Kremlin- Clinton Victory Would Have Led to World War 3 Between Russia and the US

a reply to: Greggers

So you want me to believe she is calling the voters too stupid and easily paranoid to hear the truth?

I'll go with that. Still BS.

This is a democracy. A democracy can only function with an informed public.

Thats all semantics. Thanks for helping make my point.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Greggers

So you want me to believe she is calling the voters too stupid and easily paranoid to hear the truth?

No. I am simply pointing out that voters want to know WHAT the candidate plans to do for them. How they plan to get it accomplished is much more nuanced and is impossible to forecast until it's deal time.

I'll go with that. Still BS.

This has been the case with every politician in American history, including Trump. I'm not knocking Trump, just pointing out the obvious.

A politician needs both objectives and strategy.

Again, the key point here is that these are not in conflict with one another. It's not in any way the same thing as saying, "I'm telling lies to the American people so I can do whatever I want behind the scenes," which is what all those bogus stories implied.

That's not a trivial difference --- it's fundamental.

The PURPOSE of the private position is to ACCOMPLISH the public position.

a reply to: Tearman

There seems to be a sick ideology called liberalism ,that is self destructive and is satanic in nature .I don't think most world leaders know this and are usually someone elses puppets . Obama sitting in the oval office relies on people in the field to tell him what is going on and that message goes up the chain of command . Those stories can be changed and modified and decided on weather to push the button or not . The US has a first strike doctrine and Russia knows this .

There are other countries leaders that are only Washington puppet states that also have that capability to launch a attack .Look what happening in Europe on Russians border . Most dogs wont bite but some dogs probably will . Its about assessing the temperament as well as the breed to think about the danger it could be . Russia imo is looking at the US as a kind of rabbit dog that has been running wild for a few decades and think that the US has them in the cross hairs .

a reply to: goou111

He is serious. What would you do, if in addition to sanctions, NATO started soaking up countries on your border into it's pact with fears of the Red Tide and placing military equipment and personal on your border?

You prep for war.

I would take Putin over Hillary if given the choice. I haven't been brainwashed against Russians because I'm not American. It's quite clear most Americans hate Russia and don't even have a legitimate reason for it. Decades of anti Russian propaganda will do that to a person

a reply to: andrew778

What?

Where in the world did you come up with that silly notion? Hate Russia? Quite clear you don't see as clearly as you think you do.

I don't hate Russia, nor does anyone I know. I'm not exactly trusting of Putin, or his lot, but that's not Russia.

originally posted by: gunshooter

I refer you to this video if you have not seen it yet. This doesn't sound like a Jekyll or Hyde, this sounds like a sensible person trying to explain what direction the world is headed.

Must be his Dr. Jekyll side.

I am fully aware Putin has a "soft" side - - - he's also very ruthless.

I just find the catering to Putin amazing.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

That's the problem, ol' uncle Barack has several more months left in which to limp & quack before he gets shuffled off the scene. He can still do a lot of damage before engaging in is own foundation's shenanigans full time.

a reply to: seagull

Right. It's like if they called you racist for being against the Communist regime in China.

originally posted by: elementalgrove

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
And even after the radiation was burning and searing Clinton and her supporters, they would be blaming someone else besides themselves. Look at Clinton supporters right now, they are ready for blood and ready to start a world war because Hillary didn't win the election. So glad she didn't.

That was one of the more disturbing things I saw during the DNC. Every speaker there was screaming for war, most notably Biden.

Then it would pan out to the "liberals" in the crowd, who were parroting the "rah rah America is the best, we will fight anyone who say this country is not GREAT" nonsense and I sat there dumbstruck thinking... what the f***, when did Cheney and CO infiltrate the democrats!?

Yes and not so long ago Obama was apologizing to foreign powers saying America was not great, but it can be if they go along with his new agendas. So everyone was "damning" America on the left. They use these memes like napkins and throw them away as disposables.

I was also seriously shocked at Clinton's threats against Russia and Iran like it was certainly going to happen after the election, and common sense says that would turn nuclear very quickly. Really scary and provocative language that Hillary was using.

I also noticed these old past Bush administration people turn-coating as soon as Trump gave the opportunity by his choices of words, but it was a convenient smokescreen for them to turncoat on, and what I see it as, was that Trump is a threat to their past establishment and corrupt, crony foundations that they built, and are all still in place with Obama, even stronger now and more fortified.

Trump might just tear it all down. Which needs to be done to drain the swamp that is more akin to a cesspool or a manure lagoon than a swamp. Nixon's team went in and cleaned out all the departments after he was elected. Trump needs to do it now in a very bad way.

a reply to: Annee

Or they are too weak for the truth or liars who can't defend it .
I am JUST as you read, I 'm no coward.

Listen to all the racist anti-russians jumping on here being bigots. Deplorable.

a reply to: TrueAmerican
Just a word of caution here.
Avoidance of war is normally a good thing, but Neville Chamberlain avoided war in the Munich crisis of 1938, and that only encouraged Hitler to launch the big one later.
He invaded Poland because he thought the West were still bluffing, and they weren't.
Let us hope that appeasement of Putin now doesn't make him overconfident.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TrueAmerican
Just a word of caution here.
Avoidance of war is normally a good thing, but Neville Chamberlain avoided war in the Munich crisis of 1938, and that only encouraged Hitler to launch the big one later.
He invaded Poland because he thought the West were still bluffing, and they weren't.
Let us hope that appeasement of Putin now doesn't make him overconfident.

Point noted. However, in 1938 there weren't vast arsenals of nuclear weapons on hair triggers threatening the very existence of civilization either. This is a different game altogether, with the most extreme stakes. Back then one mistake was barely recoverable, as again, I most certainly see what you are saying. And all I can say is we deserve what we get if we let the next mistake cost us not only our lives, but the planet as well.

And I will clearly reiterate: that mistake in this case will be the misreading of the intentions of a cornered, extremely dangerous animal who has the same ability to kill you, your family, and your country- as you do it.

We are essentially shrugging off the warnings of a snarling, teeth-bearing mother grizzly bear when we are getting too close to her cubs- while we are out trying to exploit her territory. It will be way too late to even question if "spreading democracy" was worth it. So someone better damn well ask that question now, while we are still breathing.

a reply to: TrueAmerican
I always thought we were getting too (geographically) close to Russia in the Crimea business. Following the Hitler analogy, that was, at the most, Putin's Rhineland.
Another difference from 1938 is that Czechoslovakia was part of the European community, and so a genuine concern for the West in a sense that Arabic democracy is not.

What concerns me about the current situation is that Putin's intimidatory efforts have been so blatant, which means that letting him have his own way turns into a submission to intimidation. Once that becomes a general principle of policy, there is no logical stopping-point short of complete submission. That was always the problem with the old idea of "unilateral disarmament".

There is a case even for Munich, on the theory that the British army was better prepared in 1939 than it would have been a year earlier. I still think, though, that giving in to the other side to escape war is not a safe policy in the long-term.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

yet they sure weren't pissed about the US & Russia being divided. They sure are pissed we might not have to fight them.

Funny that, I cannot for the life of me understand why the American people would wan't war with Russia, surely 40 years of the Cold War taught them something?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
I still think, though, that giving in to the other side to escape war is not a safe policy in the long-term.

If Russia were poised at our doorstep, encircling us, after a long history of meddling in our affairs, and was threatening to invade the USA, I would agree. But they aren't. It is the USA and NATO which is doing exactly that to them in their own territory.

a reply to: TrueAmerican
I don't think we're really so far apart. I would not advocate starting a fight with Russia over the affairs of Syria. My concern would be long-term, if Trump was likely to fulfil Putin's hopes and co-operate all the way down the line.
I am in England, with no good safe ocean barrier. Russia was on our door-steps from 1945, and intermittently from about 1745.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

My thoughts exactly TrueAmerican, well said.

There are plenty around here obviously, but in my opinion, it's right and fine to vote and campaign along partisan lines, nothing wrong with that, EXCEPT when that partisan vote is for no other reason than the sake of partisan politics.

The Clinton supporters would probably have rathered we all burnt together, just to maintain their 'I've always voted Democrat' stance and nothing else.

Absolute lunacy on a personal level for those fanatic partisan types...and a very sad state of affairs for the rest of the world if that bloody thing Clinton had weasled her way in to the Whitehouse because of that blinkered and shortsighted POV.

We now have a chance to bring the world together, to work in co-operation and to finally do something about the state of the world for the better, the alternative would have been too nightmarish to even contemplate...yet amazingly, those dribbling partisan types, can't or won't see that.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TrueAmerican
I don't think we're really so far apart. I would not advocate starting a fight with Russia over the affairs of Syria. My concern would be long-term, if Trump was likely to fulfil Putin's hopes and co-operate all the way down the line.
I am in England, with no good safe ocean barrier. Russia was on our door-steps from 1945, and intermittently from about 1745.

What has Putin asked for.

1. Get out of Syria.
2. Lift the sanctions.
3. Talk Peace.

The Obama Admin said no to 1 and 2 so Russia said no to 3. What else was Putin supposed to do? He is the leader of Russia he is supposed to have Russian interests in mind.

We put him in the corner because he was complacent. Now he s standing up to the US, like he should.