Is Trump's credibility finally sunk?

[leibowde84]

Trump wants a peaceful relationship with Russia, while Hillary (and Obama) were trying to provoke Russia. That makes Hillary the bigger hawk.

Russia doesn't want a peaceful relationship with us. They want to take advantage of us in any way they can. Hillary and Obama were smart enough to not fall for it. Trump is not so smart.

 

[leibowde84]

Let's see, Hillary voted for the Iraqi war and was a proponent of escalation as SecState, Trump has voted for on war. So as far as 'hawk' incidents go it's Hillary 1 (at least), Trump 0.

Trump was in favor of the Iraq war. And, you are wrong. Trump did not vote either way. So, nice try, but that is ridiculous.

 

[leibowde84]

t'other way around, Trump sank the media's credibility a while back

Nope. Only his supporters feel that way. And, they are in the minority.

 

[Callisto]

Russia doesn't want a peaceful relationship with us. They want to take advantage of us in any way they can. Hillary and Obama were smart enough to not fall for it. Trump is not so smart.

Exactly. Putin wants to restore Russia as a super power, he's using self-absorbed greedy con artists like Trump, Manafort et. al. as his willing pawns.

 

[BSM1]

Trump was in favor of the Iraq war. And, you are wrong. Trump did not vote either way. So, nice try, but that is ridiculous.

So you saying Hillary didn't vote for war?

 

[metis]

So you saying Hillary didn't vote for war?

Technically she didn't. What she did do was to vote to allow Bush to declare war.

 

[leibowde84]

So you saying Hillary didn't vote for war?

No, I am saying that Trump was in favor of the Iraq war when the vote was held (even though he later dishonestly denied this), and that Trump did not "vote" either way, as he was not able to. So it is ludicrous to give him credit for anything associated with the war.

 

[Stevicus]

Russia doesn't want a peaceful relationship with us. They want to take advantage of us in any way they can. Hillary and Obama were smart enough to not fall for it. Trump is not so smart.

What do you mean by "take advantage of us"? What can they do to us? Are you suggesting that Russia is planning to attack the U.S., such as depicted in the movie Red Dawn? If so, then I found the prospect just as ludicrous during the Cold War. They're just trying to defend their interests, as we would do if we were in the same position.

 

[leibowde84]

What do you mean by "take advantage of us"? What can they do to us? Are you suggesting that Russia is planning to attack the U.S., such as depicted in the movie Red Dawn? If so, then I found the prospect just as ludicrous during the Cold War. They're just trying to defend their interests, as we would do if we were in the same position.

No, I don't think Russia is going to try to attack us. I agree, that is a ludicrous idea.

By "take advantage" I mean that they will try to fool us into thinking we have a good relationship so they can get away with hostile actions in other parts of the world. For example, they would like to get away with what happened in the Ukraine. They would like to paint our own government as being just as bad as theirs. They would like to get rid of the sanctions we have put in place as deterrents.

 

[metis]

Cyber-warfare is very dangerous and has the potential to do some sever damage to economies and political systems. It must be taken very seriously.

 

[BSM1]

No, I am saying that Trump was in favor of the Iraq war when the vote was held (even though he later dishonestly denied this), and that Trump did not "vote" either way, as he was not able to. So it is ludicrous to give him credit for anything associated with the war.

So you're agreeing with me then..thanks.

 

[leibowde84]

So you're agreeing with me then..thanks.

No. Where'd you get that from? You said that Trump voted against the Iraq war, which is patently false.

 

[Stevicus]

No, I don't think Russia is going to try to attack us. I agree, that is a ludicrous idea.

By "take advantage" I mean that they will try to fool us into thinking we have a good relationship so they can get away with hostile actions in other parts of the world. For example, they would like to get away with what happened in the Ukraine.
They would like to paint our own government as being just as bad as theirs. They would like to get rid of the sanctions we have put in place as deterrents.

Honestly, I think that's an issue we'd be better off leaving alone. I've never been comfortable with the US presuming to be the world's policeman, but even then, to try to meddle in the Russia-Ukraine dispute may be overstepping that role. This is right at Russia's doorstep, a nation which has been invaded numerous times in its history and which has viewed the US as a greedy, aggressive, imperialist power. I believe it to be unwise and reckless to antagonize them over this issue. We should pick our battles more carefully. (We would never antagonize Britain over Northern Ireland, so why do we think it's okay to antagonize the Russians over this issue?)

Russia doesn't have to take advantage of us or fool us into thinking we have a good relationship. Our own policymakers should have known better, but that's the problem we've always had: We don't look before we leap into these situations.

As for them painting our government as bad as theirs, I guess that's a matter of perspective and interpretation. I will give them credit for withdrawing from Eastern Europe, dissolving the Warsaw Pact, and pulling out of territories which had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries. For us, that would be the equivalent of giving up the American Southwest and giving it back to Mexico (which some people still believe we should do).

But I don't think anyone expected that it would go so smoothly, so there were bound to be disputes, such as with Georgia and Ukraine. Let them work it out themselves; I seriously doubt that Putin would even want to attempt to restore the Russian Empire.

Crimea is a bit complicated, but considering the history of that peninsula and the overall situation (such as deterioration in Turkey), I say, just let the Russians keep it. It's no skin off us, and we might need the Russians' help and goodwill if Turkey kicks off against the West. Russia and Turkey are ancient enemies, so we should not try to alienate them too much over matters which are of little practical concern to the West.

 

[leibowde84]

Honestly, I think that's an issue we'd be better off leaving alone. I've never been comfortable with the US presuming to be the world's policeman, but even then, to try to meddle in the Russia-Ukraine dispute may be overstepping that role. This is right at Russia's doorstep, a nation which has been invaded numerous times in its history and which has viewed the US as a greedy, aggressive, imperialist power. I believe it to be unwise and reckless to antagonize them over this issue. We should pick our battles more carefully. (We would never antagonize Britain over Northern Ireland, so why do we think it's okay to antagonize the Russians over this issue?)

Russia doesn't have to take advantage of us or fool us into thinking we have a good relationship. Our own policymakers should have known better, but that's the problem we've always had: We don't look before we leap into these situations.

As for them painting our government as bad as theirs, I guess that's a matter of perspective and interpretation. I will give them credit for withdrawing from Eastern Europe, dissolving the Warsaw Pact, and pulling out of territories which had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries. For us, that would be the equivalent of giving up the American Southwest and giving it back to Mexico (which some people still believe we should do).

But I don't think anyone expected that it would go so smoothly, so there were bound to be disputes, such as with Georgia and Ukraine. Let them work it out themselves; I seriously doubt that Putin would even want to attempt to restore the Russian Empire.

Crimea is a bit complicated, but considering the history of that peninsula and the overall situation (such as deterioration in Turkey), I say, just let the Russians keep it. It's no skin off us, and we might need the Russians' help and goodwill if Turkey kicks off against the West. Russia and Turkey are ancient enemies, so we should not try to alienate them too much over matters which are of little practical concern to the West.

When Putin, a dictator, invades another sovereign nation with the intent of taking it over, we cannot stand for it. We made the same mistake with Hitler, and look what happened. Sure, Putin might not be willing to exterminate entire populations, but he is ruthless and ready to murder anyone who presents a risk to his power. A guy like that, we have to call him on everything he does. Obama should have done a lot more, imho. He was too soft, but at least he wasn't willing to "work with" a thug like Putin. Trump seems like he respects him, like he is foolish enough to think he is like other leaders just wanting the best for their country. Putin is the richest man in the world, and he has robbed and killed his way to that position. In terms of being evil and ruthless, he even puts Trump to shame.

 

[Stevicus]

When Putin, a dictator, invades another sovereign nation with the intent of taking it over, we cannot stand for it. We made the same mistake with Hitler, and look what happened.

Putin is not Hitler. Russia is not Germany. Besides that, why do "we" have to do anything about it? Why is it "our" responsibility?

Another point to consider: The worst mistakes made in regards to Hitler were made before Hitler even rose to power. The same could be said regarding Russia and the Soviet Union. Both were the result of seriously bad mistakes made by the West, so before "we" start dictating to other nations what "we cannot stand for," maybe "we" should make sure that "we" know what we're doing. I think it's dangerous to have this "leap before we look" attitude. Mentioning "Hitler" is like some kind of magic word which gives a good name to warmongers and causes everyone's brains to shut down. It's a very dangerous and reckless way to conduct foreign policy.

That's why Hillary would have been a much more dangerous leader for America than Trump.

Sure, Putin might not be willing to exterminate entire populations, but he is ruthless and ready to murder anyone who presents a risk to his power.

So is China's government, yet we kiss up to them and give them a free pass. Same for the Saudi government. Just to name a couple of murderous dictatorial regimes we support. Putin can be faulted for allowing organized crime to take over his country, but then, our own government is guilty of that as well. Who are we to judge?

In any case, our foreign policy should be based solely on what is practically beneficial for America, not on being a moral crusader around the world. That just leads to more problems, as we're seeing in the Middle East today. If you're saying that our foreign policy goal should be to challenge and attack every single non-free regime in the world, then we will definitely have our work cut out for us. We would have to fight most of the countries of this world. I don't think most Americans have the will or the stomach to embark on such a crusade, so it would be better to look at these things more realistically.

A guy like that, we have to call him on everything he does.

Again I ask, why do "we" have to do it?

Obama should have done a lot more, imho. He was too soft, but at least he wasn't willing to "work with" a thug like Putin. Trump seems like he respects him, like he is foolish enough to think he is like other leaders just wanting the best for their country.

Or maybe Trump doesn't see Russia as a direct threat to America, which is the only thing that a U.S. President should care about. Trump may see the Muslim-majority nations as a greater threat, and if that's the case, Russia could be a valuable and powerful ally.

Russia is no longer communist, so there's no fear of them spreading communism around the world. They are capitalists now, just like we are. They have their Mafia, we have ours. We're more alike than we're different. But that's all beside the point. Our primary task should be to protect America and rebuild our ruined economy. I don't like Trump, but he's all we have at the moment.

Maybe if we had better presidents and political leaders in previous years - people who could have maintained America's strength and kept our economy viable, then maybe we'd be in a stronger position today to be able to deal with thugs like Putin. We've wasted a lot of our national strength and resources on stupid things, and now we're in a weaker position today as a result. It's not 1945 anymore, and we can't go on thinking and acting like it is. We have to take a more realistic view of the world these days, because we're no longer in control of our destiny, thanks to the incompetence of many of the same people who are criticizing Trump now.

Putin is the richest man in the world, and he has robbed and killed his way to that position.

Actually, Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. I don't believe he's killed anyone, although some have criticized his company's business practices.

In terms of being evil and ruthless, he even puts Trump to shame.

We've worked with evil and ruthless leaders before, such as the Saudi government, the Shah of Iran, China's current and past leadership, along with any number of tinpot dictators in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Even within America, we've done some rather evil and ruthless things.

 

[Revoltingest]

When Putin, a dictator, invades another sovereign nation with the intent of taking it over, we cannot stand for it. We made the same mistake with Hitler, and look what happened. Sure, Putin might not be willing to exterminate entire populations, but he is ruthless and ready to murder anyone who presents a risk to his power. A guy like that, we have to call him on everything he does. Obama should have done a lot more, imho. He was too soft, but at least he wasn't willing to "work with" a thug like Putin. Trump seems like he respects him, like he is foolish enough to think he is like other leaders just wanting the best for their country. Putin is the richest man in the world, and he has robbed and killed his way to that position. In terms of being evil and ruthless, he even puts Trump to shame.

If Putin is the evilest man in the world, & Trump is 2nd, are
we then really qualified to be the ones to topple Putin?
And if we are, how far would you want us to go....more
sanctions (Obama style) which were ineffective?
Military aid to his prey....all out war?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's see, Hillary voted for the Iraqi war and was a proponent of escalation as SecState, Trump has voted for on war. So as far as 'hawk' incidents go it's Hillary 1 (at least), Trump 0.

Trump supported Iraq, stated he would support boots on the ground against ISIS, and was open to the idea of war against Iran. In this regard, the only real difference is that Hillary wasn't conceded, deluded, or stupid enough to believe she knows it all about terrorism and can do whatever she wants and thinks is suitable despite what facts and reality say. And now we have heightened tensions against the US and N Korea.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The worst mistakes made in regards to Hitler were made before Hitler even rose to power.

The worst mistakes we those made once Hitler had power, started acting in a very aggressive manner and violating treaties, and the Western powers pretty much turned a blind eye to it, except to say "now, now, Mr. Hitler....We like you and all, but you need to be nice...this paper says so." So Hitler kept at it. The mistake was the decision to not act.

 

[Altfish]

"Look out, I'm in control; I'm very in control"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope. Only his supporters feel that way. And, they are in the minority.

I know, right? "The media" predicted more people would vote for Hillary, and that is exactly what happened.