Perhaps I don't get something, since I'm from another part of the world, but weren't these the decisions of the Senate and Obama?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Perhaps I don't get something, since I'm from another part of the world, but weren't these the decisions of the Senate and Obama?
Hillary has a long reach and has been a key player in supporting violence outside the U.S.. It would be a fallacy to assume Trump won't do worse simply because he's a noob, though. They are both unfortunate choices.
So, if they are both bad, you were hoping for a miracle? Sorry for this question (we often had the same situation...)))
@richman, I was hoping for a choice based less on reactivity and more on preserving the stability within the United States. Anyone but Trump could accomplish that. He has incited violence within the US citizen to citizen from the beginning.
Hillary was a Senator and voted for some of those wars. Then as Secretary of State she pushed for and advocated for those things. There is also some indication she likely benefited from it. Also what happened with Benghazi with the leaks showing the ambassador tried to reach her about 100 times before his death, and she even had an email conversation with others before that death rather than responding to the ambassador.
Yet she has been involved a different levels in politics since 1974 and the amount of corruption is staggering. As to the mysterious deaths of people investigating her and Bill. You could say coincidence, but when the cases near 100 cases it starts to be unlikely to be coincidental.