Who would you support to be President of the United States: Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton?

[Mr Spinkles]

It's fine for you to list ways in which she can be seen as not hawkish,
but I'm looking at the reasons she is.

Such as? I didn't try to list ways in which Clinton is less hawkish than Trump, I just listed the major points of foreign policy during her career as SoS and it fell out that way - or so I thought. What did I miss?

Perhaps watching debates colors your impression.
Since he behaves boorishly, if one is offended by that, it can cause prejudice.

No, it's not just debates and that's not the issue for me. It's the content of what he is saying (and sometimes, misleading lack of content) as I outlined that is the issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Such as? I didn't try to list ways in which Clinton is less hawkish than Trump, I just listed the major points of foreign policy during her career as SoS and it fell out that way - or so I thought. What did I miss?

I've already covered such things, eg, her voting for war.

No, it's not just debates and that's not the issue for me. It's the content of what he is saying (and sometimes, misleading lack of content) as I outlined that is the issue.

And this should be weighed against her records & words.
You & I arrive at different conclusions about which is worse.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've already covered such things, eg, her voting for war.

Okay was it just her voting for the invasion of Iraq or was it more than that? If you could direct me to the post that would be helpful, I'm trying to learn. Trump by the way supported the invasion of Iraq too, although now he lies about it: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay was it just her voting for the invasion of Iraq or was it more than that? If you could direct me to the post that would be helpful, I'm trying to learn. Trump by the way supported the invasion of Iraq too, although now he lies about it: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/

I really don't want to cover the same ground repeatedly.
Some Hillary faults....
- Voted for Iraq war.
- Voted to continue financing both wars.
- Threatened to "obliterate Iran".
- Anti-gun rights
- Authoritarian aspects of her health care proposal.

From your link, it looks clear that Trump was less enthusiastic about the Iraq war than was Hillary.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I really don't want to cover the same ground repeatedly.
Some Hillary faults....
- Voted for Iraq war.
- Voted to continue financing both wars.
- Threatened to "obliterate Iran".
- Anti-gun rights
- Authoritarian aspects of her health care proposal.

From your link, it looks clear that Trump was less enthusiastic about the Iraq war than was Hillary.

This was supposed to be a list of things that make Clinton more of a foreign policy hawk than Trump. Only the first 3 have to do with foreign policy. I agree Trump wasn't as enthusiastic but, also less thoughtful and less truthful.

- Threatened to "obliterate Iran".

Holy taking out of context Batman! As you know, what she said was if Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel, the US could totally obliterate Iran in retaliation and she wants Iran to know that to deter them from ever considering something so foolish.

 

[Revoltingest]

Holy taking out of context Batman! As you know, what she said was if Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel, the US could totally obliterate Iran in retaliation and she wants Iran to know that to deter them from ever considering something so foolish.

I've explained this before.
Perhaps you missed or forgot it.
It would be reasonable to defend Israel with strong & deadly retaliation.
But she went much further than this, threatening to obliterate the entire country.
Such is not the language of a thoughtful person seeking peace thru strength.
Do you think her threat furthers our goals of effecting a peaceful Iran?
I don't.
Given our history with them, eg, the '53 coup, the Iraq war against them, she
only gives them motive to be heavily armed.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've explained this before.
Perhaps you missed or forgot it.
It would be reasonable to defend Israel with strong & deadly retaliation.
But she went much further than this, threatening to obliterate the entire country.
Such is not the language of a thoughtful person seeking peace thru strength.
Do you think her threat furthers our goals of effecting a peaceful Iran?
I don't.
Given our history with them, eg, the '53 coup, the Iraq war against them, she
only gives them motive to be heavily armed.

If we were talking about conventional warfare, I would agree. But an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel would of course be designed to obliterate Israel. It's hard to imagine how a US-led nuclear retaliation would lead to a different outcome for Iran (would it merely obliterate one third of the country, is that the issue?). Furthermore she was laying out what the US could do rather than what it would do per se and yes, I suspect the threat of massive retaliation does (and has) deter the use of nuclear weapons.

Trump OTOH wants to reverse 70 years of nuclear non-proliferation which I think every expert almost to a man agrees increases the chances of nuclear war. Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trumps-nuclear-insanity-213781

 

[Revoltingest]

If we were talking about conventional warfare, I would agree. But an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel would of course be designed to obliterate Israel. It's hard to imagine how a US-led nuclear retaliation would lead to a different outcome for Iran (would it merely obliterate one third of the country, is that the issue?). Furthermore she was laying out what the US could do rather than what it would do per se and yes, I suspect the threat of massive retaliation does (and has) deter the use of nuclear weapons.

Or it tells Iran that we're out to get them again.
Over a million of them died when we fueled Iraq's attack with WMDs.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of her diplomacy & negotiating skills.

Trump OTOH wants to reverse 70 years of nuclear non-proliferation which I think every expert almost to a man agrees increases the chances of nuclear war. Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trumps-nuclear-insanity-213781

Politico writes an opinion piece which is pro-status quo, & anti-Trump.
What a surprise!
If he's accurately represented in the article,Trump makes some sense.
I don't want a nuclear Iran either, but the US approach to such things also has very high costs.
Looking just at Iran, our military misadventures against them actually created their being an enemy.
Then the embargo heightened tensions, & encouraged their covert action against us & our allies.
I'm more a fan of trying peaceful relations.
Perhaps Bernie's recent success will offer the best chance for a change in this direction , eh?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Or it tells Iran that we're out to get them again.
Over a million of them died when we fueled Iraq's attack with WMDs.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of her diplomacy & negotiating skills.

Politico writes an opinion piece which is pro-status quo, & anti-Trump.
What a surprise!
If he's accurately represented in the article,Trump makes some sense.
I don't want a nuclear Iran either, but the US approach to such things also has very high costs.
Looking just at Iran, our military misadventures against them actually created their being an enemy.
Then the embargo heightened tensions, & encouraged their covert action against us & our allies.
I'm more a fan of trying peaceful relations.
Perhaps Bernie's recent success will offer the best chance for a change in this direction , eh?

Well, we agree on one thing, at least. Historically the US has committed terrible wrongs against Iran. It's a shame and largely our own fault we do not have more friendly relations with them.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Please explain your answer.

I'd vote Hilary, not just because her policies are better or at the very least, more sane but Trump is a racist, narrow minded buffoon. The complete opposite of the type of person you want in power.