Donald Trump attacks Hillary Clinton as wins set stage for brutal election

[PRmerger]

I am not a Biblical literalist, and I agree that the sections concerning apparent genocide in the Old Testament have to be interpreted in context. But there’s no doubt, based on the historical evidence, that God’s chosen people did practice defensive wars that targeted civilian population centers. They may not have interpreted those commands in quite the same way you and Father Barron do.

You are of the position that God commanded genocide and the Israelites were merely obeying God?

Or are you asserting that it was the Israelites, of their own accord, who committed genocide?

 

[openmind77]

Lilly,
I summarized both lists of your linked Hillary accomplishments below.
Which of these accomplishments am I undervaluing. I discounted points where she was just riding the current, not creating the current.

===================
1st link - I bolded what I thought important pluses

• Serving on a committee is not an accomplishment by itself, the Dems gave it to her for fluffing her resume.
• Sponsoring bills that supported the Military after 9/11 are not examples of leadership.
• Sponsoring funding for NY after 9/11 is also a DUH no brainier, they were sponsored by every representative from the state and guaranteed to pass.
• She supported the Dream Act, which failed. This clarifies her amnesty position but it’s not an accomplishment.
• She had some minor healthcare legislation that passed

2nd link - I bolded actual accomplishments (IMHO).

1. Her China speech on women.
   ?? While it may have been a good speech, it had no impact on China.
2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden.
   ?? This is embarrassing. She voted Yes to violating Pakistani sovereignty with the Seal Team mission. The CIA and Seals get the credit here.
3. Management of the State Department and increase in US Exports.
   ?? Very embarrassing to claim as wins.
   ?? Inspector General reports were critical of her management,
   ?? her efforts to avoid FOIA with a private server.
   ?? The Sec of State gets zero credit for increasing exports. Exports rise when exiting a major global recession DUH.
4. Iran sanctions.
   !! I concede this as a win for her record, she’s a hawk.
5. Foreign Policy Victories
   ?? I’m not surprised Harry Reid didn’t mention any specifics, lol. The ME policy has caused much chaos and loss of life, the current EU refugee crisis is her offspring.
6. The SCHIP program
   !! I concede this minor healthcare legislation as a win for her record,
7. $21 billion in Fed aid for NY after 9/11
   This isn’t really an accomplishment. Any warm body from NY could have gotten the money for NY after 9/11.
8. “She was an inspirational figure for billions of women … she also did much to restore the shattered credibility of the United States,”
   ?? This is nice for a eulogy but there’s no meat on it, no substance to back it up (beyond she’s female).
9. ‘Rebuilding America’s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years’
   ?? Same as above, pure partisan BS - no meat.
10. ‘The Pediatric Research Equity Act’
    !! I concede this minor healthcare legislation as a win for her record,
11. ‘Crippling sanctions against Iran’
    !! I already conceded this as a win for her record.

So when you look at it her ‘win’ record with honesty, on actual leadership that made a difference:

• sanctions against Iran
• some minor healthcare legislation

Sounds like you have done quite an honest assessment.

Of course, if we had Trump in her place (or as President) things would be so much different. With Trump’s deep knowledge of domestic and foreign policy, we would have peace in the world by now, and no doubt increases in our GDP many times over and Iran/N.Korea shaking in their boots, anxious to hand over their weapons.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As long as we are agreed that it is never, ever, ever justifiable to use an immoral means to obtain a good.

Sure. But as always, the interpretation will vary from individual to individual (and from era to era) as to what constitutes an immoral means - whether an action is malum in se or malum prohibitatum. Catholics will differ on this, including issues such as self-defense, torture to obtain information that could save lives (and what constitutes torrture), even whether lying is permissible to save a life (as in lying to the Nazis to protect a Jew, or lying to the Argentine military junta to protect an innocent life, as Bishop Bergoglio did.)

It’s not as useful a formulation as it seems.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

You are of the position that God commanded genocide and the Israelites were merely obeying God?

Or are you asserting that it was the Israelites, of their own accord, who committed genocide?

I’m asking you that.

Do you believe that the books of Samuel and Joshua had no relation to actual historical events?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Sounds like you have done quite an honest assessment.

Of course, if we had Trump in her place (or as President) things would be so much different. With Trump’s deep knowledge of domestic and foreign policy, we would have peace in the world by now, and no doubt increases in our GDP many times over and Iran/N.Korea shaking in their boots, anxious to hand over their weapons.

Of course. Not.

 

[Tomdstone]

2nd link - I bolded actual accomplishments (IMHO).

1. Her China speech on women.

When was this speech given? I know she gave a speech at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit in New York where she demanded that religious beliefs be changed. She made that demand soon after she said that “Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care…”

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. But as always, the interpretation will vary from individual to individual (and from era to era) as to what constitutes an immoral means - whether an action is malum in se or malum prohibitatum. Catholics will differ on this, including issues such as self-defense, torture to obtain information that could save lives (and what constitutes torrture), even whether lying is permissible to save a life (as in lying to the Nazis to protect a Jew, or lying to the Argentine military junta to protect an innocent life, as Bishop Bergoglio did.)

True, true.

It’s not as useful a formulation as it seems.

Not necessarily.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m asking you that.

Actually, YOU are the one who asserted that God commanded the slaughter of a whole bunch of folks.

Now, it appears, you are backing away from that assertion?

I am not asking to be snarky. I will, in fact, applaud you if you did wish to retract that and wouldn’t mention it again.

But, are you, indeed, retracting your assertion that God commanded the slaughter of the Amalekites?

God himself commanded that the Israelites utterly destroy the Amalekites in a manner that was not inconsistent with Hiroshima and Nagasaki - "“put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”. Were God’s commands immoral? The Amalekites were horrible people who attempted to subvert God’s chosen people and turn them from their divinely mandated path.

 

[Tomdstone]

Sure. But as always, the interpretation will vary from individual to individual (and from era to era) as to what constitutes an immoral means - whether an action is malum in se or malum prohibitatum. Catholics will differ on this, including issues such as self-defense, torture to obtain information that could save lives (and what constitutes torrture), even whether lying is permissible to save a life (as in lying to the Nazis to protect a Jew, or lying to the Argentine military junta to protect an innocent life, as Bishop Bergoglio did.)

It’s not as useful a formulation as it seems.

Dropping the Atomic Bomb Was Wrong. Period.
See: catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period
Can a Catholic believe that the U.S. was justified in its decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan during World War II?
See: catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-catholic-believe-that-the-us-was-justified-in-its-decision-to-drop-atomic-bombs

 

[PRmerger]

Dropping the Atomic Bomb Was Wrong. Period.

Yep. Pretty much.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

No, “her husband’s repeated sexual harassment…of women is just one…reason why nobody should support” Bill Clinton. It has nothing to do with Hillary’s strengths or weaknesses as a political leader.

On your list, you omitted one of the most important weaknesses in judgment on the part of Hillary Clinton, namely her support of the Iraq war, which destabilized the region to the benefit of Al Qaeda, although it eventually eliminated a brutal dictator. Or do you support our efforts in Iraq, which continue to this day under the Obama administration?

I think we, and our allies, were justified in accordance with international law in waging war against Iraq. For the simplistic (and most accurate) description of why war was justified was given by someone here.

I just want to be clear this liberal doesn’t often say that America is terrible…:

Thank you for the correction. Many true liberals still love America. However many who call themselves “liberal” are not liberal at all. They are il-liberal leftists, and THEY are the ones who routinely spew how terrible America is.

See the below for examples. Despite being proven wrong, and utterly schooled by referencing primary source documents, they still maintain that “America is/was wrong.” Such ideology is rampant in American academia today.

Japan was ready to surrender so no one would have been killed if the Americans had agreed to negotiate the surrender. But no, the Americans dropped the atomic bomb, thereby setting a bad precedent of murdering thousands of innocent children on the basis that the end justifies the means.

Does the end justify the means?

Dropping the Atomic Bomb Was Wrong. Period.

Yep. Pretty much.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Dropping the Atomic Bomb Was Wrong. Period.

Were we wrong to bomb Dresden killing tens of thousands of civilians?

Were we wrong to bomb Tokyo, killing tens of thousands of civilians?

Were we wrong to invade Normandy, killing tens of thousands of German soldiers?

Were we wrong to invade Saipan, where hundreds of Japanese civilians threw themselves off of cliffs rather than to endure the humiliation of becoming our prisoners?

Have we ever done anything right??

 

[PRmerger]

I think we, and our allies, were justified in accordance with international law in waging war against Iraq. For the simplistic (and most accurate) description of why war was justified was given by someone here.

Thank you for the correction. Many true liberals still love America. However many who call themselves “liberal” are not liberal at all. They are il-liberal leftists, and THEY are the ones who routinely spew how terrible America is.

See the below for examples. Despite being proven wrong, and utterly schooled by referencing primary source documents, they still maintain that “America is/was wrong.” Such ideology is rampant in American academia today.

What an odd argument you are making.

“America can never be wrong!”

I don’t think this position is able to be argued cogently.

Rather, the reasonable position is: America has done some wrong things. Some very bad things in fact. But that doesn’t make her a terrible nation. She has also done some marvelous things.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

What an odd argument you are making.

“America can never be wrong!”

I don’t think this position is able to be argued cogently.

Rather, the reasonable position is: America has done some wrong things. Some very bad things in fact. But that doesn’t make her a terrible nation. She has also done some marvelous things.

Never made that argument. Never. America has made enormous mistakes. Tuskegee experiments, turning away the Jewish refugees aboard the M.S. Saint Louis, the election of President Hillary Clinton in 2016…all huge mistakes!

But all decisions, whether they are made by nations or by people, need to be judged in the time which the decisions were made. American officers during the revolutionary war used blankets infested with smallpox as an early biological weapon. By today’s standards this is immoral, but by the standards of the day it was thinking outside the box. Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of an estimated million US soldiers, and TWO million Japanese civilians. Yet by today’s standards any use of WMDs is considered immoral.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Actually, YOU are the one who asserted that God commanded the slaughter of a whole bunch of folks.

No, actually 1 Samuel 15 made that assertion…

"Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Now, it appears, you are backing away from that assertion?

I am not asking to be snarky. I will, in fact, applaud you if you did wish to retract that and wouldn’t mention it again.

But, are you, indeed, retracting your assertion that God commanded the slaughter of the Amalekites?

Given that the “destruction passages” should be read in the context of the hyperbole of that era’s genre of battlefield accounts, and that it is not likely in context that everyone was slaughtered - no, why would I retract what the passage states? You take Fr. Barron’s interpretation that the passage is not literalist but refers to controlling one’s passions. Quite a few very respected theologians (Catholic and Protestant) would disagree with both of you on that, and would regard the passage as recording God’s command to destroy the Amalekites.

Would you disagree that God has, upon occasion, destroyed entire cultures, and with good cause?

One of the messages of the passage is that God does indeed, judge entire nations, and that time does not erase sin.

 

[Tomdstone]

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of an estimated million US soldiers, and TWO million Japanese civilians.

there is no proof that this is so. What you claim is pure opinion and hypothetical. There is the statement by President Eisenhower that Japan was ready to surrender . There is the fact that the bomb killed thousands of innocent children. There is the Catholic teaching that the use of the atomic bomb was immoral.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period
catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-catholic-believe-that-the-us-was-justified-in-its-decision-to-drop-atomic-bombs

 

[Monte_RCMS]

there is no proof that this is so. What you claim is pure opinion and hypothetical. There is the statement by President Eisenhower that Japan was ready to surrender . There is the fact that the bomb killed thousands of innocent children. There is the Catholic teaching that the use of the atomic bomb was immoral.
catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period
catholic.com/quickquestions/can-a-catholic-believe-that-the-us-was-justified-in-its-decision-to-drop-atomic-bombs

At the end of July 1945, newly installed President Harry S Truman had to make a decision. And his choices were to use this new thing, the A Bomb, or to invade and lose one million American soldiers.

We had just finished the campaign against Okinawa and we lost 5000 sailors on their ships alone from kamikaze planes. It was a brutal landing. On a small island. The defenders fought to the death.

American soldiers who would be landing on Japanese beaches were aboard the landing ships and they were deconditioning.

The Army Air Corps was firebombing Japanese cities.

The Navy battleships were cruising up and down the Japanese home islands conducting shore bombardments. The Navy aircraft carriers were sending fighters to shoot up everything that moved. Navy and Air Corp aircraft had planted sea mines all along the Japanese coast which sank all kinds of ships. As a result of the loss of shipping, the Japanese people were starving as food was not being transported.

The Japanese were not giving up. They were not standing down. They were still shooting down our bombers.

We learned from our electronic intelligence that the Japanese had figured out which beaches … where our invading troops were going to be landing.

There was no encouraging news.

People have been reading the tea leaves since 1945 but the only factual things that emerged with the passage of time were that the Japanese had the I-400 gigantic submaries that carried bombers in a hangar and they were planned to be deployed against the West Coast of the United States and/or to the Panama Canal locks.

There have been persistent stories that although the Japanese army’s atomic bomb program was burned out during a B-29 raid on Tokyo, that the Japanese Navy’s atomic bomb program in Wonson Korea had actually produced a working bomb and was tested. The Soviets/Russians raced to that location to capture everything they could, which is why North Korea has such an active nuclear weapons program.

The Japanese army had a huge biological weapons program and had sent balloons via the jet stream to the United States and had started some fires using incendiary bombs delivered via balloon.

The Japanese army had something like 9000 or 10,000 suicide planes ready to launch. Plus suicide boats and suicide submarines.

So Truman dropped an atomic bomb that did about the same damage as one fire bomb raid. The Japanese did not send any don’t shoot signals and they did not stand down. So Truman dropped another atomic bomb.

And he said we would keep doing that.

So the Japanese surrendered.

Folks have been looking for obscure signals … some ambassador in Moscow was interested in maybe discussing surrender terms. Well, the Japanese started invading their neighbors in 1932 … and with their Bushido code, they were not going to quit fighting.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And the history of the Pacific War between Japan and everybody else has very little or nothing to do with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Back on topic:

Hillary Clinton gave Russia 20% of American uranium … read …

breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/05/01/one-year-silence-hillary-clinton-uranium-deal/

While the United States and Russia have reduced their nuclear arsenals by 80%, other countries have moved ahead. Even Russia has supposedly started developing new versions.

news.vice.com/article/russia-sure-seems-to-be-testing-a-lot-of-nuclear-missiles-these-days

Since 1945, there have been approximately 2,054 nuclear weapons tested.

armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally

It is not possible to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

So … an excerpt …

***The single time she was asked about the uranium deal was by a local reporter in New Hampshire. In June 2015, she sat down with Josh McElveen of local television WMUR. Kudos to McElveen, who raised the uranium deal during the interview. Hillary’s response was evasive. She tried to obscure the facts. She argued that as Secretary of State she was unaware of the deal. She also claimed that the flow of money and the transfer of the uranium were not connected because the timing “doesn’t work.” She claimed that the money flowed from the Canadians to the Clinton Foundation before she was Secretary of State.

This is flat out untrue. As I reported, and the New York Times confirmed, the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, was making donations to the Clinton Foundation at the time that the State Department was reviewing the sale to Russia. Those donations were kept secret by the Clinton Foundation. Remember: the Clintons had promised President Obama and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they would disclose all donations.

It is remarkable that in the year following the release of Clinton Cash and a 3,000-word article on the front page of the New York Times confirming these facts, that no one in the media (save Mr. McElveen) has been interested in asking Hillary Clinton about this troubling uranium deal.***

breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/05/01/one-year-silence-hillary-clinton-uranium-deal/

 

[Monte_RCMS]

During the 2012 election, there were numerous accounts of voter fraud … more votes were cast for Obama than there were people even living in some counties.

Well, what happens if the voter fraud in 2016 is ten times worse?

/us-immigration-authorities-prep-order-34-million-blank-green-cards-work-authorization-papers-obama-readies-executive-order-illegal-aliens.html

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800356/us-immigration-authorities-prep-order-34-million-blank-green-cards-work-authorization-papers-obama-readies-executive-order-illegal-aliens.html

In some places, you do not need to prove your voter identity, as you are required to do at the public library.