Donald or Hillary? I don't care except for this question.

a reply to: droid56

I have to wonder whether Clinton or Trump is most likely to lead the world into a nuclear war that will cause me to become a pile of ash.

My guess would be that Clinton would be the most likely to "inch" the world closer to a nuclear war. Clinton, while she's not particularly focused on a hawkish theme for Foreign policy, is part of the establishment that heeds the advice of the Council on Foreign Relations; the same think tank promoted the Arab Spring to topple regimes in the ME and then backed the transfer of weapons to the Syrian rebels to undo Assad. The "establishment" is also quite determined to confront Putin in eastern Europe and to ramp up NATO deployments in eastern Europe to back stop the Ukraine.

Trump on the other hand is a "deal" maker; he could care less about eastern Europe. He's not afraid of Putin and thus sees no reason to unnecessarily threaten Putin in eastern Europe. Trump would have no problem with joining with Putin to prop up Assad to defeat the rebels and to "right" Syria pending free and fair elections there as an Assad exit plan such as the one Putin has been proposing.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
Wasnt it Teddy who said "speak softly and carry a big stick"? He did alright as President .

You know, I almost did not use that word 'stick' for this very reason. But the big sick I was referring to here is not the 'bit stick' of strength and might, but rather the 'big stick' of big government power aka military budget and threats against other nations. Sounds rather ominous dont you think?