5 ms·
>unprecedented threat to America Hillary is an unprecedented threat to the world. But I guess Americans are so cut of from the rest of the world, it's hard for
by rtx 10y ago
>unprecedented threat to America
Hillary is an unprecedented threat to the world. But I guess Americans are so cut of from the rest of the world, it's hard for them to see things from others perspective. As a citizen of third world please don't unleash Hillary on us.
- brianwawok 10y agoYou would prefer Trump? Why? Serious question.
- lintiness 10y agoto all you babies literally wetting yourselves over trump, what the actual fuck do you think he's going to be able to do with two parties that hate him controlling both houses?
- noir_lord 10y ago> The War Powers Resolution requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution The US military can break a lot of things in 48 hours never mind 60 days.
- lintiness 10y agonever going to happen. you people are crazier than trump is.
- noir_lord 10y agoA sitting American president is never going to commit military forces without the consent of Congress? > During the 20th Century, forces were sent by various presidents into countries such as Nicaragua to suppress rebellions without asking Congress. During the Cold War, dodging Congress not only continued, it increased. For example, the Korean War, which the U.S. was involved in for three years, was never officially authorized by Congress. > In 2011, President Obama's failure to get Congressional approval for U.S. military actions in Libya raised accusations from both parties. http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/war-without-congress...
- josho 10y agoOh and don't forget initiating covert actions in pretty much every South American country, Iran, and others.
- noir_lord 10y agoYep, what the intelligence agencies got up to is quite astounding and I see no reason to not think are still doing that stuff we just won't find out for a while what they are doing now.
- rtx 10y agoTrump is a racist, Hillary is a warmonger. As an American you might be more concerned about racism. But I guess rest of the world is more concerned about drones and missiles that miss the target.
- brianwawok 10y agoSo what leads you to believe that Trump is LESS of a warmonger than Hillary? I see lots of talks from Trump about "negotiate tough" (sounds good), but then a lot about "smash them up" (sounds not so peaceful). Doesn't seem very peace like.
- kybernetikos 10y agoIf the choice is between Hillary and Trump, I would expect Trump to do more damage to the world than Hillary. Everything about his behaviour so far has shown him to be easily baited and given to irresponsible escalation. These are not attributes that I would expect to go well with international politics. I find it surprising that Trump is portrayed as an isolationist candidate when personally I think the likelihood of him getting involved in a serious war is probably higher than that of Hillary doing so, despite her being a hawk. Trump repeatedly talks about getting tough and the importance of being strong. "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump This sounds like a deliberate policy of collateral damage. "With Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water" - Donald Trump "We're going to have to do something extremely tough over there, okay? ... Like knock the hell out of them. And we have to get everybody together and lead for a change. Because we're not knocking them, we're hitting them every once in a while, in certain places, we're being very gentle about it, you have to be very tough, and there are countries that are getting hit harder than we are, and you have to get them together and show leadership. And you know, you have to fight, the battle's over there. And you have to fight the battle." - Donald Trump That sounds like a plan to escalate attacks abroad rather than reduce them.
- rtx 10y agoThat sounds like being transparent about your intentions and not using economic hitmen.
- kybernetikos 10y agoNot sure what you mean about economic hitmen - if it's sanctions, then Trump has said that he would increase sanctions on Iran, and on terrorists. He's literally saying that the current policy (of the Obama administration, that for a while featured Hillary Clinton) is too gentle. Elsewhere you said that your concerns were drones and missiles that miss their targets. Trump has explicitly said that he's in favor of collateral damage when attacking terrorists. He's also said that he'll bomb oil wells and put boots on the ground to take oil. Transparency maybe, but if so he's being transparent about the fact that he'll do all the things you said you dislike.
- nkassis 10y agoInteresting take albeit I'm not sure most would be ok with putting what they see as their own interests (myself included) aside in order to elect Trump to prevent potential harm by Hillary to the third world. I'm curious what do you fear most that she would do as president that would harm third world countries?
- rtx 10y agohttp://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/in_debate_hillary_clinton_boasted_that_she_is_supported_henry_kissinger_accused_war_criminal_who_oversaw_policies_that_led_to_millions_of_deaths/ http://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/in_debate_hillary_clinton_bo...
- int_19h 10y agoPlease don't speak for "the rest of the world" - the rest of us didn't give you that prerogative. As a citizen of Russia, I would vastly prefer Clinton on foreign policy. For all her flaws, she can keep Putin in check. Trump is more likely to prop his regime and keep it from collapsing for a while longer.
- rtx 10y agoWhy not do it yourself. Millions have died due games that Russians and Americans like to play.
- int_19h 10y agoBecause Putin has genuine widespread popular support in Russia. There's no viable way to check him from inside the country at this point.
- rtx 10y agoSorry about my previous comment it might have been edgy. But when you see kids dying on beaches you become wary of America interventions. Which will only increase with Hillary. http://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/in_debate_hillary_clinton_boasted_that_she_is_supported_henry_kissinger_accused_war_criminal_who_oversaw_policies_that_led_to_millions_of_deaths/ http://www.salon.com/2016/02/05/in_debate_hillary_clinton_bo...
- int_19h 10y agoClinton's take on foreign policy is the worst thing about her. Amazingly, Trump managed outdo her even in that, by sheer inconsistency - "no wars in Middle East" but "we will destroy ISIS", and on top of that consistent calls to weaken NATO, exactly when it actually becomes relevant again. Don't even get me started on all the things he said pertaining to nukes - that alone would be a disqualifier even if he was a saint otherwise.
- douche 10y agoRussia is a very interesting country. Maybe I'm just tainted because I've been listening to Ghosts of the Ostfront lately, but listening to and believing any Russian/Soviet propaganda is very, very suspect.