Donald Trump wants to keep Muslims out of the United States. Between her votes to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and her pushes to destabilize Syria and Libya, and her laughing about watching Gaddafi being disemboweled, and bragging about assassinating Osama bin Laden, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton would rather kill them.
Trump and Clinton Disagree About Muslims
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
16 Comments. Leave new
Perhaps Mr Trump wants to keep ’em out so that Ms Clinton can more easily kill them without repercussions ? Cooperation sub rosa ?…
Henri
The humanist choice is clear: vote the Golden Don.
And you think Trump will turn out to be a pacifist? The dude who suggested the Saudis should have nukes? He’ll rent our military out to the highest bidder.
You have really disappointed me this electoral season, Ted.
«… The dude [i e, Donald John Trump] who suggested the Saudis should have nukes? He’ll rent our military out to the highest bidder.» A stark contrast, indeed, Russell, to the lack of influence the Saudis have had on US policy when, e g,, Ms Clinton was head of the US State Department and the manner in which she worked to limit US arms sales to that country….
Henri
I am amazed by the comments on gocomics. ‘Secretary Clinton has never killed a Muslim. Read the official US government reports: only criminal terrorists are killed by ‘smart’ US weapons. There have been no innocent civilians killed at all. But Trump wants to nuke all Muslims.’
The comments are right: the official US government press releases are accurately quoted. Are they accurate? Of course they are. Many newborns are born criminal terrorists, as are elderly grandmothers in their ‘gardens’ where they must have been reaping weapons. The official US press office would never lie.
And the King of Saudi Arabia, whom al-Wahhab proved is chosen by All_h, who rules by Divine Right, who is guided by All_h so his every pronouncement is inerrant, has proclaimed that all terrorists are NOT Muslims but Zoroastrians, so Secretary Clinton hasn’t killed millions of Muslims, she’s killed millions of criminal Zoroastrian terrorists. And will kill many more as president, just to keep us all safe.
Plus she’s promised regime change in Russia, removing that evil regime that has propped up the butcher of Syria. This will allow her to install a legitimate government in Syria and eliminate the Daesh (the Daesh organisation will be completely obliterated; the people will still be there, but they will no longer be the Daesh, they’ll be the Legitimate Government of Syria).
How can anyone not vote for the best candidate for president EVER (since George Hanover)? Staying home or voting for any other candidate is totally irresponsible (if you’ll just read the MSM in the US/UK/EU).
Perceptive people over at gocomics. Michael – I couldn’t agree more ! Think what a party there will be on 20 January 2017 – or perhaps it will start the day after, on the 21st ? I’m certain that we here in Stockholm, given that we have our collective head so far up NATO’s arse it is anatomically possible to go, will be treated to special fireworks….
Henri
The gocomics commenters are called Leftwing authoritarians and their remarks are par for the course.
The Democratic Party gave it up when they decided that fear of Trump was an acceptable substitute for enthusiasm for Hillary.
All the Democrats have left is fake enthusiasm that will not stand up against the real enthusiasm for Trump.
If the Democrats lose, the blame will be on the the party oligarchy for not allowing an even playing field and suppressing democracy in their primaries.
Hillary is the disease, Trump is only a symptom.
«The Democratic Party gave it up when they decided that fear of Trump was an acceptable substitute for enthusiasm for Hillary.» But Glenn, if you were a Democratic Party strategist, which would you base your campaign on – fear of Trump or enthusiasm for Clinton ?The former, after all, has a large and justified presence in the real world, the latter not so much….
Henri
As has been pointed out on Scott Adams’ blog (I think): Trump owns real estate all over the world. Clinton has a foundation that pays her way.
Which one do you think is going to destroy HIS own property in a war vs. which one do you think is going to continue to live the jet-setter lifestyle thanks to HER foundation and its indestructible nature?
Funny. That describes the issue of the problem with a war on terror vs. a war against nations too, doesn’t it? You can never win a war on terror because you can’t “bomb” every adherent of a faith. With a land war, you can eventually destroy the capital of the country, kill all the leaders, etc., and that’s the end of it.
I almost look forward to the HRC presidency. So rarely do I get such a setup to watch people have to admit they got it wrong.
«I almost look forward to the HRC presidency. So rarely do I get such a setup to watch people have to admit they got it wrong.» The question is, Alex, whether there will be any bleachers left from which spectators can watch after dear Ms Clinton gets going….
I’m not sanguine….
Henri
On the other hand, some insightful commentators, like Stephen Ebert, seem to feel that Ms Clinton’s bluster is for domestic consumption, and that she will be forced to adjust to reality (not, I presume, «faith-based reality», if and when anointed US president. Myself, I think that Ms Clinton’s need to appear tough and the type of advisor to whom she listens and whom she is almost certain to appoint to her cabinet risk pushing her to go too far in browbeating Russia and/or China, setting off a war which could escalate to a thermonuclear Armageddon….
I hope that Mr Ebert is right and that I am wrong….
Henri
I agree that there is a very-much underexplored issue of what exactly is going to happen — not what HRC has said she’s going to do, but what is going to actually happen — when all those favors the Clinton Foundation has been promising get called in during her administration.
I think Trump had one thing that he was absolutely running circles around everyone in the election cycle: he understood how to make a deal. Trump isn’t out there trying to make friends. He’s going in with a take-no-prisoners mindset. HRC would walk into a car dealership and end up paying $28,000 for a Yugo without a spare tire. But gosh, everyone would be smiling!
Trump would haggle those bastards down to 2% above wholesale and get them to fill the tank with gas before he drove away. They’d be cursing him out as soon as he drove off the lot. And you know what? Trump wouldn’t care. Why? Because you don’t make deals to be liked or to look good in a photo-op. You make deals to get things.
This election is our “Brexit” and just like it was for the UK, the “surprise” will knock the elites on their asses. Trump will win. And I’m gonna make a shitload of money on it.
«I’m gonna make a shitload of money on it.» «Shitload» is the word – the «Jack Heart» counterpart to the Midas touch….
Henri
For how those people to be killed – presumably mostly Muslim, given the geography – are identified (sorry, positively identified) as legitimate targets, cf David Swanson’s recent blog….
Henri