XPost: rec.sport.tennis, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.iraq   
   XPost: soc.culture.syria, soc.culture.african, soc.culture.latin-america   
   XPost: soc.culture.china   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article ,   
   Guypers   wrote:   
   >On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 7:50:34 PM UTC-4, jdeluise wrote:   
   >> acoustic@panix.com (lo yeeOn) writes:   
   >>   
   >> > In a political setting like what Trump has been in, he was constantly   
   >> > being asked this and that, and he was well aware that he could not be   
   >> > perceived as weak in defense - even though he took pain to try to tear   
   >> > down the "war on terror" facade of the neocons.  So, people have to   
   >> > sift through the totality of his statements to get a sense of what he   
   >> > is really like.   
   >>   
   >> That's another way of saying that he has no guiding principles, which   
   >> would explain why he is all over the map about every subject.  There is   
   >> scant evidence that Trump is a non-interventionist and plenty of   
   >> evidence that he would be.   
   >>   
   >> Hand-wave all you want, write endless twisting paragraphs that   
   >> ultimately say very little if you want.  Reasonable, mature individuals   
   >> see through the Trump bluster, they aren't impressed by Trump's bullying   
   >> tactics, nor are they awed by endless repetitions of "Make America   
   >> Great" (By building a wall and banning muslims, really...)   
   >   
   >W Kristol, weekly standard is anti trump, so are the Bushes, Ryan,   
   >McCain and many republicans!!! Not good for Drompf!   
      
   You're correct.  Trump has a tough road ahead, as I have always said   
   or anticipated.   
      
   But it's not just Kristol or Kagan and Bushes, Ryan, and McCain.   
   Consider the NYT, a major American institution with tremendous   
   influence.  It's endorsed Hillary - and dismissed Trump along the way   
   - for the reason that, get this, Trump hasn't "demonstrated anywhere   
   near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has" -   
   because in their view Hillary is the true hawk left in the field.   
      
   A major US newspaper endorsing a candidate for president for reasons   
   that she is "the last true hawk left in the race"?   
      
   An "appetite for military engagement abroad" means killing untold of   
   innocent and defenseless people.  And that's supposed to be good news   
   for the Muslims?   
      
     The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton for president, echoed   
     these observations in April, noting Hillary's extreme belligerence   
     "will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets   
     in the general election."   
      
     Trump, now the presumed GOP nominee, has not "demonstrated anywhere   
     near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has,"   
     the Times wrote, adding "Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left   
     in the race."   
      
   It goes to show who is who in the neocon world, doesn't it!   
      
   Cheers,   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)