Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton has 'caused tremendous death'
Source: USA Today
Trump raised the stakes against Clinton on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, insisting that as secretary of State in President Obama's first term, Clinton's decisions led to unnecessary deaths on both sides in the Middle East.
"She has caused tremendous death with incompetent decisions," Trump said. "She caused a lot of the problems that we have right now. You could say she caused the migration.
"The entire world has been upset. The entire world, it's a different place. During Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's term, she's done a horrible job."
As he has said before, Trump argued that getting rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- a policy of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush -- has led to the rise of the Islamic State. "All of this has led to tremendous death and destruction," he said. "And she, for the most part, was in charge of it, along with Obama."
Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/01/03/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-obama-death-guns-terror/78228504/
It seems like Trump is once again doubling down on his own B.S. It is also notable that his alternative to gun control is simply institutionalizing the mentally ill. Trump said mental health is the problem. "We should build, like, institutions for people that are sickos," he said. "We have sickos all over the place. And that's the problem."
I like how he Trump is blaming President Obama for invading Iraq. I think Trump understands that his base will have no clue that President Obama was not President at the time and that he was outspoken in his opposition to the Iraq war.
applegrove
(118,577 posts)Terrorism towards the west for 25 years. It is not Hillary's fault.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)on edit-it was last month
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=946960
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)I think that most on the left will not feel the need to dip into the right wing's list of talking points. But, as noted in this DailyKos story, if you see someone spouting out right wing talking points to attack any Democrat in the name of liberal purity, then you should be cautious. No need to try to out anyone. Personally, I prefer Bernie to Hillary, but I actually would be happy to support either candidate over the crazies that are vying for the Republican nomination. It is refreshing to have debates where the candidates are not going out of their way to out-crazy each other. Instead, the goal is to actually seem reasonable.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/8/4/1003051/-
I've made this mention several times before, that whenever a particularly contentious election or political event is coming up, the right-wing trolls POUNCE in force and suddenly seem to be everywhere.
Well, I'm seeing them again. They pretend to be liberal purists, but they spout right-wing trash talking points, use sock puppets to up and down-rate comments to their advantage, and essentially act like a cancer on the community.
I shouted down someone's very right-wing characterization of Obama as "dear leader" the other day. I was accused of threatening people, which also was a very right-wing tactic (run around slapping people's faces and then act like the victim when you're called out on it), and when I responded that the 'dear leader' talking point was right-wing trash, my comment was downmodded.
This is not the behavior of clear-minded people. This is the behavior of zealots who cannot tolerate being disagreed with. And uniformly these people seem to be going out of their way to denigrate the President at a time when we ALL need to stick together to push back on this right-wing assault on our nation.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)When Obama came into office there was a lot of bashing of the "professional left" for expecting too much from Obama and wanting a pony and all that.
I assumed those were right wing trolls talking until nearly identical words came out of the mouth of Obama's press secretary.
It was as if the new administration didn't even bother to hire a different PR firm than Bush's.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)joshcryer
(62,269 posts)So there's that.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)in NJ after the 9/11 which is not true. If his lips are flapping, good possibility he is lying.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)it is Rick Perry
truthisfreedom
(23,141 posts)followers.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)She has "caused tremendous death"
Yallow
(1,926 posts)I doubt it.
No profit in peace.....
emulatorloo
(44,098 posts)Baby Bush and Cheney deserve a free pass, they should be absolved of all they did. From here on out they are blameless.
I am so glad Mr. Trump is protecting them.
Hekate
(90,617 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)how they vote. Which is why I believe Hillary would lose the GE.
trillion
(1,859 posts)However she's a terrible choice when there is Bernie and he still has a chance.
If you're in love with the TPP and everything else that corporatist stands for I guess she's your woman.
djean111
(14,255 posts)have a young guy at the large grocery store ask me if I knew about the TPP, as he was bagging my groceries. My grandson works there, and says Bernie and the TPP are talked about in the break room. And the Bernie supporters are registering to vote in the primary. This is Florida.
As far "voting for the lesser evil" - I think that this time, a lot of those voters will just stay home.
The newly-energized-by Bernie folks, IMO and all that, do not want to participate in politics as has been usual, because they figure they will get reamed and sent off to war and not be able to afford college/a house anyway.
trillion
(1,859 posts)It's just who will the Dems pick.
And, I apologize. I miss-read your post. I don't think she'd lose the general election if it came down to a republican winning. The only reason the republicans have any chance is gerrymandering. We have the numbers for the electorate. And we'll always win the popular vote now. they can only win if we stay home.
Response to TomCADem (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)And all the death and destruction caused by Bu$h and Cheney?
Now that they have opened that can of worms, the Democratic Candidates should open fire on the GOP and their Iraq wars.
trillion
(1,859 posts)coyote
(1,561 posts)Hillary has caused lots of death due to her poor judgement on IWR. Libya is another failed state on her watch.
emulatorloo
(44,098 posts)coyote
(1,561 posts)However Clinton certainly enabled where we are today.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)But Clinton did support the Bush decision to invade Iraq.
She certainly does share responsibility for the 500,000-plus killed and all the fallout since.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)As Hillary says we work with dictators to serve our interests ( I assume she means oil) and after that democracy. Much as we hate to admit it, we have been doing this for decade after decade, no matter the party of our President or who our Secretary of State is.
The hypocrisy we display when we celebrate the death of the dictators we supplied with weapons to oppress and kill their own people as well as their neighbors is amazing. Much has been Hillary's giggling statement regarding Qaddafi's death - We came, we saw, he died. And our glee when Saddam Hussein was executed is embarrassing.
So lets be better men and women, admit our own part as a nation in what has been happening for decades and get behind the only viable candidate who is genuinely against these policies. Go Bernie!
Laser102
(816 posts)My apologies to the baboons and pigs. They have more intelligence than that pile of crap.
FarPoint
(12,309 posts)People need to recognize his pattern...it is all about him getting attention. A known Fox new style blended with a hint of Miley Cyrus...That is his strategy. The media has already acclimated to jumping on sound bites instead of analytical news....Trump has it easy.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Hillary has contributed to the huge body count in the ME, and she is not apologetic.
So what's Trump's plan: "I would bomb the shit out of them... and I'd take the oil" - asshole.
This election is going to suck.
Yep
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)Hillary Clinton is a full-blown neocon (and this was even stated by Robert Kagan, a well-known neocon) and she supports the aggressive foreign policy laid out by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the other thugs that Bush brought with him into office.
The neocons wanted to destroy Libya, and Hillary was instrumental is seeing that that happened. They also want to destroy Syria, and she's been on the side of the regime changers from day one.
Donald Trump is a loud-mouth buffoon who caters to the lowest common denominator in the US, but not everything he says is false. Hillary's supporters would like to believe that she is a person concerned with the most vulnerable on this planet, but she has demonstrated time and time again to be as thuggish and cold as any of hardest of the hardcore neocons out there.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)and now he's hammering it for all it's worth.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)"What good is a nuclear triad if you're not going to use it?"
This raises questions about if the Donald would nuke Syria and Iraq.
Now he says Mrs. Clinton has caused unnecessary deaths. Will the innocents of Syria and Iraq who die when the Donald pushes the Button be necessary deaths?
Or will it be a case of "Who cares? They're Muslims."