The 2 most important questions of this Election. EMERGENCY

Let's assume Putin is the bad guy, he's taunting America, let's just assume he is behind all the hacks etc. (North Korea taunts, but you don't see Obama going after him).


[SIZE="5"][B]Why is Hillary and the Obama administration accelerating aggression towards Russia, knowing that the only outcome is war that will kill millions of American lives?
[/SIZE][/B]
[SIZE="5"][B]Why on earth as a voter would you align yourself with the same administration with Hillary in charge pushing for this war?
[/SIZE][/B]

We can all agree Trump has flaws. We can assume that he is a buffoon, a sleeze and whatever else you might think about him.

But is there anything more disturbing or more scary than a war with russia which will likely include nukes?


I leave you all with that to ponder before you decide to vote.



And no, America is not ANNIHILATING Russia in the way DonDadda tells you. It will be devastating to all.

All I've heard is 'Trump has a bad temper, he's going to nuke everyone!'

Meanwhile, Clinton brags about toppling Libya, suggests we increase our intervention in Syria, and proposes that we ring China with missiles.

Yeah....

[QUOTE=UK2K]All I've heard is 'Trump has a bad temper, he's going to nuke everyone!'

Meanwhile, Clinton brags about toppling Libya, suggests we increase our intervention in Syria, and proposes that we ring China with missiles.

Yeah....[/QUOTE]



This isn't good, this isn't good at all...


For all of us who can see the reality, who knows what's really up, this is the most volatile time in our world's history.


Russia WILL and CAN do damage to America beyond your imagination before America eventually destroys Russia. That's not to say that America doesn't have the superior army or technology they do, however Russia has it's own power and can inflict some serious damage.


One minute, you are walking down the street, playing ball with your friends down at the park, the next minute the war begins and Seattle is nothing more than a radioactive wasteland.


People, this CAN happen.

Weird.

Some time ago, might have been a month, might have been a full year, not sure, I got a decent amount of backlash for saying that people drawing Mohammad just for the sake of offending Muslims should stop doing it as it may incite terrorist acts. I didn't say that they should be censored by the government in any way, just said that they themselves should stop doing it as it's a bad idea. And now we have, I'm going to guess, some of the same people that disagreed with me so vehemently saying that we should let a foreign dictator (Russia's elections are not free) tell us who to vote for, out of fear of what he may do if we don't let him choose our President.

No, I'm not voting for Trump.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]Weird.

Some time ago, might have been a month, might have been a full year, not sure, I got a decent amount of backlash for saying that people drawing Mohammad just for the sake of offending Muslims should stop doing it as it may incite terrorist acts. I didn't say that they should be censored by the government in any way, just said that they themselves should stop doing it as it's a bad idea. And now we have, I'm going to guess, some of the same people that disagreed with me so vehemently saying that we should let a foreign dictator (Russia's elections are not free)[B] tell us who to vote for[/B], out of fear of what he may do if we don't let him choose our President.

No, I'm not voting for Trump.[/QUOTE]

Exposing Clinton for the fraud she is = telling us who to vote for.

:confusedshrug:

Trust the government... It's the Russians. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=UK2K]Exposing Clinton for the fraud she is = telling us who to vote for.

:confusedshrug:

Trust the government... It's the Russians. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
The premise of this thread is that Russia is behind the hacks, and that we should vote Trump because if we don't we will have war with Russia. No?

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]Weird.

Some time ago, might have been a month, might have been a full year, not sure, I got a decent amount of backlash for saying that people drawing Mohammad just for the sake of offending Muslims should stop doing it as it may incite terrorist acts. I didn't say that they should be censored by the government in any way, just said that they themselves should stop doing it as it's a bad idea. And now we have, I'm going to guess, some of the same people that disagreed with me so vehemently saying that we should let a foreign dictator (Russia's elections are not free) tell us who to vote for, out of fear of what he may do if we don't let him choose our President.

No, I'm not voting for Trump.[/QUOTE]



I may not be able to convey my message as eloquently as some, but I can assure you, you have whatever you have going through your head all wrong.


This guy breaks down this potential conflict very well and brings the facts to the forefront, which the mainstream media WONT do.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=751e6GHk3Us[/url]

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]The premise of this thread is that Russia is behind the hacks, and that we should vote Trump because if we don't we will have war with Russia. No?[/QUOTE]


Russia threatens war with America because of Hillary's loose and aggressive rhetoric in the media and Obama's administration which reflects her beliefs. Putin believes a war is imminent because of what he knows about Hillary.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]The premise of this thread is that Russia is behind the hacks, and that we should vote Trump because if we don't we will have war with Russia. No?[/QUOTE]

Which is unrelated to your claim that Russia (so we're told) is telling people who to vote for by exposing Clinton's dirty little secrets.

[QUOTE=UK2K]Which is unrelated to your claim that Russia (so we're told) is telling people who to vote for by exposing Clinton's dirty little secrets.[/QUOTE]
If Russia is behind the hacks they are doing it to get Trump elected. That shouldn't require explanation. If, as this thread postulates, Russia is trying to get Trump elected and if we don't do what they want then we will have war then that is Putin telling us how to vote.

[SIZE="7"]DESPERATE PLEA[/SIZE]


36-44 minutes in video


[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=751e6GHk3Us[/url]


[SIZE="7"]PLEASE EVERYONE LISTEN TO THIS[/SIZE]

[IMG]http://web-images.chacha.com/images/are-you-a-redneck-may-16-2012-9-600x400.jpg[/IMG]



The above image is probably the first impression of an outside observer to pedo123.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green][B]If Russia is behind the hacks they are doing it to get Trump elected. [/B]That shouldn't require explanation. If, as this thread postulates, Russia is trying to get Trump elected and if we don't do what they want then we will have war then that is Putin telling us how to vote.[/QUOTE]

Because Hillary told you so?

I'm still not convinced it's Russia, and even if it is, the theory that they hacked the DNC with the sole purpose of getting Trump elected seems really, really, stupid.

I think she benefits from having nearly every, single, mass media outlet in her pocket (documented). So she can say whatever she wants. It's still amazing to me that people like yourself are more angry about (hypothetically) hacking DNC emails than the content of the emails themselves.

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvIgPUDW8AEpsem.jpg:large[/IMG]

It's been shown over and over she's clueless, or careless. It's been shown over and over she cares not about the little guy, or minorities. It's been shown she's manipulative, and a liar.

She's all of those things...

But... Russia and stuff.

The assumption that this thread is based on is Russia's guilt. If you read the OP then you would know that. Did you read the OP? This is not hard to understand.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]If Russia is behind the hacks they are doing it to get Trump elected. That shouldn't require explanation. If, as this thread postulates, Russia is trying to get Trump elected and if we don't do what they want then we will have war then that is Putin telling us how to vote.[/QUOTE]
What worries you more? That Russia wants Trump elected or that Saudi Arabia and Qatar want Hillary elected?

[QUOTE=NumberSix]What worries you more? That Russia wants Trump elected or that Saudi Arabia and Qatar want Hillary elected?[/QUOTE]I'm not sure which is worse.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]I'm not sure which is worse.[/QUOTE]
Well, one side is spreading worldwide jihadism and funding terror and the other is Russia.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]What worries you more? That Russia wants Trump elected or that Saudi Arabia and Qatar want Hillary elected?[/QUOTE]

Ding Ding Ding!

Let's calm down a bit, shall we? I understand the rhetoric can be more than a bit scary, but it was far worse in the Cold War era.

As late as the mid 80s, nuclear armageddon seemed like a very real possibility... just because we've been primed these past decades not to think about the implications of a nuclear Russia does not mean that we're back to Cold War era danger levels, where actual nuclear threats were made a number of times.

(As a general rule, people forget how crazy and terrifying what is now history seemed at the time)

Now - neither Putin nor Obama wants a nuclear conflict. The same applies to Clinton/Trump, and would apply to you too if you were president.

A nuclear conflict, were it to happen, would be caused by an accident / miscalculation.

In other words, the most likely predictor of whether a nuclear conflict happens is not the aggressiveness level, but the [I]skill[/I] level of decision makers.

Therefore, an ignorant, arrogant rookie who would like to be friends with Putin but is afraid of looking weak is more dangerous than a well-prepared professional who hates his guts (although really, Putin is the one who hates her) but knows where the tripwires are.

Putin/Obama was tense as hell, and both made mistakes... but at critical times they were able to prevent conflicts from escalating because they basically understood what button not to push. It'll be the same with Clinton.

You'll hear rhetoric, you'll hear about this or that aggressive intention or threat, but in the end, direct confrontation is likely to be avoided as always. Of course, it's never [I]impossible[/I], but it's no more likely to happen under Clinton than under past sane, reasonably competent presidents...

And it would still be incredibly unlikely even under Trump. If they could get him to listen three minutes to a high ranking general with an aura of authority (ideally someone who looks/sounds like Patton or McArthur) he'd probably get it.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]Let's calm down a bit, shall we? I understand the rhetoric can be more than a bit scary, but it was far worse in the Cold War era.

As late as the mid 80s, nuclear armageddon seemed like a very real possibility... just because we've been primed these past decades not to think about the implications of a nuclear Russia does not mean that we're back to Cold War era danger levels, where actual nuclear threats were made a number of times.

(As a general rule, people forget how crazy and terrifying what is now history seemed at the time)

Now - neither Putin nor Obama wants a nuclear conflict. The same applies to Clinton/Trump, and would apply to you too if you were president.

A nuclear conflict, were it to happen, would be caused by an accident / miscalculation.

In other words, the most likely predictor of whether a nuclear conflict happens is not the aggressiveness level, but the [I]skill[/I] level of decision makers.

Therefore, an ignorant, arrogant rookie who would like to be friends with Putin but is afraid of looking weak is more dangerous than a well-prepared professional who hates his guts (although really, Putin is the one who hates her) but knows where the tripwires are.

Putin/Obama was tense as hell, and both made mistakes... but at critical times they were able to prevent conflicts from escalating because they basically understood what button not to push. It'll be the same with Clinton.

You'll hear rhetoric, you'll hear about this or that aggressive intention or threat, but in the end, direct confrontation is likely to be avoided as always. Of course, it's never [I]impossible[/I], but it's no more likely to happen under Clinton than under past sane, reasonably competent presidents...

And it would still be incredibly unlikely even under Trump. If they could get him to listen three minutes to a high ranking general with an aura of authority (ideally someone who looks/sounds like Patton or McArthur) he'd probably get it.[/QUOTE]



Dude, this has gone beyond just taunting. Russia is making preparations for nuclear war and organising its people for imminent conflict.


This is very serious. Trump doesnt get in amd the world faces a nuclear reality.

[QUOTE=poido123]Dude, this has gone beyond just taunting. Russia is making preparations for nuclear war and organising its people for imminent conflict.


This is very serious. Trump doesnt get in amd the world faces a nuclear reality.[/QUOTE]
You throw around the term nuclear very easily

hillary and her cronies are itching for another war

[QUOTE=KyrieTheFuture]You throw around the term nuclear very easily[/QUOTE]


Two nations that have a large nuclear arsenal?


Do you think they are there for decoration?


You have to understand, Russia and Putin feel cornered into this conflict. They are moving MILLIONS of citizens into bunkers and preparing for Nuclear war.


Even for the small chance that they won't use nuclear weapons, do you really want to risk Hillary and find out?