Shouldn't the #1 issue be who will start WW3, Clinton or Trump?

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: NOTurTypical

How come World War III wasn't triggered by all the other Arab-Israeli wars then? There's been quite a lot of them.

There is no other WWIII.

There has been a "prolonged peace" on the earth, that is a cessation of huge wars for the advancement of the preaching work being done by Jehovah's witnesses. When it is done. There will still be no WWIII. There will only be the end.

Oh , forgot to answer OPs question:
NO

a reply to: edward777

This assumes you believe either one of them actually would do it.

For one thing, actually declaring war in the US is supposed to be a group effort with the Congress being on board. I understand that during the Obama years with a Congress derelict in its duties, we've lost sight of that, but I have no doubt that under a President Trump, for example, Congress will suddenly "rediscover" every shred of power delegated to it in the COTUS no matter which party is in charge of it.

The Globalists may want WWIII, but they want it on their terms and under their control.

a reply to: edward777
Clinton all the way for me, a Globalist Bilderberg sociapath who is losing her marbles by the day.
She may well be full on Caligula by the time she gets in.

I am in the camp of people who believe the elite of the world actively want WW3.

Sad but probably true. In the past only the poor people died in massive wars but in a nuclear war are the elite that control the USA feeling so special that they think they would be spared?

a reply to: edward777

Really, your assessment is Trump wouldn't start World War 3??? It sure sounds like you're blindly supporting someone who clearly wants to go to war and doesn't care of the consequences of using nuclear weapons. Here are just some quotes that came from Trump and his spokesperson that clearly show he's a political chicken hawk and clearly not for peace.

“What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?” campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson asked on Fox’s The O’Reilly Factor.

Pierson went on to suggest that while other Republican candidates may threaten war, Trump would actually be willing to use the nuclear triad to fix problems around the world. “That’s where we are today,” she said. “We need to be discussing how we fix their problems, not just complaining and name-calling about who started this and who started that.”

Or these quotes by Trump himself...

When Hewitt pressed him on which “of the three legs of the triad” was Trump’s priority, Trump responded: “For me, nuclear, the power, the devastation, is very important to me.”

During a phone interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, Trump said he would be prepared to declare war on unspecified terrorists and commit NATO troops in a “world war.”

“We will spend what we need to rebuild our military,”

“I believe you have to go in and strike Iran — not with soldiers,” Trump said. “You know, it’s not a world of soldiers anymore. It’s a world of air. It’s a world of different kinds of, you know, we’ve changed.”

“I would go in and take the oil and I’d put troops to protect the oil. I would absolutely go and I’d take the money source away. And believe me, they would start to wither and they would collapse,” Trump said on CNN’s New Day.

The whole world laughs at us, and our armed forces are but a tiny, pathetic squad of Keystone Kops feared by no one — it certainly isn't the largest military in the world.

If that's not enough, how about these quotes from foreign leaders...

7."Yes [the election of Donald Trump would be dangerous]. [It] would complicate relations between Europe and the United States." French President Francois Hollande.

9."I can only hope that the election campaign in the USA does not lack the perception of reality." Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Trump's use of the "America first" slogan.

14.“If he becomes president it would be a catastrophe. He’s an avowed admirer of Vladimir Putin and it would be a disaster for international politics if Trump gets anywhere near the nuclear button." Søren Espersen, a foreign affairs spokesperson for the far right Danish People's Party.

38."If Donald Trump was to end up as president of the United States, I think we better head for the bunkers." Carl Bildt, former foreign minister of Sweden.

These are just a few quotes that point to a man who can easily start World War 3. He's certainly not a man of peace. Trump supporters need to take off their blinders and start facing reality. The man is a chicken hawk, ignorant, ill-tempered, rude, a text book narcissist and mentally unfit to be president of the United States.

To ignore these traits in this man is not being honest with yourself.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: edward777
Clinton all the way for me, a Globalist Bilderberg sociapath who is losing her marbles by the day.
She may well be full on Caligula by the time she gets in.

Maybe she will force the wives of the senators into prostituting themselves?

Oh wait, the senate is full of senators who prostitute themselves every day.

a reply to: elementalgrove

Well, for someone's who's awake and posting at 3:14 am, you're spot on lucid and correct!

Either choice takes us closer to WWIII because its not POTUS that makes that decision, its the Elites that control POTUS that decide that. And yes.......the Elites want a WWIII as the ultimate act of "earth cleansing" of the parasite they see humanity as being. Once the robots that can build robots are invented, the Elites don't need the billions of humans. Those billions represent nothing more than useless, unemployed, eaters.

After examining the collapse of the Roman Empire, I've been able to identify the "tells" of the Elites seeing the end is near and the single most significant "tells" is when the Elites start selling their prime real estate in the Hamptons, etc. They take the money and buy real estate in South America. That's how they preserve their wealth.

Hillary won't start a war. She won't have to.
She will simply sell America to the highest bidder.
She's done it before and will do it again.
All a person has to do is read about her but I guess that is to hard if one has to read more than 140 characters.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I'd pick Queen SJW as the one to cause a WW, get triggered, and then Push The Button.

Somebody would have to wake her at 3:00 AM and we have all seen how that worked out in Benghazi.

People thought that if the gullible "Peace Loving Dove" Obama was elected, America would be taken advantage of and possibly conquered. Almost 8 year later and we're pretty much the same as in 2008.

Candidates learn the ropes fairly quickly after they become President. The key is to keep ourselves powerful militarily.

a reply to: edward777

Definitely.

I don't think WWIII will occur under either person's watch, but the person most likely to kick it off is by far Donald Trump. At least Clinton knows diplomacy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I don't think WWIII will occur under either person's watch, but the person most likely to kick it off is by far Donald Trump. At least Clinton knows diplomacy.

Yet her top advisers favor a no-fly zone over Syria (I suppose to protect the jihadists as well as ISIS) and if Russia violates it? You think Russia will stand by if its planes are shot down by a rogue nation such as the USA?

originally posted by: carewemust
People thought that if the gullible "Peace Loving Dove" Obama was elected, America would be taken advantage of and possibly conquered. Almost 8 year later and we're pretty much the same as in 2008.

Candidates learn the ropes fairly quickly after they become President. The key is to keep ourselves powerful militarily.

Nobody but naive hippies and Swedes believed that Obama would usher in an era of peace. Now look at Libya and that is what would be the fate of Syria if Putin had not stood up to him.

a reply to: edward777

You are talking like something like this is a done deal and that the US will just suddenly start blowing Russian aircraft out of the air without considering any diplomacy whatsoever. What you just said here first needs to be implemented, then even if it IS implemented that doesn't mean that the US will suddenly be shooting Russian aircraft out of the sky for flying over Syria.

Absolutely not.

The question is,

Who can win it?