PDA

View Full Version : Jill Stein: Trump Is Less Dangerous Than Clinton; She Will Start Nuclear War



crimethink
14th October 2016, 10:59 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_ could_start_a_nuclear_war.html

It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone.

We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.

Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.

I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.

On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.

He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.

JohnQPublic
14th October 2016, 11:03 AM
The progressives turn on Killary.

singular_me
14th October 2016, 11:13 AM
it does not matter, "deep state" will eventually plan the removal of anybody opposing WW3

the fate of humanity is on our hands (we the people), always been so, governance is a con-game... anybody fearing for his/her security asks for this.

midnight rambler
14th October 2016, 11:25 AM
it does not matter, "deep state" will eventually plan the removal of anybody opposing WW3

the fate of humanity is on our hands (we the people), always been so

Why do you persist in calling any future war 'WW3' when clearly WW3* came to an end with the fall of the Soviet Union. At least 114,000 Americans died in WW3, that we know of. WW4 next up on the agenda.

All wars are bankers' wars.

*WW3 aka 'the Cold War' was indeed worldwide in scope and there was actual warfare spanning years where tens of thousand died on both sides

JohnQPublic
14th October 2016, 11:46 AM
All wars are bankers' wars.



Antisemitism! Antisemitism!

signed
George Soros

Joshua01
14th October 2016, 01:01 PM
It's the jews, it's the jews!!!!

Joshua01
14th October 2016, 01:02 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_ could_start_a_nuclear_war.html

It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone.

We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.

Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.

I sure won't sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won't sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.

On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary's policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.

He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.

I'm still waiting for this to be published on CNN and MSNBC, where the moonbats get their 'news'

crimethink
14th October 2016, 05:25 PM
Why do you persist in calling any future war 'WW3' when clearly WW3* came to an end with the fall of the Soviet Union. At least 114,000 Americans died in WW3, that we know of. WW4 next up on the agenda.

All wars are bankers' wars.

*WW3 aka 'the Cold War' was indeed worldwide in scope and there was actual warfare spanning years where tens of thousand died on both sides

It can be argued that a constant state of war exists since America's entry into World War I. The "peace" in 1918 was no peace, but continued aggression against Germany of a passive-aggressive nature. And resulting in resumption of hot war in 1939.

singular_me
14th October 2016, 05:39 PM
sure, lets call it the orwellian war instead. No problem.



Why do you persist in calling any future war 'WW3' when clearly WW3* came to an end with the fall of the Soviet Union. At least 114,000 Americans died in WW3, that we know of. WW4 next up on the agenda.

All wars are bankers' wars.

*WW3 aka 'the Cold War' was indeed worldwide in scope and there was actual warfare spanning years where tens of thousand died on both sides

midnight rambler
14th October 2016, 05:56 PM
sure, lets call it the orwellian war instead. No problem.

Fine, I don't care what you call it so long as you quit referring to a war that ended TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.