Quote Originally Posted by Ironside View Post
He's not going for a long war with ground troops, true. The problem is that he's going to make America look like his definition of strong, aka a bully (see how he treats NATO or people) and make the army look strong again. That means that he has to win a war. In a way that doesn't creates a new Libya or Iraq. In a way that's threatening to other countries (you don't do a trade deal that threatens your economy, unless the other option is worse).

Nukes solves all those problems (not really, but some... and gives a ton of other problems). Buddy up with Russia and you won't start WWIII (probably, maybe).
Quote Originally Posted by Ironside View Post
The Secretary of Defense is chosen by the president. The senate can reject or accept the choice. The Republic senate isn't that healthy right now and would be the majority if Trump wins.
And the Republican party hates him and thus will not give him a bunch of yes man who wont stop him nuking, in both circumstances of republican and democrat majority senates Donald trump he will be incapable of using nukes outside of approved circumstances.

As for a conventional war, it seems inevitable for both but Trump's is the most optimistic; he wants to win the war so he wont attack china and he likes russia so that rules out triggering a potential world ending nuclear war. He's going to go after whichever tin pot tyrant who looks at him funny, he's going to kick him in the teeth with the US Army Boot and then leave. If we are lucky it will be a falkands or desert storm.

With Clinton however she's stuck in the bush/obama mindset where she wants to go into the middle east again and do Iraq right this time. There the best you can hope for is a Lybia.

When the choice appears to be between Donald's quick war and Hillary's quagmire the choice seems one sided.

Is the Hillary being really, really bad thing a feeling or do you have anything tangible that makes her so much worse than a normal politician?

A tip, if someone has been hiding their Skeletor face for 40 years, with 20 of those with the opposition throwing every dirt they got on that one, without any big result for it, you're probably picking up the dirt throwing, rather than the person behind it.

She knows the political consequences of using one and has no reason using them. Her hawkishness is very much in the form of intended benign intervention (success rate is another matter).

He's starting to loose his mind by the looks of it. That's some massive incoherent ranting.
Which makes it all the sadder that the american left failed to nominate a better person.

Mrs Clinton is worse for several reasons; firstly she is a liar, not only major lies in the email scandal or in the benghazi matter, but also minor lies such as the landing under fire in bosnia or being named after Sir Edmund Hillary, lies with no benefit that was easily disproven and at a rate far beyond the pale of a normal politician and giving the impression of compulsion. Hillary's numerous lies exhibited here:



Do I need to tell you how having a bad liar both in application and believability as head of state is a detriment? This feeds into my general dislike of her character, a dislike based on stories such as this where she assassinated a twelve year old girl's character, stating she was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing" and had "made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body" without actually stating who had told her that. Along with exploiting the reputation of an expert to intimidate the prosecution into abandoning a piece of physical evidence, all to help a paedophile she knew was guilty reduce his sentence to a year in prison.

Transcript of that trial here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084...iliate&irgwc=1

Now I would admit that there is an argument that a competent evil is preferable to an incompetent good (let alone the dubious buffon that is trump) but she isnt competent; her previous job was stained with incompetence.

Russia and Ukraine, Lybia and Syria all notches under the sub par reaction tab but the highlights of incompetence is that which couldnt be blamed on uncontrollable circumstances, namely that she implicitly allowed the first US ambassador in thirty years to be killed overseas after denying 600 requests for security upgrades, even after the neighbouring british ambassador had evacuated:


Oh and she put classified information in the secrity equivalent of a sock under the bed:


Here's the thing, I dont think Trump is a good idea but I see him as the best choice america is left with. You have a decision between a blustering angry idiot and a lying evil screwup. The "skeletor face" has been hovering in the american vision for a good 8 years and saying otherwise is just denial.

She's deplorable, a liar with dubious morals and worst of all bad at her job and the sad thing is that so many wont see it because of the grand spectre of Trump.