Trump’s Refusal to Accept Result Wasn’t Most Dangerous Line of Night

In tonight’s debate, Donald Trump’s refusal to say he would definitely accept the results of the election was a truly horrifying moment.

“I will tell you at the time,” Trump said. “I will keep you in suspense.”

It’s an unprecedented statement. It looks like Trump — and his core supporters — are ready for a fight when he loses on November 8. And that could lead to severe unrest.

But it wasn’t the most dangerous line of the night.

No, that belonged to Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, who said she supported a no-fly zone in the war-torn country of Syria.

“I think a no-fly zone could save lives and hasten the end of the conflict” in the country, Clinton said.

There’s just one problem — that could easily start World War Three.

There’s already a major superpower with a serious presence in Syria: Russia.

Russia has operated a naval base in the port city of Tartus for five decades. In the last year, the country made its air facility near the city of Latakia permanent. And in the last few months, Russia has set up incredibly powerful anti-aircraft defenses in Syria around its bases.

Rachel Maddow pointed out that this anti-aircraft defense system probably only has one target on Tuesday:

A no-fly zone, if the US tried to implement it, would not lead to anything good.

And if you’re thinking that somehow Clinton was being non-committal and hedging on this answer — if, for example, you think she will try to delicately thread the needle between publicly declaring support for a no-fly zone and privately pursuing another more diplomatic option — well, you’re wrong.

In 2012, Clinton “floated” the idea of a no-fly zone in Syria. From The Christian Science Monitor:

Secretary Clinton “may have intended this as a final shot across the bow to Russia” and other powers supporting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, to say “we’re trying to avoid something you’d be very unhappy about,” says Michael O’Hanlon, a national security and defense policy specialist at the Brookings Institution in Washington. And that “something” Clinton may have been signaling, he adds, is that “with or without theUnited Nations, we are going to be getting more involved in this [conflict] if Assad remains in power” with outside help of his own and the war drags on.

Clinton made a definitive call for a no-fly zone in October of 2015. From MSNBC:

“I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air, to try to provide some way to take stock of what’s happening, to try to stem the flow of refugees,” Clinton said in an interview with NBC affiliate WHDH in Boston after a campaign event nearby.

Again, this is madness. Any attempt to institute such a no-fly zone would rightly be seen by Russia as a direct threat against their interests.

Having a hard time imagining what this would look like?

Try this hypothetical.

Imagine if Russia instituted a no-fly zone in northern Iraq, a country where 5,000 US troops are stationed. How do you think that would go over?

Donald Trump is disgusting, but he won’t be president. When he refuses to concede it will generate civil unrest and probably make the next four years very uncomfortable and dangerous in the US.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, will be the next president. That she’s openly arguing for a policy that could lead to World War Three is dangerous for the entire world.

Vote third party, America.