For some (not me), this might be the #1 reason to vote for Trump. I fear the endlessly ambitious Hillary Clinton might provoke war with Russia. Hillary Clinton has taken a very bold line against Russia (or, does she say Putin?). She has proven her zealousness and ability to stage successful coups, as in Honduras, as well as tragic revolutions, as in Libya and Syria. The big fish, ultimately, is what it always has been--Russia.
Mind you, I would never vote for Trump. He stands apart from me in too many ways. But many democratic super loyalists count a lack of voting for Hillary as a vote for Trump. There is some rationale for that in a tight race state, but not in my home state of Texas. As Noam Chomsky says, I might as well not vote for Hillary, since she is virtually certain not to win Texas anyway (and if she could win Texas, it's hard to imagine that without her having such a super majority Texas nearly certainly wouldn't be necessary). My most logical minded anti-Trumpster friend conceded that was reasonable, so long as I was really certain the vote wouldn't make an electoral difference. Another anti-Trumpster friend said just the total count could make some difference psychologically, which wouldn't necessarily be unimportant. (The problem here is which of the possibly psychological differences is more important? Perhaps the Democratic Party needs voter discipline to back away from Corporate friendly candidates? Sadly this is hard to predict, but it's arguable that disciplining the Democratic Party is the most important outcome, and the disciplining effect of non-electoral-difference numbers is a relatively pure play in a non-electorally-changeable state.)
BTW, the best non-vote for Hillary is a vote for the admirable Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. That's a non-vote that gets counted, counts, and is worth making. All sorts of "clever" non-votes like write in's basically don't get counted.
Anyway, the anti-Trumpsters see The Donald as a risky guy to have at the button. He throws tantrums, he's a bully, whatever. Honestly I see a skilled actor, a biggest of all con man--not a fool, not somebody more violent or even machiavellian than others. Another kind of danger I'd rather not see, but again, I fear Hillary, with her proven record of approving violent and coercive ends to governments she doesn't like, more. Violence through the system of violence, which also seeks to justify itself, so she fits it perfectly by being one to approve violent approaches.
The best example is under the "Bill Clinton" (Hillary has Always been acknowledged to be the Brains, Bill the Charismatic Figure) Administration, the continued cruel sanctions against Iraq--which prevented the rebuilding of infractructure of all kinds, not just clean water supplies--after the decidedly destructive-to-infrastructure 1992 US attack on Iraq, and later No Fly Zone, by definition an occupation of surts. These resulted in the loss of over a million lives at best estimates. Madaleine Albright, the UN Ambassador appointed by the Clinton's, brushed aside the loss as of million children as being a price worth paying for "freedom"--meaning attachment to US interests in particular.
Speaking of which, the majority of Americans have been blinded by relentless propaganda against Russia, and Putin in particular. Putin may be no sweetheart, but Russia doesn't claim the largest number of excess deaths in the world by a long shot, Obama, the nobel peace prize winning war criminal, does.
I was aghast at the endless propaganda, with a few truths, in the Frontline documentary on Putin I finally watched with my sister. She was attempting to prove to me how uniquely evil Putin is. I concluded there was always considerable truth in good propaganda. But even give what shown, Putin would not be by any measure uniquely evil. From what I know, he has been reasonably good, and Russia is difficult to govern. Who was far worse if not worst ever--Yelsin--was a US puppett, installed after the US won endless covert war over USSR under spymaster George HW Bush, who was a patron to others like Hillary Clinton, in phony leftism meant to advance Empire.
Specifically with regards to Ukraine, this is none of our business, as I see it. Parts of Ukraine are the heart of old Russia. It was as if Texas, with a lot of support from the Chinese, broke apart from the US. Only in the case of the Ukraine, we've been playing the part of the instigators for a long time. And breaking our promises not to extend NATO closer and closer--and even in the heart of old Russia. (BTW, some of the best writers on the endless US war on Russia and why it must stop are Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts, two old GOPsters turned principled anti-imperialists. They have put things in their proper perspective, which never happens in the context-free US mainstream media.)
If some Ukranians prefer to retain their Russian identity, they should have some means of doing that. And if violence is the only means...this is actually a just war for them. And it's no business of ours.
But this exactly the last country on the Risk board of geopolitics, and the ever ambitious product of CIA, neoliberal, neocon, and zionist grooming Hillary Clinton...I fear she wants the victory more than the peace.
Sadly the #1 force for evil in the world is the USA. Russia is only second place or something like that. They have shown great restraint, I believe, in both the cases of Ukraine and Syria, compared with our heavy handed approaches in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and others.
Whatever you view on that, it's hard to argue that leaving them alone is the safest approach. I'm claiming it's the morally superior one as well.
Trump has expressed a relatively positive view toward Putin, and I think he would be more inclined to leave Russia alone.
It's no wonder the militarist zionist Press is mostly against him, though they love him too for ratings. BTW, we will never break from Empire, which we need to do desperately, without also breaking from Zionism. That's another strike against Hillary. She's a very strong Zionist, perhaps the strongest ever. Well that fits her being the most imperialist and militaristic candidate ever as well too.
Even John McCain expressed some restraint wrt the middle east.
Mind you, I would never vote for Trump. He stands apart from me in too many ways. But many democratic super loyalists count a lack of voting for Hillary as a vote for Trump. There is some rationale for that in a tight race state, but not in my home state of Texas. As Noam Chomsky says, I might as well not vote for Hillary, since she is virtually certain not to win Texas anyway (and if she could win Texas, it's hard to imagine that without her having such a super majority Texas nearly certainly wouldn't be necessary). My most logical minded anti-Trumpster friend conceded that was reasonable, so long as I was really certain the vote wouldn't make an electoral difference. Another anti-Trumpster friend said just the total count could make some difference psychologically, which wouldn't necessarily be unimportant. (The problem here is which of the possibly psychological differences is more important? Perhaps the Democratic Party needs voter discipline to back away from Corporate friendly candidates? Sadly this is hard to predict, but it's arguable that disciplining the Democratic Party is the most important outcome, and the disciplining effect of non-electoral-difference numbers is a relatively pure play in a non-electorally-changeable state.)
BTW, the best non-vote for Hillary is a vote for the admirable Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. That's a non-vote that gets counted, counts, and is worth making. All sorts of "clever" non-votes like write in's basically don't get counted.
Anyway, the anti-Trumpsters see The Donald as a risky guy to have at the button. He throws tantrums, he's a bully, whatever. Honestly I see a skilled actor, a biggest of all con man--not a fool, not somebody more violent or even machiavellian than others. Another kind of danger I'd rather not see, but again, I fear Hillary, with her proven record of approving violent and coercive ends to governments she doesn't like, more. Violence through the system of violence, which also seeks to justify itself, so she fits it perfectly by being one to approve violent approaches.
The best example is under the "Bill Clinton" (Hillary has Always been acknowledged to be the Brains, Bill the Charismatic Figure) Administration, the continued cruel sanctions against Iraq--which prevented the rebuilding of infractructure of all kinds, not just clean water supplies--after the decidedly destructive-to-infrastructure 1992 US attack on Iraq, and later No Fly Zone, by definition an occupation of surts. These resulted in the loss of over a million lives at best estimates. Madaleine Albright, the UN Ambassador appointed by the Clinton's, brushed aside the loss as of million children as being a price worth paying for "freedom"--meaning attachment to US interests in particular.
Speaking of which, the majority of Americans have been blinded by relentless propaganda against Russia, and Putin in particular. Putin may be no sweetheart, but Russia doesn't claim the largest number of excess deaths in the world by a long shot, Obama, the nobel peace prize winning war criminal, does.
I was aghast at the endless propaganda, with a few truths, in the Frontline documentary on Putin I finally watched with my sister. She was attempting to prove to me how uniquely evil Putin is. I concluded there was always considerable truth in good propaganda. But even give what shown, Putin would not be by any measure uniquely evil. From what I know, he has been reasonably good, and Russia is difficult to govern. Who was far worse if not worst ever--Yelsin--was a US puppett, installed after the US won endless covert war over USSR under spymaster George HW Bush, who was a patron to others like Hillary Clinton, in phony leftism meant to advance Empire.
Specifically with regards to Ukraine, this is none of our business, as I see it. Parts of Ukraine are the heart of old Russia. It was as if Texas, with a lot of support from the Chinese, broke apart from the US. Only in the case of the Ukraine, we've been playing the part of the instigators for a long time. And breaking our promises not to extend NATO closer and closer--and even in the heart of old Russia. (BTW, some of the best writers on the endless US war on Russia and why it must stop are Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts, two old GOPsters turned principled anti-imperialists. They have put things in their proper perspective, which never happens in the context-free US mainstream media.)
If some Ukranians prefer to retain their Russian identity, they should have some means of doing that. And if violence is the only means...this is actually a just war for them. And it's no business of ours.
But this exactly the last country on the Risk board of geopolitics, and the ever ambitious product of CIA, neoliberal, neocon, and zionist grooming Hillary Clinton...I fear she wants the victory more than the peace.
Sadly the #1 force for evil in the world is the USA. Russia is only second place or something like that. They have shown great restraint, I believe, in both the cases of Ukraine and Syria, compared with our heavy handed approaches in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and others.
Whatever you view on that, it's hard to argue that leaving them alone is the safest approach. I'm claiming it's the morally superior one as well.
Trump has expressed a relatively positive view toward Putin, and I think he would be more inclined to leave Russia alone.
It's no wonder the militarist zionist Press is mostly against him, though they love him too for ratings. BTW, we will never break from Empire, which we need to do desperately, without also breaking from Zionism. That's another strike against Hillary. She's a very strong Zionist, perhaps the strongest ever. Well that fits her being the most imperialist and militaristic candidate ever as well too.
Even John McCain expressed some restraint wrt the middle east.
No comments:
Post a Comment