@snoopydawg

But the irony for me is that Bill too was known as a sexual predator,

#4.1.1.1.1.1

I just watched her interview on this and the reporter was saying that she knew about the rumors about Harvey and she stayed silent on it. This is neither here nor there. He first started out saying that she was a friend of Harvey and that he had donated money to her campaign and then asked if she was going to return it. She answered yes and the reporter wanted a time frame.............. this went on for a few minutes, but then she deferred the topic to Donald and that he was a known predator but was elected president anyway.
That doesn't matter. Not to the topic of the interview. This was a 'gotcha' interview which this person wanted to pin her silence about him on her. No one knows everything about another person. Were there rumors of his behavior for years? Apparently, but I never heard about it until the story broke, but if he never acted that way in Hillary's presence, then why is it on her or any other person to speak up about his rumored behavior?

The interview was about Harvey, not Donald. But the irony for me is that Bill too was known as a sexual predator, he had paid women settlements for it and he was impeached for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. And even though those accusations against Bill were made while he was governor of AK, he was still elected president. This is where the glass house and stones come in.
Then there were the attacks on those women by Hillary who called them many names because they dared make the accusations against Bill. It's okay to defend your husband, but not at the expense of other women's character.

I could be wrong on this and if I am, then I look forward to others opinion.

@Timmethy2.0

But Obama only wanted to rid other countries of their nukes - and vastly increase those in the most militaristic and invasive country since Hitler.

The one with the world's by-far-largest military - also being further expanded to cope with occupying everyone else, and not in a good way. Trump's just enacting the next step in a more obvious manner. And voicing threats of extermination likely anyway planned.

This following is an enormous detail-packed article which needs to be read in full at source to comprehend the totality of what's in process and the evident pathology behind it. (All emphasis mine)

From 2012, under Nobel Peace Prize-winning, charming Obama The Statesman:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/pentagon-new-generation-mili...

The Pentagon’s New Generation of Secret Military Bases
How the Pentagon is quietly transforming its overseas base empire and creating a dangerous new way of war.

David VineJul. 16, 2012 5:14 PM

...While the collection of Cold War-era giant bases around the world is shrinking, the global infrastructure of bases overseas has exploded in size and scope.

Unknown to most Americans, Washington’s garrisoning of the planet is on the rise, thanks to a new generation of bases the military calls “lily pads” (as in a frog jumping across a pond toward its prey). These are small, secretive, inaccessible facilities with limited numbers of troops, spartan amenities, and prepositioned weaponry and supplies.

Around the world, from Djibouti to the jungles of Honduras, the deserts of Mauritania to Australia’s tiny Cocos Islands, the Pentagon has been pursuing as many lily pads as it can, in as many countries as it can, as fast as it can. Although statistics are hard to assemble, given the often-secretive nature of such bases, the Pentagon has probably built upwards of 50 lily pads and other small bases since around 2000, while exploring the construction of dozens more.

As Mark Gillem, author of America Town: Building the Outposts of Empire, explains, “avoidance” of local populations, publicity, and potential opposition is the new aim. “To project its power,” he says, the United States wants “secluded and self-contained outposts strategically located” around the world. According to some of the strategy’s strongest proponents at the American Enterprise Institute, the goal should be “to create a worldwide network of frontier forts,” with the US military “the ‘global cavalry’ of the twenty-first century.”

Such lily-pad bases have become a critical part of an evolving Washington military strategy aimed at maintaining US global dominance by doing far more with less in an increasingly competitive, ever more multi-polar world. Central as it’s becoming to the long-term US stance, this global-basing reset policy has, remarkably enough, received almost no public attention, nor significant Congressional oversight. Meanwhile, as the arrival of the first casualties from Africa shows, the US military is getting involved in new areas of the world and new conflicts, with potentially disastrous consequences. ...

...Yet Washington still easily maintains the largest collection of foreign bases in world history: more than 1,000 military installations outside the 50 states and Washington, DC. They include everything from decades-old bases in Germany and Japan to brand-new drone bases in Ethiopia and the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean and even resorts for military vacationers in Italy and South Korea.

In Afghanistan, the US-led international force still occupies more than 450 bases. In total, the US military has some form of troop presence in approximately 150 foreign countries, not to mention 11 aircraft carrier task forces—essentially floating bases—and a significant, and growing, military presence in space. The United States currently spends an estimated $250 billion annually maintaining bases and troops overseas. ...

...Obama’s recently announced “Asia pivot” signals that East Asia will be at the center of the explosion of lily-pad bases and related developments. Already in Australia, US marines are settling into a shared base in Darwin. Elsewhere, the Pentagon is pursuing plans for a drone and surveillance base in Australia’s Cocos Islands and deployments to Brisbane and Perth. In Thailand, the Pentagon has negotiated rights for new Navy port visits and a “disaster-relief hub” at U-Tapao.

In the Philippines, whose government evicted the US from the massive Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base in the early 1990s, as many as 600 special forces troops have quietly been operating in the country’s south since January 2002. Last month, the two governments reached an agreement on the future US use of Clark and Subic, as well as other repair and supply hubs from the Vietnam War era. In a sign of changing times, US officials even signed a 2011 defense agreement with former enemy Vietnam and have begun negotiations over the Navy’s increased use of Vietnamese ports.

Elsewhere in Asia, the Pentagon has rebuilt a runway on tiny Tinian island near Guam, and it’s considering future bases in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, while pushing stronger military ties with India. Every year in the region, the military conducts around 170 military exercises and 250 port visits. On South Korea’s Jeju island, the Korean military is building a base that will be part of the US missile defense system and to which US forces will have regular access.

“We just can’t be in one place to do what we’ve got to do,” Pacific Command commander Admiral Samuel Locklear III has said. For military planners, “what we’ve got to do” is clearly defined as isolating and (in the terminology of the Cold War) “containing” the new power in the region, China. This evidently means “peppering” new bases throughout the region, adding to the more than 200 US bases that have encircled China for decades in Japan, South Korea, Guam, and Hawaii.

And Asia is just the beginning. In Africa, the Pentagon has quietly created “about a dozen air bases” for drones and surveillance since 2007. In addition to Camp Lemonnier, we know that the military has created or will soon create installations in Burkina Faso, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mauritania, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Seychelles, South Sudan, and Uganda. The Pentagon has also investigated building bases in Algeria, Gabon, Ghana, Mali, and Nigeria, among other places. ...

...Finally, in Europe, after arriving in the Balkans during 1990’s interventions, US bases have moved eastward into some of the former Eastern Bloc states of the Soviet empire. The Pentagon is now developing installations capable of supporting rotating, brigade-sized deployments in Romania and Bulgaria, and a missile defense base and aviation facilities in Poland. Previously, the Bush administration maintained two CIA black sites (secret prisons) in Lithuania and another in Poland. Citizens of the Czech Republic rejected a planned radar base for the Pentagon’s still unproven missile defense system, and now Romania will host ground-based missiles.

A New American Way of War

A lily pad on one of the Gulf of Guinea islands of S­ão Tomé and Príncipe, off the oil-rich west coast of Africa, helps explain what’s going on. A US official has described the base as “another Diego Garcia,” referring to the Indian Ocean base that’s helped ensure decades of US domination over Middle Eastern energy supplies. Without the freedom to create new large bases in Africa, the Pentagon is using S­ão Tomé and a growing collection of other lily pads on the continent in an attempt to control another crucial oil-rich region. ...

Far beyond West Africa, the nineteenth century “Great Game” competition for Central Asia has returned with a passion—and this time gone global. It’s spreading to resource-rich lands in Africa, Asia, and South America, as the United States, China, Russia, and members of the European Union find themselves locked in an increasingly intense competition for economic and geopolitical supremacy.

While Beijing, in particular, has pursued this competition in a largely economic fashion, dotting the globe with strategic investments, Washington has focused relentlessly on military might as its global trump card, dotting the planet with new bases and other forms of military power. “Forget full-scale invasions and large-footprint occupations on the Eurasian mainland,” Nick Turse has written of this new twenty-first century military strategy. “Instead, think: special operations forces… proxy armies… the militarization of spying and intelligence… drone aircraft… cyber-attacks, and joint Pentagon operations with increasingly militarized ‘civilian’ government agencies.”

Add to this unparalleled long-range air and naval power; arms sales besting any nation on Earth; humanitarian and disaster relief missions that clearly serve military intelligence, patrol, and “hearts and minds” functions; the rotational deployment of regular US forces globally; port visits and an expanding array of joint military exercises and training missions that give the US military de facto “presence” worldwide and help turn foreign militaries into proxy forces.

And lots and lots of lily-pad bases.

Military planners see a future of endless small-scale interventions in which a large, geographically dispersed collection of bases will always be primed for instant operational access. With bases in as many places as possible, military planners want to be able to turn to another conveniently close country if the United States is ever prevented from using a base, as it was by Turkey prior to the invasion of Iraq. In other words, Pentagon officials dream of nearly limitless flexibility, the ability to react with remarkable rapidity to developments anywhere on Earth, and thus, something approaching total military control over the planet. ...

This has been underway for decades and if not stopped now, fascism will exert total military control over the planet, at least while planetary life survives the abuses of a corporate/military empire powered by pathological greed and run by psychopaths. With an awful lot of nukes.

If such as drones and nuclear missiles are to be used to repress populations and eradicate protest on a global basis, many small bases would be all that's required.

How appropriate that 'Lily Pads' are evidently to be used against a world of already-boiling human frogs.

#9.1.1.1.1.2 #9.1.1.1.1.2 #9.1.1.1.1.2

Thanks to Trump. Isn't it better to say your long range goal is to rid the World of nuclear weapons than to articulate no long range goal except Iran bad, America first, we will be fantastic, etc? At least putting the goal out there makes it possible, even if the MIC or whatever is opposed to that goal. Trump is extremely short sighted with his pulling us out of everything Obama including the Paris treaty. He is turning us into a pariah. Why is that better than when most of the World liked Obama and there was such a large emphasis on diplomacy?