More likely to lead us into war…

[Jasmine]

Question: Of the two main presidential candidates, who is more likely to lead the U.S. into a war?

I hear people like Tulsi Gabbard say that a Kamala Harris presidency will mean another war for us. She recently wrote on her Instagram: “Remember: A vote for Kamala is a vote for Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, and the woke warmongering cabal. A vote for Kamala is a vote for war, war, and more war — and with it, more infringement on our liberties in the name of “national security.””

I’m not sure if I buy that. Harris is supposedly far-left, and isn’t the left supposed to be anti-war?

Or is that too simplistic?

I don’t think either Harris or Trump really have the stomach to get us into another war.

[O Really]

It's not so much which candidate is more likely to get us into war - I think both of them would probably not have a war. But the question is which candidate is more likely to get the best advice and make the best decisions based on the best available facts to address circumstances they face. And I. Real sure Harris wouldn't call up dick Cheney for advice.

[Jasmine]

It's not so much which candidate is more likely to get us into war - I think both of them would probably not have a war. But the question is which candidate is more likely to get the best advice and make the best decisions based on the best available facts to address circumstances they face. And I. Real sure Harris wouldn't call up dick Cheney for advice.

I don’t think she would, either.

[GoCubsGo]

Also probably depends on the definition of "getting us into a war". Trump espouses that Biden is "getting us into a war" by supporting Ukraine. We are supporting them which we should but I'm not seeing a boots on the ground scenario nor see Harris changing course.

Trump may, out of an abundance of ignorance and Simpleton type thinking provide Israel with enough arms to obliterate Hamas and a million innocent Palestinians along with them instead of being judicious.

That's a tinderbox that could explode and actually get us into a war.

[Vrede too]

It's not so much which candidate is more likely to get us into war - I think both of them would probably not have a war. But the question is which candidate is more likely to get the best advice and make the best decisions based on the best available facts to address circumstances they face. And I'm real sure Harris wouldn't call up dick Cheney for advice.

I don’t think she would, either.

It's also a matter of which war.

Which candidate's blind support for RW Israel is more likely to get us into a war?
Which candidate's unwavering support for Ukraine is more likely to risk war?
Which candidate's unwavering support for Putin is more likely to get us into a war when a NATO ally is invaded?
Which candidate's naivete is most likely to be taken advantage of by China?

Occasionally, a war is worth fighting.

Only MAGAts think that Harris is "far-left". I doubt that she has any pacifist tendencies. After all, she was a prosecutor and I never heard of her organizing Kumbaya sessions with convicts.

[O Really]

Threatening catastrophe is just falderol. War risks are just one of the many many issues a president has to face and handle. But I want to know how a person is how they conduct themselves under stress. Do they review all available information to really get to understand the issue? Do they consider several alternatives and listen to contra opinions by subject experts? Do they take the time to evaluate the impacts and the practicality of their decision before publically committing? Are they prepared to change course if the original plan isn't working? Can they competently direct others to implement the plan? Do they respect the needs of others in making a decision? Looking at Harris's record it appears she'd get mostly yesses. Looking at Trump's record, he'd get all no's. If I didn't know anything else about the candidates, didn't know what their policies are, didn't know what party they're in, I'd still know who to vote for.

[neoplacebo]

It looks to me like trump and the extremist gaggle of Republicans he created (with a long running able assist from Faux News and its spinoff spawn) have been quite successful in "leading us into war" with ourselves. Once you're able to define lies as truth, it's very easy to direct your followers to engage in virtually anything, including armed action against the designated "other."

What the far right Israeli regime does or does not do is much more likely to lead the US into war than anything any US president does. But I don't think it soothed any unrest when trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem.

[GoCubsGo]

It looks to me like trump and the extremist gaggle of Republicans he created (with a long running able assist from Faux News and its spinoff spawn) have been quite successful in "leading us into war" with ourselves. Once you're able to define lies as truth, it's very easy to direct your followers to engage in virtually anything, including armed action against the designated "other."

What the far right Israeli regime does or does not do is much more likely to lead the US into war than anything any US president does. But I don't think it soothed any unrest when trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem.

Good point.