Trump vs Clinton Round 2. Bigger debate than the last one.

[claig]

Round 2, Monday morning 2 am UK time.

Will "the real Trump" show up?

So…Obam legitimised an illegitimate regime. Yes that's what I said.
I know there's like a sort of (tic) got to mention (tic) trump in there somewhere. But I'm not sure how it changes what Obama did into anything but what it was.

Zuleika are you being a bit of a GF now? be honest with yourself.

She hasn't answered actually.

I did, twice. Why are you acting so dim on this?

And I said that I wouldn't have had any problems reporting whatever it was that was written. While saying that I didn't see what had been written, so, special snowflake Amalfi, not everything you post is immediately read by me. Sometimes I'm either off MN or reading and posting on other threads.

Winchester, I think we can all see who is being the GF.

Nice diversion and gaslighting tactics there.

from you and Zuleika? Absolutely agreeing on that.

So that's a no. You just didn't say no before, it looked like you were trying to avoid the question. Was it you Zuleika? Have you been lurking in order to report? Anyone who does that is really indulging in GF behaviour.

You're showing yourself up, WW. Try discussing the topic of the thread rather than gaslighting and making failed attempts to bully other posters. Or is the weight of evidence against Trump making that too difficult?

You aren't even reading my posts, WW, otherwise you would know I too have already answered that question. And, once again, I have to remind you that MN has made it clear that repeated hectoring of other posters about reported posts is bullying and unacceptable.

Let's try this again
llewj

in regards this post
More seriously, what do you think is happening in Syria and how are any Obama's tactics maintaining the conflict?

pretty pretty please can you please tell me if you really believe that the Obama administration hasn't not only created but is upholding tension in Syria with the end goal of eliminating Assad and putting someone they deem trustworthy in his place.

ZuleikaDobson

Am I being goady? Well then seeing as I respond in kind, as I've already told you many times, I just can't help it when answering you

Gaslighting? what on EARTH are you talking about ?

I didn't see your denial. Bullying my foot. Pull the other one. That's like Billy Bash pretending to be scared of Adrian Mole to get him into trouble.

I've addressed loads of issues on the thread and keep doing it. Lweiji could have just said 'no' the first time round. Would have ended the conversation dead.

WW, I did make it clear that your tactics weren't working on me. By the way, if you were paying attention you would see that I have not been lurking on this thread.

pretty pretty please can you please tell me if you really believe that the Obama administration hasn't not only created but is upholding tension in Syria with the end goal of eliminating Assad and putting someone they deem trustworthy in his place.

No need to pretty please. I had read nothing from you in relation to this issue.

Syria has been a problem for several decades, not least of all for financing and supporting terrorist organisations.

It's not a democracy and it's been and is still known for crushing any internal dissent with a heavy hand, to put it very midly.
I cannot know what went on behind the scenes for the uprising, but Assad is still in power thanks to Putin, essentially.

My initial question was how is Hillary and her supposed hawkish behaviour still maintaining the situation in Syria. She's been out for years.
In any case, this is an administration that has privileged dialogue and conversations over military action, unlike Republican administrations. Except that sometimes they have to stand their ground. The alternative IS to let Putin's tentacles spread. Putin would like nothing better than restore the USSR and the previous dominance by Russia.
As hawkish as Hillary may be, I don't think there's no more destabilising force atm than Putin.

The other side of the coin I'd Trump. It's not clear what his actual foreign policy is, but it seems to veer from letting Putin to do as he pleases, or something like carpet bomb ISIS controlled regions. Or just some vague promises from someone who doesn't know where he'd be getting into.
Still, his aggressive stance and how he reacts to perceived slighs predict an unsafe administration.
I wouldn't be surprised if, after being blocked and feeling powerless internally, because he will, he would turn his attention elsewhere, and cause a major international crisis.
There is a difference between hawkish behaviour and uncontrolled dangerous behaviour.
I'll also point out that sometimes hawkish behaviour is needed, and it's most visible, while the dovish behaviour, largely behind the scenes, is much less visible and often uncredited.

And to WW, I replied the way I did in relation to the deletion because u thought it was uncalled for to accuse people of reporting posts, as if that was a crime.
I didn't, but I could have. So what?

my 'tactics' what like trying to actually have a debate about something real

we were nearly on the point of it there

• thanks Lweji for keeping going with it

I really wanted to know - not to bring it up again but because it registers something with me - a lot of this debate is about 'silencing' and I am registering things like that

She has tried to distance herself - for example with Iran - but the seeds of many problems with the US response were sown before 2013. It doesn't matter that she been out (sort of) what matters is that she wants back in and would continue the same stance if not be even more hawkish.

His specious to talk of Trump's aggressive stance when he has not spoken aggressively about Russia.

I also think (and I know you will disagree with this, but it lays clear my position) that Trump will be surrounded by people who are of experience and knowledge that will take a different direction. He will not be alone and I think (and I KNOW you will disagree with this) that he will know when to take advice. There are a lot of military and security people who support a trump victory.

So did these advisors talk to him about his 3 am tweets, did they talk to him about his hopeless apology following the groping tape . Where are they at the moment? It also seems an exceedingly odd position to say I know the candidate is not capable but someone else will be making the decisions.

Birds: I think you're being facetious there?

You aren't aware of the difference between campaign advisers (on PR) and White House advisers (on government action)?

No you must be aware. I think you were being facetious?

birds, possibly you were being a bit too subtle for WW?

You'll need to speak clearly and slowly to her, I reckon.

Claig - That "Moment of Reckoning" vid is fantastic. He said that Trump was a bad speaker? He is fluid and articulate in this one and what he's saying is right on the money.

*correction. WHO said that Trump ...
not HE said.

Bread: oh I see we've dipped a level again. It is easier than looking at things dispassionately and with objectivity I guess.