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

[Ridgerunner]

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?

Hillary Clinton’s harassment of those very same women is what she is criticized for, not her husband’s satyriasis itself.

While I would never vote for Hillary Clinton for a multitude of reasons, the main one being her unvarnished support for abortion on demand, her support of the Iraq war is not one of them. Her subsequent support of withdrawal, and the current “non-war” against ISIS, however, are among them.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Trump never did say Obama was born in Kenya. Not now, not in 2012, not in 2008. What he did say is that Obama’s refusal to allow inspection of his original birth record was suspicious.

Hillary Clinton’s myth factory is, I’m sure, only gearing up. We’ll see it running full bore soon.

When Trump releases his tax returns after the Repub convention and uf he really is the candidate, will that make it all better? Somehow I don’t think it will.

Okay, point taken. Trump now says he “doesn’t know.” I guess he was sleeping when Obama released his long form Hawaii birth certificate:

cnn.com/2015/07/08/politics/donald-trump-illegal-immigrant-workers/

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hillary Clinton’s harassment of those very same women is what she is criticized for, not her husband’s satyriasis itself.

While I would never vote for Hillary Clinton for a multitude of reasons, the main one being her unvarnished support for abortion on demand, her support of the Iraq war is not one of them. Her subsequent support of withdrawal, and the current “non-war” against ISIS, however, are among them.

How did she harass them?

Even Bush and Cruz supported the Iraq War at the time, and Hillary, too, has admitted it was a mistake:

thehill.com/policy/national-security/241818-cruz-of-course-iraq-was-a-mistake:

“At the time, the intelligence reports indicated that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction that posed a significant national security threat to this country. That’s the reason there was such widespread bipartisan support for going into Iraq,” he added. “We now know in hindsight, those intelligence reports were false.”

It’s Cruz speaking, and I realize you aren’t against the votes for the Iraq War. Do you penalize Cruz for backing down on Iraq? Or did I misunderstand your post?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Deal me in Hillary the victim blamer

“We have to destroy her story,” Mrs. Clinton said in 1991 of Connie Hamzy, one of the first women to come forward during her husband’s first presidential campaign, according to George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration aide who described the events in his memoir, “All Too Human.” (Three people signed sworn affidavits saying Ms. Hamzy’s story was false.)

When Gennifer Flowers later surfaced, saying that she had had a long affair with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton undertook an “aggressive, explicit direction of the campaign to discredit” Ms. Flowers, according to an exhaustive biography of Mrs. Clinton, “A Woman in Charge,” by Carl Bernstein.

Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with the 42nd president, as a “narcissistic loony toon,” according to one of her closest confidantes, Diane D. Blair, whose diaries were released to the University of Arkansas after her death in 2000.

Ms. Lewinsky later called the comment an example of Mrs. Clinton’s impulse to “blame the woman.”

nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

Okay, point taken. Trump now says he “doesn’t know.” I guess he was sleeping when Obama released his long form Hawaii birth certificate:

Maybe Trump really doubts it. Lots of people do for what I understand are technical reasons. It was not “released”. It was shown to one person who claims to have scanned it and released it.

But the context of course, was that Trump said he wasn’t concerned with that, but with more important things, which he went on to talk about.

 

[Ridgerunner]

“At the time, the intelligence reports indicated that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction that posed a significant national security threat to this country. That’s the reason there was such widespread bipartisan support for going into Iraq,” he added. “We now know in hindsight, those intelligence reports were false.”

It’s Cruz speaking, and I realize you aren’t against the votes for the Iraq War. Do you penalize Cruz for backing down on Iraq? Or did I misunderstand your post?

If Cruz does, indeed, now say he was misled in opposing the Iraq war, then yes I do. I criticize Trump for having opposed it always.

But while the intelligence reports might have been inaccurate to a degree, they weren’t “false”. Saddam Hussein had yellow cake in his possession. And chemical weapons were found and destroyed in both 2013 and 2015. There is no telling how many of what-all are still out there. But I would say the odds are they have not yet all been found if they were still being found last year.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Deal me in Hillary the victim blamer

nytimes.com/2016/01/21/us/politics/90s-scandals-threaten-to-erode-hillary-clintons-strength-with-women.html

Hillary was the victim. Women who consent to adultery or fornication aren’t “victims.”

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If Cruz does, indeed, now say he was misled in opposing the Iraq war, then yes I do. I criticize Trump for having opposed it always.

But while the intelligence reports might have been inaccurate to a degree, they weren’t “false”. Saddam Hussein had yellow cake in his possession. And chemical weapons were found and destroyed in both 2013 and 2015. There is no telling how many of what-all are still out there. But I would say the odds are they have not yet all been found if they were still being found last year.

Yes, that’s no doubt true.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hillary was the victim. Women who consent to adultery or fornication aren’t “victims.”

Monica was used by Bill as were many others, a basic Bill Cosby predator, which was predatory on Bills position. Be it Monica and Hillary were both victims her position then was blaming the victim as a defense for Bill being a predator while neglecting her advocacy for womens rights which she touts like a trophy. While able to talk the talk she was unable to walk the walk.

 

[Theo520]

If Cruz does, indeed, now say he was misled in opposing the Iraq war, then yes I do. I criticize Trump for having opposed it always.

But while the intelligence reports might have been inaccurate to a degree, they weren’t “false”. Saddam Hussein had yellow cake in his possession. And chemical weapons were found and destroyed in both 2013 and 2015. There is no telling how many of what-all are still out there. But I would say the odds are they have not yet all been found if they were still being found last year.

People over-complicate the Iraq war.

1. 
   *]Iraq assaulted and robbed their neighbor
   *]Iraq was convicted of the assault, paid restitution, and left on probation.
   *]Iraq repeatedly broke the terms of their probation, which was the justification for regime change.
   
   In hindsight perhaps we should have just sent missile strikes instead of full regime change, but that’s the benefit of hindsight. At the time he was unrepentant seemed incorrigible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

People over-complicate the Iraq war.

1. 
   *]Iraq assaulted and robbed their neighbor
   *]Iraq was convicted of the assault, paid restitution, and left on probation.
   *]Iraq repeatedly broke the terms of their probation, which was the justification for regime change.
   
   In hindsight perhaps we should have just sent missile strikes instead of full regime change, but that’s the benefit of hindsight. At the time he was unrepentant seemed incorrigible.

1. 
   Hard to know in hindsight. What we do know with “present-sight” is that Iraq is a mess that gets worse and will get worse still, and the peace we won (and which Obama claimed for himself) is lost. We also know the consequences of leaving have been catastrophic with no end in sight.
   
   It is also impossible to know how long Saddam Hussein could have ruled the whole of Iraq when less than 25% of the population actually supported him. Everybody acts as if he was a permanent condition, despite the evidence of the Assad regime which amply demonstrates that nobody of that kind is guaranteed permanency.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Liberals (and America-hating leftists) often say that America is a terrible nation because we are the only nation that has ever used atomic/nuclear weapons on another country.

I just want to be clear this liberal doesn’t often say that America is terrible. Do we have problems? Certainly. 2 of the biggest for me as a Christian is that 100% of our people still do not have affordable adequate health care yet. And there is too much disparity between the rich and the poor. But do we need to take back America and make it great again? I sometimes see such bumper stickers, take back America they say. I saw one today. And I never know from whom? The American people elected Obama not once but twice. So it can’t be to take it back from him or them. Take it back from gays because of SSM? No. Can’t be that. They’re Americans. From minorities? The face of America may be changing but it can’t be to take it back from them either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I just want to be clear this liberal doesn’t often say that America is terrible. Do we have problems? Certainly. 2 of the biggest for me as a Christian is that 100% of our people still do not have affordable adequate health care yet. And there is too much disparity between the rich and the poor. But do we need to take back America and make it great again? I sometimes see such bumper stickers, take back America they say. I saw one today. And I never know from whom? The American people elected Obama not once but twice. So it can’t be to take it back from him or them. Take it back from gays because of SSM? No. Can’t be that. They’re Americans. From minorities? The face of America may be changing but it can’t be to take it back from them either.

I doubt there is one in a million Repubs, including Trump supporters, who don’t want people to have affordable healthcare. No, one in ten million.

Now, most people do care that some are poor, though I doubt most Americans care whether someone else is rich. I certainly don’t care whether somebody else is rich and I don’t think one person’s being rich is the cause of another being poor.

It probably matters from person to person, but here are some of the things I would like to “take back”.

-I would like the country to stop supporting terrorists. No more Libyas. No more supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, no more putting the USAF at the service of Iran. No more gun-running to terrorists in Syria (which got Amb Stevens killed)

-I would like to see WOTUS rolled back. Why should the army be in charge of my farm pond and every dry wash on my land? It is now, thanks to obama. No kidding, the army.

-I would like to see the HHS mandate abolished. Indeed, I would like to see a lot of mandates abolished. They cause the cost of health insurance to be much higher than it needs to be.

-Since Obama’s “war on coal” is going to cost every household in my state $1500 more per year for electricity, I would like to see that rolled back, as I am sure unemployed miners in the “coal belt” would too.

-I would like to see subsidies for “alternative energy” rolled back. It’s either efficient or it isn’t, and there is no reason why I should pay for it if it can’t support itself.

-I would like to see the regulation requiring cattlemen to get prescriptions for antibiotic use at least modified if not done away with entirely. Imports have no such requirement.
And producers can’t even identify the source of meat by country of origin.

-I would like to see the government stop hassling religion. Fortunately, Obama lost the Hosanna Tabor case, in which the government argued that it, not the Lutheran Church, could determine who is a Lutheran minister. (read it) But it still wants to fine the Little Sisters of the Poor out of existence because they don’t want to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to their workers and themselves.

There’s plenty of “taking back” that needs doing.

 

[Tomdstone]

Liberals (and America-hating leftists) often say that America is a terrible nation because we are the only nation that has ever used atomic/nuclear weapons on another country.

We immediately killed 130,000-250,000 people, mostly civilians. An additional 100,000 people likely died as a direct result of dropping these two bombs.

That is a truly terrible, horrific thing to have done.

But the alternative would most likely have resulted in the deaths of ONE MILLION AMERICAN SOLDIERS.

I had the fortune of having one of those one million soldiers in my emergency department last week. 92 year old guy was sitting on a troop transport ship off the coast of Leyte when the bombs were dropped. He was going to be on the first wave onto mainland Japan.

Instead, he occupied Japan for a few years, came home, married his high school sweetheart, had a bunch of kids and scores of grandkids, and fed America with his ranch.

.

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.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I just want to be clear this liberal doesn’t often say that America is terrible. Do we have problems? Certainly. 2 of the biggest for me as a Christian is that 100% of our people still do not have affordable adequate health care yet. And there is too much disparity between the rich and the poor. But do we need to take back America and make it great again? I sometimes see such bumper stickers, take back America they say. I saw one today. And I never know from whom? The American people elected Obama not once but twice. So it can’t be to take it back from him or them. Take it back from gays because of SSM? No. Can’t be that. They’re Americans. From minorities? The face of America may be changing but it can’t be to take it back from them either.

The voice of clear headed reason.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

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.

The Japanese leadership dithered and set contradictory signals, which was partly due to the chaotic situation within the military junta that controlled Japan. They didn’t send a clear signal.

A war-weary America had just taken heavy casualties in battles like Saipan, where the Japanese fought to the last man and used suicide attackers. The Japanese mainland was preparing its civilians to fight a last ditch battle to the last man, woman and child to try to kill every American soldier it could. America was already full of widows and parents who had lost sons in the previous battles in the eastern and western battlefronts.

My dad was on one of those troopships that was preparing to invade the Japanese mainland. In the letters he sent to my grandparents, he spoke of his utter hopelessness that he would survive the war and see any of his family again.

Had the bomb not been dropped, neither I nor my sisters would ever have been born. Nor any of my children. I bear that in mind when questioning the morality of dropping the bomb.

The effects of the first (and God willing, the only) nuclear war the U.S. fought was horrifying in the extreme for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Arguably, the two atom bombs that Truman ordered dropped saved the lives of more Japanese civilians than it killed, had the U.S. had to invade the entire Japanese mainland, and been forced to fight from city to city.

It was a war begun by the Japanese military. Their ferocity and barbarism in China, the Philippines, and other conquered territories was so extreme that it required extraordinary measures to burn out the heart of Japanese militarism. What happened was horrible, but the Japanese government and the Japanese military of the time bear the moral responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the same way that the death of a civilian hostage of a terrorist who is accidentally shot by a police sniper attempting to stop the terrorist is not the moral responsibility of the sniper, but the terrorist who created the situation.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Japanese leadership dithered and set contradictory signals, which was partly due to the chaotic situation within the military junta that controlled Japan. They didn’t send a clear signal.

A war-weary America had just taken heavy casualties in battles like Saipan, where the Japanese fought to the last man and used suicide attackers. The Japanese mainland was preparing its civilians to fight a last ditch battle to the last man, woman and child to try to kill every American soldier it could. America was already full of widows and parents who had lost sons in the previous battles in the eastern and western battlefronts.

My dad was on one of those troopships that was preparing to invade the Japanese mainland. In the letters he sent to my grandparents, he spoke of his utter hopelessness that he would survive the war and see any of his family again.

Had the bomb not been dropped, neither I nor my sisters would ever have been born. Nor any of my children. I bear that in mind when questioning the morality of dropping the bomb.

The effects of the first (and God willing, the only) nuclear war the U.S. fought was horrifying in the extreme for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Arguably, the two atom bombs that Truman ordered dropped saved the lives of more Japanese civilians than it killed, had the U.S. had to invade the entire Japanese mainland, and been forced to fight from city to city.

It was a war begun by the Japanese military. Their ferocity and barbarism in China, the Philippines, and other conquered territories was so extreme that it required extraordinary measures to burn out the heart of Japanese militarism. What happened was horrible, but the Japanese government and the Japanese military of the time bear the moral responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the same way that the death of a civilian hostage of a terrorist who is accidentally shot by a police sniper attempting to stop the terrorist is not the moral responsibility of the sniper, but the terrorist who created the situation.

Does the end justify the means?

 

[Tomdstone]

The Japanese leadership dithered and set contradictory signals, which was partly due to the chaotic situation within the military junta that controlled Japan. They didn’t send a clear signal…

“The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing … I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon,” Eisenhower said in 1963.
In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Does the end justify the means?

All ends do not justify all means, but yes, obviously some ends justify some means.

Would you trade my dad’s life and my life and my children’s lives, and the lives of millions of other Americans who would have been killed or never been born, for the lives of civilians living in a country that attacked us without warning, enslaved millions by conquest, practiced biological warfare experiments that rivaled anything in Dachau, and who undoubtedly would have used atomic weapons on the citizens of the U.S. if they had developed it first?

 

[Tomdstone]

All ends do not justify all means, but yes, obviously some ends justify some means.

Would you trade my dad’s life and my life and my children’s lives, and the lives of millions of other Americans who would have been killed or never been born, for the lives of civilians living in a country that attacked us without warning, enslaved millions by conquest, practiced biological warfare experiments that rivaled anything in Dachau, and who undoubtedly would have used atomic weapons on the citizens of the U.S. if they had developed it first?

You don’t know if anyone would have been killed if the Americans had negotiated a surrender. I was taught that a good end is not justified by an evil means such as killing innocent children."According to the CCC
2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.