying home out of a sense of righteous indignance, you're willing to risk a future where a majority liberal Supreme Court would be allowed to redefine your values for you. The would be given free reign to twist the Constitution to liberal ideals, essentially erasing the conservative brand from the face of America. You must realize that under a Supreme Court with seven liberal justices,there would never be another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for at least a generation to come. You would be ensuring in your selfishness, an end to your values amid an ill advised attempt to preserve them.

Now, you all also value individual rights. In one case, Hillary made herself clear that she will use the Supreme Court as a weapon to radically alter Americans rights to bear arms. In essence, using our highest court as a weapon against religious freedom or freedom of speech and every other conservative value we all hold dear. You want to help America, yet you are willing to go about precipitating her destruction. You may hate Trump's guts, and I do understand where you're coming from. But Hillary wouldn't give a damn about you or your beliefs, your faith, or your vaunted values and conscience. Because in her presidency, you may not have the right to any of those things again. Do you want that on your conscience? So if Hillary ultimately wins, don't complain. You put her there.

In sum, and in my own personal opinion, you #NeverTrumpers are being selfish, and you need to grow up and consider the wider ramifications of a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you truly love America, you would do whatever it took to preserve as much of the country you love as you possibly could, to ensure that you maintain an atmosphere that is tolerant of your beliefs, values or conscience, even if that meant holding back a gag reflex in order to vote for Donald Trump in the general election. The ball's in your court. Don't screw this up for the rest of us.

Actually knowing who you wouldn't vote for is a perfect way to decide. I mean I entered this election cycle knowing that I would vote Republican because I absolutely refused to vote for Clinton. However, with the rise of Trump and his outright absurdity and embarrassment, it has been relatively easy to renege on my initial assessment and just vote for somebody that isn't Trump. Almost nobody is going to represent exactly the views and opinions that an individual person is looking for. However, there are things that are "deal-breakers" that a person wouldn't be able to stomach from the foremost representative of their nation. With that in mind, when somebody has enough negative qualities to "break the deal" for you, there is nothing really wrong with voting against them rather than voting "for" somebody else.

With that said, I agree that everybody should take the ramifications of their vote into account. You highlighted the Supreme Court as of real concern to you...personally the military and its likely degradation under a Clinton presidency is my chief concern. All of that still doesn't change that fact that, unless Trump starts conducting himself in a more reasonable manner with less absurd points, there is no way I'd even consider him for a vote.

 

[Flopper]

First off I'm going to start with this disclaimer: let it be clear that I'm not telling anyone who to vote for, or demanding that anyone vote at all. This thread is intended to compel the reader to consider the ramifications of their decision to stay home or vote third party, whichever it may be. Once again, do whatever the hell you want, I'm just stating my personal opinion on the subject. Sure, it will sound condescending to some of you, but don't take it personally. I'm not angry with you. If you think it's funny, feel free to press the funny button.

But I want you NeverTrumpers to think about something. Before Hillary ever came along, most of you were preaching of the horrors of what would come to pass if she became president. Then, out of nowhere, Donald Trump began his rapid rise to the top of the GOP presidential field. And then, in a sudden reversal, you began preaching the horrors of what would come to pass if he became the nominee. You wrote him off repeatedly, as a flash in the pan or the like. You kept reassuring yourselves that he would never, ever succeed in his campaign. Suddenly, it became a campaign against Trump, not a unified campaign against Hillary as it should have been.

As the inevitability of Trump's victory began to strike home, more and more of you vowed never to vote for Donald Trump, be it a conflict of values or matters of conscience, out of a fit of anger, or perhaps no matter what. For that, I think you're being selfish, and I'll tell you why. Consider what the future of America would be like if Hillary Clinton were elected president, also consider the possibility that your abstinence could put her there. Is selfishness moral? Is it a virtue, a value you hold dear to your heart? No? Then why? Why would you be so righteously indignant that you're willing to risk the future of America to preserve your own values or conscience? This isn't a noble act, this isn't sending a message, it's downright selfish.

You are all no doubt aware of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's untimely demise earlier this year, as a result, that leaves his seat vacant, ripe for the picking for the next president to fill. You also have four other aging Justices on the bench right now. Over the next decade, there is a likelihood that those four other seats could become vacant. In addition to appointing a successor for Scalia, a president Hillary Clinton could appoint five liberal justices to the bench. Think about that. There could be seven liberal justices on the bench, redefining the conscience of America, and changing her identity.

From then on, on issues of gun rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, or abortion, the rulings could be 7-2 against the conservative arguments. Seven to two. Consider this: In an effort to preserve your values and conscience, by voting third party, or staying home out of a sense of righteous indignance, you're willing to risk a future where a majority liberal Supreme Court would be allowed to redefine your values for you. The would be given free reign to twist the Constitution to liberal ideals, essentially erasing the conservative brand from the face of America. You must realize that under a Supreme Court with seven liberal justices,there would never be another conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for at least a generation to come. You would be ensuring in your selfishness, an end to your values amid an ill advised attempt to preserve them.

Now, you all also value individual rights. In one case, Hillary made herself clear that she will use the Supreme Court as a weapon to radically alter Americans rights to bear arms. In essence, using our highest court as a weapon against religious freedom or freedom of speech and every other conservative value we all hold dear. You want to help America, yet you are willing to go about precipitating her destruction. You may hate Trump's guts, and I do understand where you're coming from. But Hillary wouldn't give a damn about you or your beliefs, your faith, or your vaunted values and conscience. Because in her presidency, you may not have the right to any of those things again. Do you want that on your conscience? So if Hillary ultimately wins, don't complain. You put her there.

In sum, and in my own personal opinion, you #NeverTrumpers are being selfish, and you need to grow up and consider the wider ramifications of a Hillary Clinton presidency. If you truly love America, you would do whatever it took to preserve as much of the country you love as you possibly could, to ensure that you maintain an atmosphere that is tolerant of your beliefs, values or conscience, even if that meant holding back a gag reflex in order to vote for Donald Trump in the general election. The ball's in your court. Don't screw this up for the rest of us.

So your worried about Republicans who will vote third party or not at all. Guess what, there is also a third option! Voting for Hillary Clinton!
I have voted Republican all my life, but will vote for a Democrat for the first time in my life this November.

Why Hillary Clinton over Trump. There are many reasons but most involve Foreign Policy and National Security which are the most important things to consider when voting for a President since that is what they have the most influence over from that position in Government.

Hillary Clinton supported removing SADDAM HUSSIEN from power in Iraq which was the right move. Trump was against it.
Hillary Clinton has supported U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Trump is either against most of those or questions them.
Hillary Clinton supports Eastern Europe and NATO as Russia has become aggressive. Trump wants to abandon NATO, the most successful military alliance in global history.
Hillary Clinton supports free trade and the global economic order of the past several decades. Trump wants to dismantle it and move towards protectionism which will endanger the United States economy.
Hillary Clinton understands that the United States has vital security interest in the Persian Gulf and will continue to devote resources especially the military to defending those vital interest. Trump wants to abandon defending these areas.
Hillary Clinton would continue U.S. military support for South Korea, Japan, Tawain and the rest of East Asia. Trump wants to abandon this as well and even suggest that South Korea and Japan build their own nuclear weapons.
Hillary Clinton is committed to Nuclear NON-proliferation. Keeping the number of nuclear armed states limited to the current 9. Trump does not care and prefers a Welcome to the Jungle situation where anything goes.
Hillary Clinton wants to continue the internationalist and if need be interventionist policies most U.S. Presidents have supported since World War II. Trump wants to radically change or abandon these policies. Trump is an Isolationist who thinks like many did back in 1815. Its not 1815, its 2016. Its the 21st century and isolationism will never work in a world that becomes more interdependent day by day.

So yes, millions of Republicans when faced with this choice will be gladly be voting for Hillary Clinton in the Fall, because Trumps ideas about Foreign Policy and National Security are wrong and often the result of his own ignorance on these issues.

The Supreme court is important, but not nearly as important as Foreign Policy and National Security.

I think you're absolutely correct. There are a lot things a lot worst than Hillary in the White House such as, a half million US troops in the Mideast, a nuclear exchange with Russia, a serious break in trade with either China or Mexico, an invasion of South Korea by the North, and a break in relations with Muslim countries that are vital to US intelligence.

 

[U2Edge]

The Supreme court is important, but not nearly as important as Foreign Policy and National Security.

What good is fighting a war overseas when it becomes a living hell at home? Any decision the Supreme Court makes has a far more direct impact on your life than would any war overseas.

Sorry, but the price of oil has far more impact over your life then the typical decisions the Supreme court makes in any given year. Petroleum is used for energy and to make a wide variety of consumer products. It is the blood and oxygen of Industrialized society. Insuring that its price remains low requires making sure that Persian Gulf be defended, and remain stable and that its trade and flow from there to the rest of the world is never disrupted or put in undue danger or threat. This is why the United States has been committed to defending Saudi Arabia and the adjacent areas of the Persian Gulf since the 1940s when Franklin Roosevelt first stated that it was a National Security priority to protect the area because of the oil reserves and the role they played in the global economy. Being cut off from this supply would lead to a global economic depression far worse than what was suffered in the 1930s. Energy, fuel, consumer products, impact your every day life right down to the COST OF THE FOOD YOU PUT IN YOUR MOUTH every day. So unless you live like the Amish in Pennsylvania, this is one national security issue that easily trumps the typical annual hum drum that occurs with the Supreme Court in a typical year.

 

[U2Edge]

Hillary Clinton supported removing SADDAM HUSSIEN from power in Iraq which was the right move.

Apparently not.

From ontheissues.org

"Many Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution [authorizing the Iraq War in 2002]. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake became more painful.

I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton, CBS pre-release excerpts , Jun 6, 2014

Hillary Clinton has supported U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Trump is either against most of those or questions them.

Not really. In 2007, she opposed more funding to the Iraq War. She generally regrets ever supporting the war effort. In your effort to jump a sinking ship, you fell right into the Kraken's mouth. She's a flip flopper. Sounds like she's a very conflicted individual, no more than Donald Trump is. She's trying to tear herself between her pro-war and anti-war proclivities. And you want this woman running our military? She uses the same tactics the Donald does in an effort to shift blame, and she is a blatant liar.

From ontheissues.org

"Hillary had this interview with Joshua Green four years after she voted for the war (as Green recalls it):

Q: Was Bush’s decision to go to war really something she didn’t expect at the time?

A: I’ve said that he misused the authority granted to him.

Q: Most people correctly foresaw the vote as authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. Do you mean you were not among them?

A: Well, I think that’s correct.

But here are the facts. A heated national debate preceded the vote, with the antiwar voices from both the Left and the Right demanding the president seek congressional authority before proceeding. He did so. The measure was entitled, “A Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.” Nothing ambiguous about it--and Hillary voted for it.

Now Hillary claims she didn’t believe that she was voting for war. She doesn’t defend her vote or call it a mistake. She wants to blame it on someone else--because Bush misled her."

Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p. 86 , Jun 5, 2007

From Ibid.

In early Oct. 2002, the Senate prepared to vote on a resolution that would give the president the authority to use military force in Iraq if diplomatic efforts failed. For Hillary, it amounted to the most important vote of her public life.

Coming to a decision involved a knotty set of calculations. Hillary had put down, as she put it, a “pretty pugnacious” marker the day after Sept. 11 by saying that those helping terrorists would face the “wrath” of the US. Retreating from that muscular stance would be tricky. On the other hand, if she voted yes, she would be giving Bush the authority to launch a pre-emptive war--a concept that reminded her of the failed war in Vietnam.

Voting against the resolution would also mean retreating from the policies of another president--her husband. Bill has signed a law in 1998 that contained non-binding provisions calling for regime change. Finally, there was Hillary’s concern that she could never win the presidency if she didn’t prove that she was tough enough.

Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p.240-241 , Jun 8, 2007

From Ibid:

"Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid would later claim that they were not voting to authorize war but only to continue diplomacy. They must not have read the resolution. Its language was unmistakable: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the US as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241 , Nov 9, 2010

"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-N.Y.) - Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Hillary Clinton supports Eastern Europe and NATO as Russia has become aggressive.

Yet she led the the failed NATO bombing campaign against Libya in 2011. Her "support" for NATO does her no good if she can't utilize the alliance in a more efficient manner. What good is a gun if you don't know how to use it?

That should throw your support of her military policy into doubt. She's no more fit to run the military than Trump is.

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and wanted to run for President as a Democrat. I understand why she made statements to the effect that she regretted her decision for voting for the Iraq war, but its a LIE so she can maintain her viability as a candidate for President from the Democratic Party. Thats it. Both she and especially her husband supported strong intervention in Iraq from Bill Clinton in the 1990s through the 00s until the war effort became unpopular the last half of the 00s and she needed to some sort of switch up in the Democratic party in order to remain a viable candidate.

Finally, lets remember that the United States and several other countries had already been engaged in continuous limited military action inside Iraq every year since the 1991 gulf war right up to the start of the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq. Defense of the Kurdish safe zone, combat in the No Fly Zones, and air strikes directed at Iraqi military targets for ceace fire violations and violations of UN resolutions occured on a routine basis between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Hillary Clinton obviously supported her Husbands use of force against Iraq throughout the 1990s especially the HEAVY bombing during operation Desert Fox in 1998. It was Bill Clinton who also made it U.S. policy to find a way to remove Saddam from power in the late 1990s. Hillary and Bill were both hand and hand behind strong U.S. intervention inside Iraq, had supported for over a decade and support the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq. No statements or revisionist history after that point will change these facts.

AS for Libya, the Air Strikes were effective in toppling the Libyan government, but there needed to be a ground component afterwards to stabilize the country. That is where Clinton failed. I never said Clinton was perfect, but she is FAR BETTER than Trump. Trump does not care about NATO and would abandon it.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Supreme court is important, but not nearly as important as Foreign Policy and National Security.

What good is fighting a war overseas when it becomes a living hell at home? Any decision the Supreme Court makes has a far more direct impact on your life than would any war overseas.

Sorry, but the price of oil has far more impact over your life then the typical decisions the Supreme court makes in any given year. Petroleum is used for energy and to make a wide variety of consumer products. It is the blood and oxygen of Industrialized society. Insuring that its price remains low requires making sure that Persian Gulf be defended, and remain stable and that its trade and flow from there to the rest of the world is never disrupted or put in undue danger or threat. This is why the United States has been committed to defending Saudi Arabia and the adjacent areas of the Persian Gulf since the 1940s when Franklin Roosevelt first stated that it was a National Security priority to protect the area because of the oil reserves and the role they played in the global economy. Being cut off from this supply would lead to a global economic depression far worse than what was suffered in the 1930s. Energy, fuel, consumer products, impact your every day life right down to the COST OF THE FOOD YOU PUT IN YOUR MOUTH every day. So unless you live like the Amish in Pennsylvania, this is one national security issue that easily trumps the typical annual hum drum that occurs with the Supreme Court in a typical year.

Ummmm. . . yeah. The price of oil is SUCH a huge issue.

What are you, living in the 90's? I suppose you still think petroleum products are limited and the result of dead dino's?


Our petroleum technology is starting to catch up to the Russians. In fact, we are finding more energy than Saudi Arabia and starting to surpass them and the Russians. We need to realign our priorities. . . quickly.

TK is right, you are wrong.

America the Oil Exporter
The recent debate over sending U.S. oil abroad misses the point: The United States is already a budding export powerhouse.
America the Oil Exporter

Russians & NASA Discredit ‘Fossil Fuel’ Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science - Principia Scientific International

 

[MisterBeale]

Hillary Clinton supported removing SADDAM HUSSIEN from power in Iraq which was the right move.

Apparently not.

From ontheissues.org

"Many Senators came to wish they had voted against the resolution [authorizing the Iraq War in 2002]. I was one of them. As the war dragged on, with every letter I sent to a family in New York who had lost a son or daughter, a father or mother, my mistake became more painful.

I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

Hard Choices, by Hillary Clinton, CBS pre-release excerpts , Jun 6, 2014

Hillary Clinton has supported U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Trump is either against most of those or questions them.

Not really. In 2007, she opposed more funding to the Iraq War. She generally regrets ever supporting the war effort. In your effort to jump a sinking ship, you fell right into the Kraken's mouth. She's a flip flopper. Sounds like she's a very conflicted individual, no more than Donald Trump is. She's trying to tear herself between her pro-war and anti-war proclivities. And you want this woman running our military? She uses the same tactics the Donald does in an effort to shift blame, and she is a blatant liar.

From ontheissues.org

"Hillary had this interview with Joshua Green four years after she voted for the war (as Green recalls it):

Q: Was Bush’s decision to go to war really something she didn’t expect at the time?

A: I’ve said that he misused the authority granted to him.

Q: Most people correctly foresaw the vote as authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. Do you mean you were not among them?

A: Well, I think that’s correct.

But here are the facts. A heated national debate preceded the vote, with the antiwar voices from both the Left and the Right demanding the president seek congressional authority before proceeding. He did so. The measure was entitled, “A Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.” Nothing ambiguous about it--and Hillary voted for it.

Now Hillary claims she didn’t believe that she was voting for war. She doesn’t defend her vote or call it a mistake. She wants to blame it on someone else--because Bush misled her."

Source: The Extreme Makeover, by Bay Buchanan, p. 86 , Jun 5, 2007

From Ibid.

In early Oct. 2002, the Senate prepared to vote on a resolution that would give the president the authority to use military force in Iraq if diplomatic efforts failed. For Hillary, it amounted to the most important vote of her public life.

Coming to a decision involved a knotty set of calculations. Hillary had put down, as she put it, a “pretty pugnacious” marker the day after Sept. 11 by saying that those helping terrorists would face the “wrath” of the US. Retreating from that muscular stance would be tricky. On the other hand, if she voted yes, she would be giving Bush the authority to launch a pre-emptive war--a concept that reminded her of the failed war in Vietnam.

Voting against the resolution would also mean retreating from the policies of another president--her husband. Bill has signed a law in 1998 that contained non-binding provisions calling for regime change. Finally, there was Hillary’s concern that she could never win the presidency if she didn’t prove that she was tough enough.

Source: Her Way, by Jeff Gerth & Don Van Natta, p.240-241 , Jun 8, 2007

From Ibid:

"Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid would later claim that they were not voting to authorize war but only to continue diplomacy. They must not have read the resolution. Its language was unmistakable: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the US as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.240-241 , Nov 9, 2010

"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-N.Y.) - Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Hillary Clinton supports Eastern Europe and NATO as Russia has become aggressive.

Yet she led the the failed NATO bombing campaign against Libya in 2011. Her "support" for NATO does her no good if she can't utilize the alliance in a more efficient manner. What good is a gun if you don't know how to use it?

That should throw your support of her military policy into doubt. She's no more fit to run the military than Trump is.

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and wanted to run for President as a Democrat. I understand why she made statements to the effect that she regretted her decision for voting for the Iraq war, but its a LIE so she can maintain her viability as a candidate for President from the Democratic Party. Thats it. Both she and especially her husband supported strong intervention in Iraq from Bill Clinton in the 1990s through the 00s until the war effort became unpopular the last half of the 00s and she needed to some sort of switch up in the Democratic party in order to remain a viable candidate.

Finally, lets remember that the United States and several other countries had already been engaged in continuous limited military action inside Iraq every year since the 1991 gulf war right up to the start of the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq. Defense of the Kurdish safe zone, combat in the No Fly Zones, and air strikes directed at Iraqi military targets for ceace fire violations and violations of UN resolutions occured on a routine basis between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Hillary Clinton obviously supported her Husbands use of force against Iraq throughout the 1990s especially the HEAVY bombing during operation Desert Fox in 1998. It was Bill Clinton who also made it U.S. policy to find a way to remove Saddam from power in the late 1990s. Hillary and Bill were both hand and hand behind strong U.S. intervention inside Iraq, had supported for over a decade and support the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq. No statements or revisionist history after that point will change these facts.

AS for Libya, the Air Strikes were effective in toppling the Libyan government, but there needed to be a ground component afterwards to stabilize the country. That is where Clinton failed. I never said Clinton was perfect, but she is FAR BETTER than Trump. Trump does not care about NATO and would abandon it.

Hillary is a shill of the Deep State, a supporter of Agenda 2030, a war monger and a traitor.

Her election will lead to nothing but unlimited meaningless useless war where there is no compelling American interest, none.

You have been thoroughly conditioned and mesmerized by the CFR media.


Libya did nothing to provoke US aggression, nothing. It was none of our business.

 

[MisterBeale]

Fool's fall for CFR propaganda.

People need to research the truth.

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention
Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; by the time he was assassinated, he had transformed Libya into Africa’s richest nation. Prior to the US-led bombing campaign in 2011, Libya had the highest Human Development Index, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy in all of Africa.

<snip>

On numerous occasions Mr. Gaddafi’s proposals were rejected by popular vote during Congresses and the opposite was approved and enacted as legislation.


For instance, on many occasions Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed. Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.


For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.


Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and an invariably wealthy local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic and economic policy themselves.

<snip>

Under Gaddafi, Islamic terrorism was virtually non existent and in 2009 the US State Department called Libya “an important ally in the war on terrorism”.

Frankly, I'm not much on direct democracy, socialism, or communism. If you don't have philosopher Kings it can lead to tyranny. With the power the the vast majority of his people gave him, Gaddafi was known to be quite harsh to his few enemies.

That said, when you don't have a debt based currency, quite a bit is possible through the government I suppose. I can't imagine what the government in the US could do with its economy if we had sound money. If the colonel could do it by rooting out corruption in his poor nation. . .
Poor Gaddafi, truly a visionary.

http://newamericamedia.org/2011/10/...erishes-leaving-the-west-explosive-legacy.php

 

[Flopper]

Fool's fall for CFR propaganda.

People need to research the truth.

Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention
Libya: From Africa’s Wealthiest Democracy Under Gaddafi to Terrorist Haven After US Intervention

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; by the time he was assassinated, he had transformed Libya into Africa’s richest nation. Prior to the US-led bombing campaign in 2011, Libya had the highest Human Development Index, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy in all of Africa.

<snip>

On numerous occasions Mr. Gaddafi’s proposals were rejected by popular vote during Congresses and the opposite was approved and enacted as legislation.


For instance, on many occasions Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed. Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.


For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.


Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and an invariably wealthy local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic and economic policy themselves.

<snip>

Under Gaddafi, Islamic terrorism was virtually non existent and in 2009 the US State Department called Libya “an important ally in the war on terrorism”.

Frankly, I'm not much on direct democracy, socialism, or communism. If you don't have philosopher Kings it can lead to tyranny. With the power the the vast majority of his people gave him, Gaddafi was known to be quite harsh to his few enemies.

That said, when you don't have a debt based currency, quite a bit is possible through the government I suppose. I can't imagine what the government in the US could do with its economy if we had sound money. If the colonel could do it by rooting out corruption in his poor nation. . .
Poor Gaddafi, truly a visionary.

No doubt that Gaddafi was able to improve the lives of Libyans but the "Mad Dog of the Middle East" as Reagan call him, was a sponsor of state terrorism, cafe bombings, Pan Am 103, etc. After 911, he tried to rebuild his image a bit and offered the West assistance in fighting Al Qaeda in Africa but he was never a true partner in the fight against global terrorism. He certainly wanted to get rid Al Qaeda which he saw as a threat to his own power in the region. Gaddafi like Saddam Hussein were brutal dictators who were responsible for murdering thousands of innocent people. The fact that they feared and fought Islamic terrorism does not make them worthy of our respect.

 

[TemplarKormac]

but its a LIE so she can maintain her viability as a candidate for President from the Democratic Party.

But doesn't that bother you? Lying to maintain her viability as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination?

 

[American_Jihad]

THE NEVERTRUMP OUTRAGE OF A DISAPPOINTED ELITE
A glimpse into the divide between mass and elite in American society.
July 14, 2017

Bruce Thornton

...

In antiquity it was land and lineage that defined privilege. In our day, prep schools, top-ten university degrees, formal speech, correct diction, proper manners, and high-cult allusions all mark off the elite, and hide the fact that their position comes from money and connections as much as merit. Someone like Trump, who violates every one of these canons and enjoys the support of the “bitter clingers” and “deplorable” masses, infuriates the elite by challenging their right to rule by virtue of their presumed intellectual and cultural superiority.

The NeverTrump Republicans, of course, deny that there is such an establishment elite, or that they are members of it. But that’s like a fish denying it’s wet. Someone like NeverTrump hysteric Bret Stephens––son of a corporate vice president; graduate of the tony Middlesex School in Massachusetts; possessor of degrees from the University of Chicago and the London School of Economics; columnist for the New York Times––epitomizes elite privilege, and its anger at a class-betrayer like the vulgar, rule-breaking Donald Trump whom it deems unfit to rule.

The real evidence, however, that style rather than substance lies behind the NeverTrumpers’ hatred is the inconsistency of their standards of criticism. Right now all the angry talk is over Trump’s son meeting with a Russian lawyer, an alleged agent of Putin’s regime, because he thought he’d get some dirt on Hillary. “Collusion” they cry, or at the least yet another failure of judgment and protocol that compromises the whole Trump administration.

Talk about straining out the gnat but swallowing the camel! Where was this stratospheric dudgeon when Barack Obama was caught on a hot mic promising Putin’s flunkey that he would be “flexible” on missile-defense after the election? Where were all the hair-on-fire hysterics about supping with the Russian devil, and doing so solely for personal and partisan political gain? Or for unleashing the IRS, the DOJ, the NLRB, the EPA on progressives’ political enemies? Or for two of the most politicized AGs in recent memory? We could have used that passionate anger back then, but of course, apart from being “black,” and so triggering the guilty- white “preemptive cringe,” Obama had the right degrees, the right connections, and the right superficial manners and patter one expects from “one of us.”

...

The NeverTrump Outrage of a Disappointed Elite