BS: Trump again

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 07:34 AM

And as for Trump's boast, recently reiterated by his pathetic stooge Chris Christie, that he's the only one who can fix the U.S. tax system because he knows how to screw it so effectively, does anyone believe that he has the attention span to read and understand our very complex tax code. He just turns it over to a bevy of tax lawyers and accountants and says do your best (or worst, as far as people who actually pay U.S. taxes are concerned).

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 09:04 AM

I wonder how Trump knows he's "really good at war."

Of course, he also "knows more about ISIS than the generals do," so that might explain it. He's probably also seen "Inglourious Basterds."

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 09:06 AM

I fear the proven warmonger's finger on the nuclear button more than I do the finger of a "social illiberal"

We know you do, Ake - but that fear is based on fantasy, bullshit, and delusion.

the "liberal" media

Thank you Tricky Dick Nixon.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 09:10 AM

Here's the latest from your hero, Ake:

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — Escalating his criticism of Hillary Clinton's debate performances, Donald J. Trump came to a state battling a drug epidemic and suggested without any evidence on Saturday that his opponent had been on drugs during their second debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 01:09 PM

When it comes to which candidate is more likely to destroy us, I'd sooner trust the judgement and relevant experience of Noam Chomsky than yours, aken. And of course Chomsky is strongly critical of Clinton - but he sees her as a far better choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 05:48 PM

More Republican cockroaches ginning up the Trumpist cockroaches:

WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump on Sunday intensified his claims that the presidential campaign is "rigged" against him, sowing doubts about the integrity of the country's democratic process even as his own running mate and other Republican leaders sought to assure voters they viewed the election as legitimate.

"The election is absolutely being rigged by the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary — but also at many polling places — SAD," Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Sunday.

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York, both advisers to Mr. Trump, used television interviews on Sunday to suggest that Democrats tend to cheat in elections, accusing them of counting votes from dead people. And Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Mr. Trump's closest congressional supporter and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has warned "they are attempting to rig this election."

Other supporters at Trump rallies have gone even further, attacking the political system as a whole and even threatening violence. To Democrats and a growing number of concerned Republicans, the gestures of intimidation, just over three weeks before Election Day on Nov. 8, are an ominous sign of how Mr. Trump and his backers might conduct themselves.

NY TIMES, OCT. 16, 2016

HEIL TRUMP! HEIL TRUMP!   HEIL TRUMP!

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 07:07 PM

Well Greg, we all KNOW that the Democrat establishment rigged the Primaries.....so it is not beyond belief that they would combine with the Republicans to rig the presidential election.
The media has been arse licking Mrs Clinton for the whole campaign, especially trying to bury her misdemeanours in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 07:16 PM

Michael Moore also suggested, sort of half seriously, Trump actually had no thought of winning, and doesn't want. He said it was about making sure his TV career didn't go down the drain.

I think he was watching Citizen Kane, one of his favourite movie. Kane of course run a populist campaign to get elected, and doesn't win, so Trump thought he could do better.

It's got nothing to do with politics. I doubt very much if he had any notion it could get this far. It's a kind of joyride that got out of control.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:14 PM

Well Greg, we all KNOW that the Democrat establishment rigged the Primaries

No, Ake "we" don't.

so it is not beyond belief that they would combine with the Republicans to rig the presidential election.

Yes, Ake, it is.

The media has been arse licking Mrs Clinton for the whole campaign,

Actually, no, Ake, they've been giving The Trumpshit more coverage and the benefit of the doubt all along- until very recently.

Your ridiculous bullshit, fantasy nonsense and ignorance of the facts is getting really tiresome and annoying.

From above:

Other supporters at Trump rallies have gone even further, attacking the political system as a whole and even threatening violence.

Rather like our own Ake, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Oct 16 - 08:26 PM

To rig a national election, there first has to be a national election. There's no such thing. US elections are strictly local affairs, run by local officials. About half of those officials are Democrats and half are Republicans. Rigging the election in Clinton's favor would require rigging thousands of local elections, many of which are run or overseen by Republican officials.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:13 AM

The possible "rigging" that I am referring to BWL is much more subtle than that and involves the role of the media and the political establishment of both political parties.......as Rap says its really all about power and money..........democracy comes a pretty poor third.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 02:17 AM

It amazes me that after what was done to Mr Sanders in the Primaries and the role of money in the process, anyone can believe in the "integrity of the US political system".

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 10:18 AM

Ake, tell your story walking. And get thee to an alienist.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 11:46 AM

What's an alienist? :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 12:58 PM

Of course it's a ramshackle and gerrymandered system. That's why a minority of Republican voters can control both houses of Congress, though the Republicans get more votes.

But if Trump goes down in flames, and drags the Republican Party down with him, that's his doing, through what he has done and said.

As for Bernie Sanders and the Democrat establishment, equally obviously they will have done everything they could to stop, as their opposite numbers in tge British Labour Party did, and are still doing, to Jeremy Corbyn. But what else could you expect? That's done and dusted, and the only way the movement backing him will get anywhere is with a victory against Trump, and a running battle with Clinton's administration.

Trump winning offers nothing but a kind of national auto-da-fe.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 01:08 PM

It amazes me that Ake doesn't have the sense to just shut up after he has painted himself into such a ridiculous corner. The nonsense and paranoia he presents is easily as bizarre as the nonsense Trump spouts.

Silence is Golden (so shut up and be rich!)

Someone, take away his keyboard, please!

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 04:12 PM

That must be the most inane post on this thread.....including Greg's
profound contributions :0)......only kidding Greg I know you are a sincere believer in the good ole USA's political system, and I respect that.

I don't respect cowardly trolls like V T, who make no effort to engage seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 05:49 PM

Whereas you are congenitally incapable of engaging seriously.

And it would be VN, not VT.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 07:26 PM

It's VT to me ....numpty.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 07:53 PM

Ake said: " involves the role of the media and the political establishment of both political parties.."

Oh indeed! Like stating clearly what 30 years of accusations toward HER have actually shown.... and what 20-30 years of factual, historical data on HIM have shown.

Not liking Hillary or agreeing with all her policies & decisions are one thing (there's seldom a political figure with a perfect record or universal appeal)... but treating months of frantic mud-slinging by Repubs who simply want another Scalia or two on SCOTUS as grounds to vote for a slimeball egomaniac is a lame answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 08:01 PM

Second debate

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 08:19 PM

Jaysus, Jeri, you've cheered me up no end!😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 08:36 PM

Trump's tweets about that add a little bit more. He apparently hated it. Warms the cockles, it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Oct 16 - 10:57 PM

The possible "rigging" that I am referring to... involves the role of the media and the political establishment of both political parties.....

That's not rigging an election. Rigging an election means precisely one thing: using fraudulent voting practices to alter the outcome of an election. It does not mean using less than scrupulous means to influence how voters perceive a candidate. That's called biased journalism or dirty politics, not election rigging.

If it doesn't have to do with the casting or counting of ballots, it's not election rigging. Period. Full stop. Mr. Trump is using the term entirely incorrectly to encompass entirely different areas of perceived political impropriety.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 03:09 AM

"Not liking Hillary or agreeing with all her policies & decisions are one thing (there's seldom a political figure with a perfect record or universal appeal)... ".......True, but Mrs Clinton is a proven Hawk who has supported military action in at least three abortive interventions, Iraq, Libya, and Syria and the last thing America or the world needs at this time is a warmonger.

"Foreign affairs" at this particular juncture are of the utmost importance.

PDL...I accept your assessment regarding the "Rigging" controversy, but the use of obscene amounts of money to buy most of the media is undemocratic to say the least.....here in the UK there is a cap on the amount of money which may be used for party political purposes during an election.
The actions of the Democrats in undermining one of the two Democratic Party candidates in the Primaries is in my view symptomatic of the corruption at the heart of US politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 03:12 AM

Sorry PWL!

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 06:57 AM

the use of obscene amounts of money to buy most of the media is undemocratic to say the least.

I wouldn't disagree, but it is only part of the story. Particularly in the early stages of the campaign Trump got a lot of air time to present himself without being subject to criticism. The Guardian said this was estimated it would have cost 2 billion to buy that time, which is of course far far more than was actually spent. Then when it comes to media you need to look at how the time is being spend.   There has been a massive focus on Hillary's email but almost no mention of the huge volume of emails deleted or mislaid by Bush when he was in office. The republicans are not whiter than white when it comes to concealing things via emails.

So when it comes to media bias, I reckon there is more bias in Trump's favour than Hillary's. Oddly enough, he doesn't agree. Strange, that.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Lighter
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:02 AM

Trump is now insisting that the election will also be rigged "at the polls" by hordes of fraudulent voters in Hillary's employ.

Trump is urging his followers to show up in numbers at polling places (with their friends and families!) to challenge people they think look suspicious and keep them from voting.

Think about that one.

Marco Rubio and other Republican office-holders have denounced Trump's claims.

Eighty per cent of Trump's followers believe that the election may be rigged against him, and half say it *will* be.

More:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stokes-fears-of-voter-fraud/

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:38 AM

D, I watch us politics very closely the main large news media have a huge bias towards the establishment even the ones who support the Republican Party.

I know they say that ALL publicity is GOOD publicity, but in Mr Trump's case that is certainly not correct. One only has to look at the political threads on this forum to see that even amongst so called progressives there is a bias towards the political status quo come election time, no matter how much they may chunter on about change when they only need to talk the talk.

The status quo is deep corruption and manipulation, personified by the Clinton Dynasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 07:49 AM

Trump was suggesting in early August that the voting would be "rigged" Even then he must have considered his chances of being elected were diminishing, if not actually none existent.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: gillymor
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 08:21 AM

"A rigged election" is nothing more than Trump's preemptive excuse for the embarrassing loss he's about to suffer and his low-information supporters, who lack the intellectual vigor to think for themselves, just parrot his lunacy. These accusations of fraud are the most irresponsible, unpatriotic words I've ever heard spoken from a presidential candidate and it's all done to assuage his fragile ego. He doesn't give a FF about anyone but Donald Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 08:36 AM

Bernie Sanders is no hawk. Neither is Noam Chomsky. Both of them, in common with any number of people who have worked for peace all their lives agree that Trump would be a disaster,and Clinton has to be elected.

The only reason to imagine that Trump might be less likely to wage war is that on occasions he has said he would stay out of trying for regime change in Syria. On other occasions he's talked about waging total war. The pont is, nothong Trump promises means anything whatsoever. If his lips are moving it means he's lying.

Though maybe that's going too far. I think it likely when he promised that as President he would authorise a return to torture, and that water boarding was just a soft option , he probably meant it.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 11:08 AM

" Mrs Clinton is a proven Hawk who has supported military action in at least three abortive interventions, Iraq, Libya, and Syria and the last thing America or the world needs at this time is a warmonger."

   That is a subjective interpretation of her actions and voting history, not a "proven fact".
In Iraq, G.W. Bush and his minions asserted that they had clear evidence that Saddam had WMDs and was prepared to use them! He was president and supposedly had CIA information as proof. That caused many senators who would NOT have otherwise to approve the invasion. She has since said she regrets having voted that way on falsified data.

In Libya, the evidence WAS clear that Khadaffi was brutally treating his own citizens AND that he was complicit in crimes against Americans.... Now, you may not consider those situations were serious enough to warrant military force, but unlike Iraq, Mrs. Clinton had direct access to the intelligence data on what was happening. It hardly make her a "warmonger" to decide to help.... and do remember: the basic decision was still Obama's.

   In last year's debate with Sanders:
HILLARY CLINTON:" Well, first, let's remember why we became part of a coalition to stop Gaddafi from committing massacres against his people. The United States was asked to support the Europeans and the Arab partners that we had. And we did a lot of due diligence about whether we should or not, and eventually, yes, I recommended, and the president decided, that we would support the action to protect civilians on the ground. And that led to the overthrow of Gaddafi.

I think that what Libya then did by having a full free election, which elected moderates, was an indication of their crying need and desire to get on the right path. Now, the whole region has been rendered unstable, in part because of the aftermath of the Arab Spring, in part because of the very effective outreach and propagandizing that ISIS and other terrorist groups do."

"Hawk" is not a precise term... it is merely an indication of a 'leaning' toward meaningful intervention when needed, but it gets tossed about as if it's the same as 'warmonger'....

ALL this is interesting, but practically irrelevant when comparing her with Trump, who has already used the term "bomb the shit out of them" as HIS simplistic approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 12:22 PM

Bill, if Mrs Clinton really believed President Bush's given reasons for taking your people to war, then she is too stupid to be president.
I marched on various demos against the war 100.000 people and not one of them believe what Bush or Blair were saying.
In all honesty, I don't think any of the politicians believed it either it was simply a bit of grandstanding by Blair and his cabinet... reflected glory...and for the minions the fear of being caught on the wrong side if the exercise had been any sort of success.

To do it once was bad enough but Mrs Clinton has done it three times the Libyan debacle being especially shameful.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 05:48 PM

if Mrs Clinton really believed President Bush's given reasons for taking your people to war, then she is too stupid to be president.

You really are a goddamn ignorant fool, Ake. Give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 16 - 08:15 PM

Bernie Sanders in an interview this week with NowThis "I think from a practical point of view, I would hope that all those people who worked with me on this campaign, who supported me, understand that Donald Trump would be a real, real, real disaster for this country."

"On the other hand, the day after the election, we don't sit back and say, 'well Clinton is president'," he added. "What we do is mobilize our people to make certain that hopefully President Clinton and hopefully a Democratic Senate moves forward with an agenda that helps transform his country."

"We are going to be introducing legislation piece by piece on trade, on raising the minimum wage, on making public colleges and universities tuition free on a medicare for all, on rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure"

"This is not trust, we're not here to trust," he explained. "It is the very opposite of what I am saying."

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 03:23 AM

Mr McGrath, in my "subjective opinion" :0), Mrs Clinton will be in place to provide for her friends in Corporate America, not the underprivileged or preyed upon.

Mr Sanders understands the workings of a rogue capitalist system as well as any...and has obviously accepted the maxim....."If you cant beat them, join them".
I would not be surprized to see Mr Sanders in a token job in a Clinton administration. Unfortunately Mr Sanders has not the wealth or connections to big business to implement a "Trojan Horse" strategy as the Clintons did to against President Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 04:54 AM

Mr McGrath, in my "subjective opinion" :0), Mrs Clinton will be in place to provide for her friends in Corporate America, not the underprivileged or preyed upon.

I can only assume from that that you think Trump is for the underprivileged and preyed upon, or at least that the U+PO will feel less preyed upon after 4 years. Can't see it myself.

But given your previous posts about how the whole thing is corrupt and needs an overthrow, I would say electing Hillary is more likely to do that, given Trump's refrain to his supporters that they are about to be cheated. It only needs a fraction of one percent of his supporters to decide they have been cheated and must take action. A well armed militia against over powerful government and all that. Things could be bad, but fortunately the likihood of it being more than a few isolated incidents is low.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:29 AM

No D, I do not think the election of Mr Trump would be beneficial to the underprivileged, it's more subtle than that; it's really about the overthrow of the "Good cop/Bad cop" two party system which has been so ineffectual in respect of societal change.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:37 AM

I would add that it is vitally important that the West engages seriously with Russia and China......To oppose terrorism and encourage trade.   The days where America could dominate and at times terrorise the world have long gone.

A Clinton administration would ensure the erection of another political iron curtain between East and West which could only end in disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 05:48 AM

No D, I do not think the election of Mr Trump would be beneficial to the underprivileged, it's more subtle than that; it's really about the overthrow of the "Good cop/Bad cop" two party system which has been so ineffectual in respect of societal change.

Ah, so this is getting interesting. So you prefer to have Trump elected because it is more likely to lead to the overthrow of the system?

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 08:27 AM

I was talking about the hideously corrupt US political system. (naughty D ) :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 09:12 AM

What "good cop-bad cop system?"

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 09:48 AM

Ignore him, Steve. He's becomming more unhinged and irrational by the hour.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 10:05 AM

Ake.. I provided a clear explanation for MY opinions about Clinton and her policies. You just repeat yourself and make sweeping statement declaring her to be a lying warmonger.

I don't care how you 'marched' and with whom. Obviously, anyone who is dead set against the war tends to not 'believe' the reasons for being there. Mrs. Clinton was no fan of Bush, but she was not the only Democratic senator to "give him the benefit of the doubt". When any president says he has clear evidence gathered by the CIA about a 'clear & present danger', it has to be taken seriously. That is not something one would expect a president to lie about... even a president you don't care for.

It is too bad Bush & his cronies did lie and lead us into the war, but Bush was the the stupid one if he believed Cheney.

It is the mark of a sane person to admit she guessed wrong about Bush and to change her position. Bush & Cheney continue to lie about their motives and information.....I'm not sure what Blair now thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:04 PM

But she didn't REALLY change her position Bill, as she repeated the same blunder in Libya and Syria.

Three times makes a warmonger and that's a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 16 - 12:19 PM

Ake, tell your story walking, and get over your ridiculous anti-Clinton delusions. One more time.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: DMcG
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 07:58 AM

Although I am from the UK, I happen to be in Florida on business at the moment. That meant it was the first time I was able to watch the Presidential debate live and in its entirety; you would have to be very dedicated to do that in the UK, so we only really see the edited highlights as a rule. So I thought some people might be interested in how it struck me.

For quite a while, I was impressed with Trump's responses. From the edited highlights in the UK, we are shown a guy who is out of control and says the first thing that came into his head whether it bears any relationship to anything he has previously on not. And that was not the Trump on display. While I didn't agree with a lot he was saying, I could see it as a valid alternative viewpoint. So for example on the question of whether the constitution is a living document or one that needs to be constantly reinterpreted with the times, I can see why people could take each stance.

But then he started to slip; his self control was initially effective but seemed to be too much to maintain. People can pick on lots of different points but one that struck me was how several times when the moderator was attempting to ask the question that they were supposed to be debating Trump interrupted him and would not receive the question. There was a lot of evasion of questions on both sides, but the one which struck me from Trump was the one about putting us troops into Syria if Isis is driven out. Hillary gave a clear No, Trump basically said "we shouldn't start from here". The post debate spinners said he was just continuing the "don't advertise your plans in advance" but he wasn't. That would have been perfectly reasonable answer to the question but he chose not to use it, preferring a long rambling avoiding of the question.

As I say, Hillary avoided a fair share of points as well, one of which Trump drew everyone's attention to by saying something like "great dodge" (I forget the exact words, but it was two words with that sentiment.). He could have built on her avoiding the answer very effectively, but having highlighted it then dropped the ball and pretty much let her get away with it.

And as time wore on, there were all the things we in the UK get presented with: momentarily talking over an answer just saying "wrong", then long sections of half a minute or more just talking over Clinton's answers, dismissing all his accusers of being liars who were attention seekers or paid stooges, asserting things Hillary claimed he had said were made up when there are news recordings shown just afterwards of him saying it and so on.

And then the question of whether he would accept the result if it went against him. There were valiant attempt by republican commentators afterwards to cast this as being about individual contested results, or replays of the great hanging chad investigation, but that doesn't wash. Trump questioning of the result includes individual results, but puts as much emphasis on things like "media bias" so it would be quite consistent (if things fell out that way) if results showed Hillary had a big numerical lead for him still to insist the result should be contested because it was rigged by a biased media.

And overall? If Trump had maintained the self control I think - as a debate - they were roughly tied. Depending on whether you agreed with their stance or not already changes that of course, but each had valid criticisms of the other that could individually be chalked up as a 'won point'. But Trump lost that self control, and that cost him the debate, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 08:29 AM

As Ake seems to wholeheartedly believe every piece of nonsense (polite term) and "scandal"[sic] ever levelled against Clinton from Whitewater to Vince Foster on down to the present day, its only fair to award him the Trey Gowdy Lifetime Achievement Award for sheer, single-minded, dogged ignorance, in service above and beyond the call for believing the unbelievable and for relentless pursuit of shibboleths.

Congratulations, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Trump again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 16 - 10:07 AM

I can see why some Americans feel unhappy at the choice. It's a bit like having to choose between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage. Not too easy.

Except Donald Trump is several degrees nastier and more frightening than even Nigel Farage. And at least Hillary Clinton admits Iraq was a mistake, which Tony still won't do.

In some way what really matters is what happens in the Congress elections, as Bernie Sanders indicated in that interview I quoted.

As for speculating as to what they might do in foreign affairs, there are no reasons whatsoever to believe President Trump would be less likely to land us in war than President Clinton II. His words? You must be joking. His words are completely irrelevant to predicting his actions.