Posted on 10/14/2016 9:45:16 AM PDT by GraceG
Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein: Donald Trump is less scary on foreign wars, because he wants to work with Russia.
(snip)
It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone.
We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.
Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.
I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.
On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.
He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
If Jill Stein really believes this she should endorse Trump and tell her supporters to vote for him.
The foreign policy elites attacked Solzhenitsyn when he spoke back in the 1970’s. He was denounced as a “Russian nationalist”.
Those elites loved the commies running Russia and now they want to hate Russia.
Insane.
Even an ultra-Liberal like Jill Stein knows Trump is the better candidate. She knows the Wicked Witch isn’t a Liberal, but instead is simply a psychopath.
Stein is absolutely right. Hillary is going to start WW3, if Zero doesn’t first.
Bernie's people don't like her - we don't like her, working class Americans don't... Guess that leave corrupt elites and dependent inner city blacks. Oh, and the MSM...
Trump never abandoned any soldiers at Benghazi; isn’t the cause for the mess in the Middle East.
Heads up, some ex- “missileers”, those who control the nuke code, are in a story just released, NBC. So, this story about what Stein said is interesting.
Those (((elites)))
“I also wonder how an environmentalist can vote for open borders.”
A very valid point.
“However, that doesn’t explain why members of labor unions embrace politicians who help put them out of work by importing illegal immigrant labor and outsourcing their jobs.”
Labor unions like increasing the minimum wage, since union contracts start at 200% of the minimum wage. (At that point, the jobs have a tendency to go to Thailand! /s;)
You may have something there. Create a nuclear war crisis and say Trump is crazy, and he can’t be trusted with their imaginary “button.” You know, like that one button that said “reset”
Is that the Tsar Bomb?
America is in a dangerous time period because idiots voted for idiots.
Scary indeed.
That's because there is no compelling US interest... But there IS a compelling globalist interest, or, should I say, there are TWO compelling globalist' interests.
The first is the delivery of petroleum products from the ME to Europe. The Euro's may be mostly weenies, but they very much do want to be free from dependence on Russia's natural gas, which is much complicated by most Euro's suicidal urge to go REALLY green. (France, to their credit, has been half-way sensible by building nuclear power plants.)
Second is that, outside of nationalistic urges in the US, and Chinese self-interest, Putin, his admittedly corrupt cabal, and Russian nationalism, are a major stumbling block for the globalists. This is of course partially due to the energy issue above, but it is only one factor, here. Putin is simply not someone who can be pushed around. But Russia can be damaged / drained by tying them down in long conflicts, much as with Afghanistan. Eventually, with a conduit to getting ME energy to Europe, a major source of revenue to Russia now has serious competition, and Putin no longer has Europe under his thumb. SA (etc.) profit handsomely, at the expense of Russia.
The difference in Syria, as we know, is that Putin has an able ally in Assad, who has support from significant portions of the population, and most of the Syrian military. Assad, with Russian support, is not so easily rubbed out...
Meanwhile, there is an ideological bent in the West to remake other countries into a "better" way, regardless of whether the underlying conditions to succeed at this are present or not, and apparently ignorant of what those conditions are...
This is not the whole picture, but it lays out the basics. Putin surely sees it, and is enraged.
(I am leaving out, here, the "Iran Deal", which is so inane as to almost defy rational analysis.)
Now, on the one hand I think Putin is a monster, and he probably does need to be weakened, and perhaps even "kept busy" within Russia. Getting ME energy to Europe IS a good idea. But the globalists, our State Dept., etc., are not only bizarrely naïve (who could not predict the results of the "Arab Spring", or mass migration of Muslims to the West?), and largely silent about the human cost of all this mayhem (except what they can try to blame on Putin / Assad), they also appear to be confined in their thinking to a box that is, I'd swear, about the size of a pea.
Good God. I am pretty sure that for much less than the $$ cost of all this warfare, refugee migrations (and the consequences of those), and so on, the Gulf gas and oil could be piped to elsewhere on the Med. Sea and then short-run tankered to Europe. Or, build those nuclear plants. Or... well, you get my drift.
In the much more immediate term, I suppose an argument can be made that on a humanitarian basis, we should not abandon our "moderate" allies to slaughter or violent conquest. Righto. The Ukrainians would be amused. But, hey, bygones are bygones, eh? And never mind our role in worsening all this. So, fine: Make a deal with Assad / Putin to temporarily let up on the attacks, and we will transport anyone who wishes out of Aleppo, disarmed, and not to be re-armed, at least not by the West, or SA and it's allies. Anyone who stays or won't disarm is on their own. Of course this is a victory for Assad / Putin and a defeat for the globalists, so it probably will not happen.
Jill stumbles on the truth. Trump is also less dangerous than Jill Stein.
vast majority of these peaceniks will still vote for Hillary, in spite of the fact that she rather than Trump is the one ready to send US troops into Syria. Most of these college campus peacenik types are only opposed to wars when they’re started by Republican Presidents. When Democrats start them, they either change their tune and make excuses for supporting the wars or just pretend that the wars never happened. “””
Agree in toto. And right know the Rat party is at war with our God given rights as well.
Moreover, they try to paint him as both a war monger and an isolationist, all at the same time.
There is NOTHING new under the sun.
“Meanwhile, there is an ideological bent in the West to remake other countries into a “better” way, regardless of whether the underlying conditions to succeed at this are present or not, and apparently ignorant of what those conditions are...”
Dubya and his neocon true believers with their ‘democracy project’. Apparently the sort of society that Iraqis would vote for never occurred to these geniuses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.