Why Hillary Clinton is sinking faster than the Titanic

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Are you in europe?

UKtruth is correct. Besides if Trump said he wouldn't nuke europe and then goes ahead and nukes it from orbit, just to be sure, you all would be screaming about how he lied!!

But seriously, why would anyone take anything off the table?

obama drew red lines, they were crossed, what happened? Nothing.

Topic: Hillary...sinking...Titanic...FBI.
Massive Thread Drift?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Apologies for contributing to "Massive Thread Drift"



Mrs.Clinton is sinking under the weight of too many Open Questions.

If she really has nothing to hide she is making a poor job of explaining it to the US electorate.

Along with a paucity of meaningful policies she is dooming herself to fail.

Neither the DNC or her staff can reasonably be expected to throw away their futures to support her egotistic and arrogant approach to the election.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: UKTruth

The majority of Europe are allies with America now, but what about in the the future? Who knows what will change.

So you're acknowledging that he's keeping the option open to nuke Europe?

Moreover the question was about using nuclear weapons IN Europe, not against Europe.

The actual questions were "How about Europe? We won't use them in Europe? You're going to use it in Europe?" It's obvious what was meant by them.

Have you seen the future? Do you know that we will not be fighting wars on European lands at some point in the future?

LOL Who's seen the future? What kind of question is that? Besides, this was about Trump and what he'd do if he became President in this election cycle. That's the next 4 years, with 8 at the max if he were reelected (US Presidents can only be President for up to 2 terms). So the option of using nukes in Europe relates to the next 4 to 8 years, not decades or centuries in some possible the future.

What about tactical nuclear weapons - like 'bunker busters'?

So once again, are you arguing in favor of using nukes in Europe? If so, what's the point in this whole exchange? Because you're literally trying to convince me that that are situations when it would be "right" to nuke Europe, which agrees with Trump's statement and my assessment of it.

Should they be ruled out of use in Europe if say Europe is invaded and fortified by an enemy?

In the next 4 to 8 years? How? By who? Some alien civilization? Be realist here. Russia doesn't have the troops or the motives to do that. And they would be attacked by a united NATO long before they could invade and fortify throughout Europe.

Not to mention, nuking them would be a lose-lose situation, both because they'd nuke us back, and because the newly-nuked European cities would be destroyed and radioactively contaminated in the process. Every nuked area would be like Fukushima or have damaging side effects like the areas littered with NATO's depleted uranium shells. The fact that you're casually overlooking this is just as ridiculous as Trump's statement.

In terms of allies, Trump did not talk about or answer a question about allies. To even suggest he was giving a second thought to nuking our allies from that interview is ridiculous and just another stupid twist on words to try and demonise and discredit.

So which European countries would you and Trump be hypothetically nuking? What European countries aren't allies of the US? Which specific countries in Europe should it be ok to nuke? Neither he nor you has ruled out nuking any specific European countries. And since Europe is full of our allies, it makes sense to deduct that you're including them in your "nuke-able" countries (especially since you won't rule out any specific countries). And let's not forget other aspects like the nuclear fallout onto the neighboring areas and countries. But I guess that's on the table too?

Oh yeah, should he also leave open the option of nuking US States, Tea Party protesters, or the Super Bowl? Are those cards on the table too? You never replied to that.

Sooner or later - anti-Trumpers will realize that making things up and presenting them as fact will not work. I think many have stopped these stupid games now, but some remain.

I think the fake tough guys who promote nuclear gamesmanship are the ones playing stupid games. But to each their own on that.

Bottom line is you have taken a 'i'm keeping all my cards on the table' statement and turned it into nuking allies. Poor form and typical of anti-Trumpers trying to skew reality. Crack on with that if you like if it pleases you. I'll stick to the real world.

Anyway back to the topic - The reason Hillary is sinking fast is two fold.

1) Her fight with Bernie - just as Cruz supporters would say never Trump whilst Cruz was still in the race, so will Bernie supporters say never Hillary. Once Bernie is out, many of them will come to terms with Hillary and her numbers will go up in the polls.

2) Trump has won the information battle against anti-Trumpers in the media. Many independents are realising the hysterical claims made about him are not quite true, or are grossly exaggerated and twisted, and are assessing him properly.

I heard on the radio that Hillary Clinton has botched every job she's been assigned to, since 1975. Is this true? If so, why the hell is this country allowing her to compete for the powerful job on the planet? Geesh.

Looks like another iceberg is about to strike the USS HRClinton...

"The Clintons have been targeted by accusations of wrongdoing from Whitewater to Benghazi. There also are self-inflicted wounds: President Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers while secretary of state.

They may be on the verge of creating another one: The Clinton Foundation, which has done a number of good works over the past 15 years, would appear to present an inherent conflict of interest should Mrs. Clinton become president, and possibly does even now with her as a candidate."

Source: www.msn.com... (The Trump-Hating New York Times is now turning on Hillary. Must be a (another) SERIOUS problem headed her way!)

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The use of "nukes" in Europe is not the same thing as the use of "nukes" against Europe.

The "nukes" come in sizes from small "tactical" all the way up to big "strategic" versions.

Escalation beyond "tactical" use is not a given.

Europe has two "nuke" capable nations. The UK and France. Either of whom can destroy Russia.

If you lived in Poland you might think differently.

What's the difference in using nukes in Europe and using nukes against Europe? Semantically, it could imply a nuclear armed European country using the nukes or the US using its nukes that are based in a European country.

But the person I'd debating brought up examples such as "an enemy invading and fortifying Europe" as times to use nukes there. Which means we'd be nuking the occupying armies on European soil, which is literally nuking Europe. Not to mention, he/she is openly against taking any options off the table, which would obviously include the option of nuking Europe in an attack. And since he/she won't name which countries are ok to be nuked, how can anyone rationally determine which ones are "ok" to be nuked?

Also, I know that there are different types of nuclear weapons. But that's not what this was about. This was about Trump refusing to take the use of nukes in Europe off the table. That would include all different types of nukes. Check out the way Chris Matthews asked the questions in the clip that I originally responded to and you'll see why I'm responding like this. Not to mention that even small "tactical" nukes still spread radiation and have radioactive fallout. That should be completely unacceptable to use in allied territory, as the fallout and contamination could affect water supplies, food supplies, infant mortality rates, cancer rates, and much more. This is true even if the number of casualties from the actual strike are low.

And if Poland is the example you're using, don't forget that Poland is also a member of NATO. They're one of the European allies I was talking about. So is nuking Poland with tactical nukes acceptable if Russia or some other "enemy" invaded and occupied them?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You are attempting to argue semantics.

The reality on the ground in Europe is not a question of semantics.

Ask a Ukranian.

Create a thread....?

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You are attempting to argue semantics.

The reality on the ground in Europe is not a question of semantics.

Ask a Ukranian.

Create a thread....?

So we should be prepared to nuke Ukraine?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You are attempting to argue semantics.

The reality on the ground in Europe is not a question of semantics.

Ask a Ukranian.

Create a thread....?

So we should be prepared to nuke Ukraine?

Absolutely right - always be prepared, and you should be prepared to drop your ridiculous line of attack against Trump.

There is always the possibility for things to change and only an idiot and terrible commander in chief (like Obama) would rule out using nuclear weapons against an entire continent which happens to include Russia and many of the old eastern block countries that Russia could conceivably annex and fortify in the future, including placing nuclear bases.

I hope Hillary picks up this line of attack - she'll be buried if she does and her numbers will sink even further.

Hillary will never go to trial or even see a courtroom over this. Even if Trump is elected and calls for it.

These are the traits of a true American patriot and someone all Americans should be proud to call the President of the United States of America.

I think I just threw up a little..in my mouth....

Wow, am I the only person that reads actual facts? Go read WikiLeaks.

I can't believe how uninformed people are here. You supposedly are "Above Top Secret" yet you are so stupid that you believe that the American public actually has a choice in their leader...

Both candidates are owned by the same covert faction.

WikiLeaks already has her email on it. I suggest you go read it.... I'll wait...

OK, are you educated now.... Fox news is just doing their regular fake stir up the public #...

If they really wanted to stir up # they would be reporting on the actual content of the emails which are in wikileaks. What they have maybe ran two stories about the fact that the content is on wikileaks?

Read the actual facts about the situation in your country. What facts do this reveal? A lot actually.

First, is the media reporting that her email is all up in WikiLeaks? No!!!

What percentage of Americans would you say know that Hillary Clinton's emails are in Wikileaks? I'd say less than %1. Nice distraction this "Presidential Race" isn't it. Americans are idiots.

Why isn't Fox News reporting about the content of her emails? Gee... that seems very convenient... it's not that hard to figure out guys...

Face it, the game is rigged. Either way, the same covert faction wins...

It's not very hard to figure out. If you believe you truly have a choice in the two-party system then you have been fooled by their game. Here is the 2 truths to this particular election:

1)You will find with the simplest of research that the Clintons are good friends of... de Rothschild family (hello wikileaks anyone?)

2)You will also find out with very little research that Trump is also a slave to none other than... de Rothschild.

These 2 truths equate to your candidates being one in the same. Yep, sorry to tell you... either way the outcome of the election... Hillary or Trump it doesn't matter they are both slave candidates.

If you really want to ask questions then start investigating why isn't Sanders getting elected when all signs point to him having enough support on all sides. That's where the fishy smells start emanating.

a reply to: Profusion

I definitly see the trouble hillary is in. However, using Fox news and the saying "I know this source sucks" is a REALLY bad way to start a thread, in my opinion.

Especially when you say, this is for "unbias" observers.

a reply to: anotherdaytoday

You'd probably get more people to listen to your argument if you qouted or linked lines from specific clinton emails.

It can be tough to dig for good stuff. The internet is full of B.S. that tries to bury the real stuff. So, any links or direct qoutes would save others a lot of time.

Face it, the game is rigged. Either way, the same covert faction wins...

Always a possibility, but it was DEFINITE with Cruz.

If you really want to ask questions then start investigating why isn't Sanders getting elected when all signs point to him having enough support on all sides. That's where the fishy smells start emanating.

Because most of us realize he was a lackluster congressman who screwed up the VA yet wants MORE socialism, and to be in charge of it, while increasing taxes, during a time of recovery..... I mean, a self-inflicted bullet would be faster....

a reply to: JourneymanWelder

That's not fact. But it does clear up something for me.

a reply to: UKTruth

No it was a stupid answer to a serious question. He failed completely on the entire interview. The same one where he said women should be punished from having abortions.

I am appalled at the ignorance in society and how the public gets spun into a battle against itself... just like this forum...

Oh, the talking heads just listen to them talk... they will talk all day about the fact that these Emails should be used against her... but, oh, well guess what... you can go actually see the content for yourself on WikiLeaks and determine for yourself how damaging the emails actually are... but no no no, the talking heads won't mention that...

What a bunch of talking head #s that the public is controlled by... the public should be ashamed of theirselves if the American public could ever swallow it's pride and look at the 2-party system for what it really is.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Profusion

There are no facts presented. The entire piece is an op-ed.

and that's how the right-wing works, for the most part. as long as you can find a few conservative blogs, websites, or talking heads that say the opposite of the facts, you can convince some people that this is "debatable".....it's been done for years now.