10-16-2016, 10:04 PM
I found neither to be very compelling.
Pilger seems very focused on anti-Americanism, particularly critical of America's foreign policy, to the point where he is convinced that we are the aggressor with Russia and China and that those involved in this policy are hawks who will cause war. He criticizes Obama more than Hillary, lumping her in with his deportation of illegal immigrants and nuclear policy, while ignoring all of the positives Obama has done with reducing nuclear programs/arms around the world.
I'm not a fan of our foreign policy, but I also see China and Russia as aggressors and the US as trying to respond to the threats they pose. I'd much rather have someone who views them suspiciously than someone who praises them.
I also think that a lack of experience and knowledge as well as a poor temperament are far more dangerous than being stern with Russia.
The rebuttal was far too emotional.
Pilger seems very focused on anti-Americanism, particularly critical of America's foreign policy, to the point where he is convinced that we are the aggressor with Russia and China and that those involved in this policy are hawks who will cause war. He criticizes Obama more than Hillary, lumping her in with his deportation of illegal immigrants and nuclear policy, while ignoring all of the positives Obama has done with reducing nuclear programs/arms around the world.
I'm not a fan of our foreign policy, but I also see China and Russia as aggressors and the US as trying to respond to the threats they pose. I'd much rather have someone who views them suspiciously than someone who praises them.
I also think that a lack of experience and knowledge as well as a poor temperament are far more dangerous than being stern with Russia.
The rebuttal was far too emotional.
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
