All through the primaries many dyed in the wool Republicans have been saying that Trump is not conservative enough.
Their "never Trump" sentiments are a logical extension of that.
Gordon characterizing Trump's second amendment statement as an "indirect threat to assassinate his opponent" is inaccurate when you consider that the NRA's widespread strategy of mischaracterizing the second amendment during the past two decades. Clinton's 2008 California primary statement about RFK, however, can ONLY be characterized as a not so indirect assassination analogy.
The Military Industrial Complex.
Both Party's participate.
Both Party's rake in the riches.
The time has come to discredit the warmongers, take our tax money away from them, and bury the "fear card" forever.
Our Congress has the power to do that, but the MIC pays them quite well not to.
Vote every incumbent out of office in November.
Retired generals have been coming forward to speak to the Russian threat. Some have been claiming Russia can overrun Eastern Europe in 60 hours and that NATO would lose a major war to the same.
The think tanks advancing this nonsense (for who many of these Generals work) are funded by arms producing Corporations who are worried that future profits might be impacted if Russia becomes an ally once more. In turn these guys pour money into the coffers of Politicians.
Retired Generals are openly telling shareholders that profits will increase for arms firms as Russia is made into an ever greater threat. From the intercept article.
THE ESCALATING ANTI-RUSSIAN rhetoric in the U.S. presidential campaign comes in the midst of a major push by military contractors to position Moscow as a potent enemy that must be countered with a drastic increase in military spending by NATO countries.
Weapon makers have told investors that they are relying on tensions with Russia to fuel new business in the wake of Russian’s annexation of Crimea and modest increases in its military budget.
As can be seen the goal of these Corporations and think tanks it to get Military spending of each nation in Nato up to 2 percent minimum.
The article above gives an idea as to how much more this will mean in the way of profits to those same firms. Note the language they use as they detail "Russian belligerence" and how these articles are being fed to Western Media outlets so as to indoctrinate the population with that message of fear.
The article never mentions the fact that the combined spending of NATO is well over 1 trillion dollars each and every year and this just the spending admitted to (most countries have huge off the books expenditures not called military spending). Apparently the Russians can become a major threat to NATO and overrun all of its members outside the US and Canada by spending some 20 times less on their Military. For every dollar Russia spends on its military it gets at least 20 times the bang for the buck if these idiot generals are to be believed.
I suggest if this the case NATO members should allow themselves to be annexed by Russia as we would be saving a whole lot of money. I am sure the austerity crowd would welcome that. Right?
Why are the War Hawks, Democrats and Republicans both jumping to Clinton? It pretty obvious. She wants to stoke conflict with Russia and make her circle of friends very very rich and the Politicians that ride those coat tails will line their own pockets.
A large majority of names on the letter are not familiar to the public. It is really necessary to go through the resumes of all these people to assess what type of people are making this assessment of Trump. The small sample of people listed in this article may not be representative of the entire list. Of course Trump does have certain personality characteristics which raise concerns. These include an obsession with obtaining vengeance against enemies (who include critics), not listening to advisors (he claims he know more about Iraq than the generals), a need to strike back quickly when attacked, a lack of interest in foreign policy (he didn't even know what the nuclear triad refers to), a lack of respect for the danger of nuclear weapons (suggested that more countries such as Japan and South Korea obtain nuclear weapons, said he would not take nuclear weapons off the table in Europe, at a brief asked three times why nuclear weapons can't be used.), could set off a nuclear arms race by pulling out of NATO as he suggested, and has often praised dictators. It is obvious to an overwhelming number of Democrats as well as a very large number of Republicans that Trump is unfit to serve as commander-in-chief. This is so obvious it is almost not worth discussing. But hat being said, some of his ideas about foreign policy are worth discussing. But those ideas are not the man.
A candidate for president who might blow the world up certainly is worth discussing.
So we should be discussing Hillary non stop.
Thanks again CD for another article from the other side of the fence, pointing out where some of Clinton's supporters are coming from, and their history, and the likely future with Clinton.
What it means when war hawks say never Trump? It says to me that many of these same people will be voting for Hillary, as she shares their values. Just as the Republicans will most likely help Obama pass the TPP, they will also help get HRC into office, to continue their sick thinking.
She is the enemy of their enemy and so she is their friend.
God help us.
Jill Stein 2016
If HRC and Trump are both very dangerous in terms of the potential for starting devastating wars, and indeed they are, isn't the one who is supported by the great majority of elites in government and the MSM the more dangerous? Wouldn't the one who faces great opposition from other centers of power be the less dangerous?
What Does It Mean When War Hawks Say, " Never Trump"?
It means that Trump, may be crazy, but to the war hawks, he is a dangerous loose cannon who they cannot control like they can HRC.
So many Repugs. supporting HRC, tells me that HRC is the far more dangerous war candidate!
Strangely, Hillary is the candidate most likely to support those neocon policies cited. She is also openly more hawkish than Trump even when considering his racist statements and anti-Muslim message. It seems that someone wishing for the least amount of war would have to vote for Trump over Hillary. At least Trump is open to non-aggression toward Russia and pulling out of NATO.
I am no supporter of Trump and I am voting for Stein. But if I had to choose between the lesser of two evils, I would have to choose Trump. I would feel morally obligated to never vote for the one who joked about a national leader's death and advocated for every war thought up by the MIC. Even Trump calls out Clinton for her Iraq war vote. I'm surprised TomDispatch didn't mention this in the article.
This doesn't get said enough. Hillary will have the support of all the government to iniate wars everywhere she wants. At least Trump will face opposition greater than even Obama for anything he tried to do.
Heck he would probably be impeached the first wrong step he makes.
If the enemy of my enemy is Trump, why should I vote for my enemy?
The pots piss on the kettle
The term is initiate.
Another "new" poster who pushes a pro-Trump viewpoint and can't spell.
Sad that Kivals shows his homage to Trump in this thread. As a lawyer, I'd expect a higher moral stature from him.
I'm not American... Please vote for Jill Stein... Could you see your way to just 'lending' her your vote for this election? Let her voice be heard at the next election at least.
Sorry cuando. I'm appealing to Trump and Clinton voters.
Sooner or later, one reaps what they've sown. This is what's now happening with the GOP.