• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump's America -- Crimes against humanity

idav

Being
Premium Member
Hillary has an actual record voting for & advocating for war.
So she did indeed pose a risk to be compared with Trump's.
(And we all know that he was at risk for hawkish behavior too.)
You cannot claim to know that she'd have been a peaceful Prez.

Hey, aren't you the one who complains when the Hillary subject is broached?
Something about her being a distraction?
Well we don't need a political record to know whether Trump is a hot head. He even admitted that he will be fighting terror so when a person says that you don't need a political voting record they just said how they would vote. BTW Trump took full advantage of an economy as in war. Everyone had second thoughts but Trump just likes to pretend he was psychic the whole time, he wasn't, he is a liar and changes his story to suit his audience.
 
99% of all politicians are corrupt, power hungry, egotistical, selfish, bought-off, spineless, hypocritical, conniving cretins. They don't have the interest and welfare of the American people in mind. They are part of an elitist corrupt gang run by people much more powerful than themselves. They are pathetic puppets. MONEY, GREED , AND POWER have always run the world and always will. It's sad but true. Trump is a POS as a human being. It doesn't matter if he's President or someone else, they are all corrupt puppets.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well we don't need a political record to know whether Trump is a hot head. He even admitted that he will be fighting terror so when a person says that you don't need a political voting record they just said how they would vote. BTW Trump took full advantage of an economy as in war. Everyone had second thoughts but Trump just likes to pretend he was psychic the whole time, he wasn't, he is a liar and changes his story to suit his audience.
These things don't defeat the clear danger that Hillary posed.
So we had to compare the risks....not deny one or the other.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What danger was that? Would she have not openly courted fascism?
Are we to re-live the campaign?
Have you forgotten that we all (or at least several of us) repeatedly considered
her vote to start & continue wars, & her threats, particularly towards Iran?
I've never been shy about Trump also being dangerous. So his evaluation was
necessarily a comparison of the two.

It seems that a great many looked at Trump's faults, but averted their eyes from hers.
You may judge her to be the lesser danger, just as I judged her to be the greater.
But you may not claim that she was without risk.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Are we to re-live the campaign?
Have you forgotten that we all (or at least several of us) repeatedly considered
her vote to start & continue wars, & her threats, particularly towards Iran?
I've never been shy about Trump also being dangerous. So his evaluation was
necessarily a comparison of the two.

It seems that a great many looked at Trump's faults, but averted their eyes from hers.
You may judge her to be the lesser danger, just as I judged her to be the greater.
But you may not claim that she was without risk.
And what dangers specifically made her a greater threat than Trump?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And what dangers specifically made her a greater threat than Trump?
Do you really not remember her record in Congress?
She voted to start the Iraq war, & to continue the wars.
Her comment about obliterating Iran....none of this rings a bell?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
These things don't defeat the clear danger that Hillary posed.
So we had to compare the risks....not deny one or the other.
Yeah a real spit fire, can't even use he term Muslim terrorist. That doesn't sound like someone trying to make war in he Middle East. As opposed to someone who openly showed his hatred, I knew exactly who I thought would more likely keep us in war. Clintons message was together strong, yeah real warmonger that one lol.

Everyone voted for the Iraq war so using that as an excuse to vote in a tyrant doesn't fly. The whole Benghazi thing was a sham too. The clear and present danger was and still is Trump.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yeah a real spit fire, can't even use he term Muslim terrorist.
Where on Earth did this come from?
Is it because I prefer the term, "Islamic Terrorist"?
This is because there are many many many peaceful Muslims,
& I avoid making them feel like they're lumped in with the terrorists.
"Islamic" makes it solely about the extremists of the religion.

Perhaps you meant something else?
Well, if you don't my terminology, then you may take a flying leap at a rolling donut.
(What....too harsh?)
That doesn't sound like someone trying to make war in he Middle East. As opposed to someone who openly showed his hatred, I knew exactly who I thought would more likely keep us in war. Clintons message was together strong, yeah real warmonger that one lol.

Everyone voted for the Iraq war so using that as an excuse to vote in a tyrant doesn't fly. The whole Benghazi thing was a sham too. The clear and present danger was and still is Trump.
Not everyone voted to start & continue wars.
Her votes matter to me, even if not to you.
Face it....you favored a war monger.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Where on Earth did this come from?
Is it because I prefer the term, "Islamic Terrorist"?
This is because there are many many many peaceful Muslims,
& I avoid making them feel like they're lumped in with the terrorists.
"Islamic" makes it solely about the extremists of the religion.

Perhaps you meant something else?
Well, if you don't my terminology, then you may take a flying leap at a rolling donut.
(What....too harsh?)

Not everyone voted to start & continue wars.
Her votes matter to me, even if not to you.
Face it....you favored a war monger.
Sorry I was talking about Hillary can't even use the term Muslim terrorist, that doesn't sound very warmonger to me.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Face it....you favored a war monger.
There is no real evidence for such a thing. Well there is that one picture from Benghazi.
HillaryRambo.jpg
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Sorry I was talking about Hillary can't even use the term Muslim terrorist, that doesn't sound very warmonger to me.
She's a politically correct war monger.
Killing Muslims is OK, so long as we don't publicly mention their religion.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
She's a politically correct war monger.
Killing Muslims is OK, so long as we don't publically mention their religion.
Uh huh, so your reading into that she secretly hates Muslims. Well Trump openly hated Muslims so his warmonger status is 100 times more obvious.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Uh huh, so your reading into that she secretly hates Muslims.
Well Trump openly hated Muslims so his warmonger status is 100 times more obvious.
I only said she's OK with killing them (per her record).
As I've oft said before, Trump is no peacenik either...which is why
I'd have voted for Bernie if the Hildabeast hadn't gotten in the way.
But the DNC didn't consult me about whom to run. They never do.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I only said she's OK with killing them (per her record).
As I've oft said before, Trump is no peacenik either...which is why
I'd have voted for Bernie if the Hildabeast hadn't gotten in the way.
But the DNC didn't consult me about whom to run. They never do.
Now now, what would a record of fighting terrorism have to do with ones outlook on the Muslim religion? Your conflating the two.
 
Top