Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Are they both trying to be worse?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MorkandMindy" data-source="post: 70326476" data-attributes="member: 172332"><p>The big difference now is between the candidates and their 'supporters', that is the supporters who have paid any attention to the important things going on instead of running off at the mouth about the details.</p><p></p><p>Some background on Hillary Clinton.</p><p></p><p>Democrats criticised G W Bush for starting two wars, and finishing none despite many promises.</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">BROKEN PROMISES</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">In front of the banner 'Mission Accomplished' G W Bush opened with 'Admiral Kelly, ...my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.' </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">At the end of his first term he claimed that the surge had been a success and that victory was within our grasp. Any Democrat who won after that would be charged with having lost the war so very much had been put into. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 12px">Eventually it was Obama's term and many Republicans still charged him with having lost the war.</span></p><p></p><p>NOW</p><p>The DNC has picked the supposedly Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton who had argued in favor of the invasion of Iraq for 5 years, even after the flimsy excuse of having forgotten to make an exit strategy was no longer believed. Then she again supported destroying the state of Libya, which was easier because we stayed focused on destroying the state apparatus instead of occupying land as well.</p><p></p><p>She had the dubious reputation of having been a key factor in starting both the Iraq and Libyan wars. And now she wants to step in to the Russian ally Syria where Russia has made a good start at eradicating ISIS, something we were not very focused on, and declare a no-fly zone, kick the Russians out, antagonise the Russians and jeopardize our own security in order to start spending our money there too.</p><p></p><p>Basically Bush / Rumsfeld / Cheney all over again.</p><p></p><p>As a committed Democrat supporter I would have voted for any Democrat, but not that one, not one who loves war so much.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MorkandMindy, post: 70326476, member: 172332"] The big difference now is between the candidates and their 'supporters', that is the supporters who have paid any attention to the important things going on instead of running off at the mouth about the details. Some background on Hillary Clinton. Democrats criticised G W Bush for starting two wars, and finishing none despite many promises. [SIZE=3]BROKEN PROMISES In front of the banner 'Mission Accomplished' G W Bush opened with 'Admiral Kelly, ...my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.' At the end of his first term he claimed that the surge had been a success and that victory was within our grasp. Any Democrat who won after that would be charged with having lost the war so very much had been put into. Eventually it was Obama's term and many Republicans still charged him with having lost the war.[/SIZE] NOW The DNC has picked the supposedly Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton who had argued in favor of the invasion of Iraq for 5 years, even after the flimsy excuse of having forgotten to make an exit strategy was no longer believed. Then she again supported destroying the state of Libya, which was easier because we stayed focused on destroying the state apparatus instead of occupying land as well. She had the dubious reputation of having been a key factor in starting both the Iraq and Libyan wars. And now she wants to step in to the Russian ally Syria where Russia has made a good start at eradicating ISIS, something we were not very focused on, and declare a no-fly zone, kick the Russians out, antagonise the Russians and jeopardize our own security in order to start spending our money there too. Basically Bush / Rumsfeld / Cheney all over again. As a committed Democrat supporter I would have voted for any Democrat, but not that one, not one who loves war so much. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Are they both trying to be worse?
Top
Bottom