[oneloop]

> As far as I know from the debate, Trump does not adore Russia.

Yeah, who knows, the guy is a moron, I'm not sure he himself knows what his position on the subject is.

> When I heard in the debate what Clinton wants; She wants to let Russia improve their nukes but not the USA's.

That definitely does not sound like Clinton. Reference?

> Clinton Likes to call out Russia in public and calls for responses in public.

Putin does that all the time too. I think they're both posturing for their domestic audiences, who want them to be strong against the "enemy".

[Freestyler_3]

I am very sorry, You are right to correct me Clinton did not say that. (however I did not really get a clear answer on how she feels, but that might be my lack of understanding her)

Trump might be a moron in your eyes, I think he is very untalented in the political way of talking.

I don't think being comparable to Putin is good or smart.

[oneloop]

> I don't think being comparable to Putin is good or smart.

I get what you're saying, but this has been textbook politics since forever. The most reliable way to rally people around you is convince them there is a great danger in X, and only you can save them from X. Every single politician does it. And it's easier if X is external. Clinton does it with "the Russians", Putin does it with "the Americans", Trump does it with "the Muslims and the Mexicans". In the UK Nigel Farage does with Europe/the immigrants.

I'm not saying that aren't some times external dangers. But these four characters I mentioned use this just as a political tool.

And this is was brought me to what I wrote at the top of this thread. This is very concerning especially in the case of Clinton/Putin, because when they've been using each other as a political tool eventually your population have been fed so much shit for so long, they actually hate the enemy country. And when that happens it gets even easier to start war. And that is really concerning :-/