[Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about

[C. G. Estabrook]

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2016/03/01/hillarys-secret-letter-and-the-whole-matter-of-endless-war-and-the-almost-complete-corruption-of-americas-government/

An example of Clinton’s “public position and private position” on war:

“Quite frankly, Israel didn’t teach Hamas a harsh enough lesson last year. True to form, Obama was too hard on our democratic ally, and too soft on our Islamofascist foe.

“As president, I will give the Jewish state all the necessary military, diplomatic, economic and moral support it needs to truly vanquish Hamas – and if that means killing 200,000 Gazans, then so be it.

“We realist Democrats understand that collateral damage is an unavoidable by-product of the War on Terror, and me being a mother, grandmother and tireless children’s rights advocate does not mean that I will flinch even one iota in allowing Israel to obliterate every last school-cum-rocket launching pad in Gaza. Those who allow their children to be used as human shields for terrorists deserve to see them buried under one-ton bombs.”

> 
> On Oct 19, 2016, at 7:56 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> To assume that Hillary Clinton does not want to incinerate her own fortune, and that Trump is more likely to, is based on stereotypical reactions rather than reality; that is, it is based on absolutely nothing other than personal bias.
> 
> Hillary got to where she is by not considering herself responsible for the consequences of her actions. Her neoconservative doctrine and the consequences of her enactment of that doctrine is a matter of historical record; that is, millions of deaths.
> 
> Hillary has this election in the bag, with the help of overwhelming bias of the mainstream (liberal) media. Yet, her supporters behave desperately. The double standards regarding sexual behavior/assault are obvious and shameless. HRC is married to a sexual predator from whom we are instructed (by liberals and "progressive Democrats") to "move on."
> 
> Liberal feminism has never sunk this low before; at least I hope not.
> 
> Obviously, I'm voting for Jill Stein, not that my vote matters.
> 
> DG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 6:19 AM, Debra Schrishuhn via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Agree with you, Gregg
> Deb
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 7:23 AM, Karen Aram via Peace <peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
> 
> Greg
> 
> You've made some good points here, worthy of further discussion, though I personally don't  care to engage in discussions related to electoral politics, or the two major candidates.
> It must be noted that while neither candidate holding the reigns of power are likely to want to incinerate their own fortunes, accidents and blowback do happen. While incinerating the other half of humanity, that should be kept in mind. I doubt that has occurred to either of them, any more than it has occurred to most Americans. 
> From: Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2:18:15 AM
> To: C. G. Estabrook; Karen Aram
> Cc: John W.; peace; Peace-discuss List; Occupy CU
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about
>  
> OMG -- must we?
> 
> Left or right is hardly the point when it comes to Donald Trump anymore.  The point is the mental stability of a man who seeks control of thousands of nuclear weapons.  You want to talk about war?  Yeah, let's talk about it.  
> 
> To take this discussion to the lowest level possible -- why waste time, after all -- I trust the corrupt and evil Hillary Clinton to not want to incinerate the fortune she has worked so hard to acquire.  Trump has just gone "nuclear" with his campaign, and I have no reason to think he wouldn't do so with the real thing -- and all of our lives --given the opportunity.
> 
> 16 years of "party building" has taken the Greens from Ralph Nader's 3% to Jill Stein's 1% and has resulted in the election of not a single US Congressperson -- not even close -- so someone in that camp has not done a very good job, certainly not enough to inspire confidence in me that that is a promising alternative.  But hey -- you never know.  The polls could be wrong.  This might be the time.  Success is just around the corner.  Democracy's on the march.  So if you want to vote Green, vote Green.  In my opinion, that makes you 99.44% pure, and .56% relevant , which frankly, is exactly where I want you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: C. G. Estabrook <carl at newsfromneptune.com>
> To: Karen Aram <karenaram at hotmail.com> 
> Cc: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>; peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>; Peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; Gregg Gordon <ggregg79 at yahoo.com>; Occupy CU <occupy.cu at gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 8:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] What last night's debate should have been about
> 
> I think the correct course is to continue to point out that Stein-Baraka are far superior to either ‘major’ party on the issues, especially war.  
> 
> We still need to answer the objection that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump, by pointing out that Trump has accurately criticized Clinton’s neocon warmongering.
> 
> As Glen Ford and others point out, Trump is substantially to the left of Clinton on foreign policy (and perhaps economic policy - the trade pacts - as well).
> 
> That’s why the Democrats want to focus on the ‘personal’ - and we should talk about war.
>