View Full Version : Hillary's Arrogance
According to her, half of Trump's supporters are deplorables and Sander's supporters are living in their parent's basement working as baristas or in other dead-end jobs.
It's going to be an awful election night... but Hillary still has the better set of policies (though she is a notorious flip-flopper, so even that is not something we can count on).
FuzzyLumpkins
10-02-2016, 11:44 AM
Those comments came out early last week and you are just now being outraged?
Regardless I would take Hillary for all of her flip flopping and arrogance over Trump and his vague certainty and arrogance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM
FuzzyLumpkins
10-02-2016, 01:58 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM
That documentary is shit but thanks for playing.
That documentary is shit but thanks for playing.
Do you think Hillary is a good person?
Blake
10-02-2016, 02:23 PM
Do you think Hillary is a good person?
What a terrible goal post move
Do you think Hillary is a good person?
Relative question.
She's a greedy human being but she also gives millions to charity.
RandomGuy
10-02-2016, 02:42 PM
Do you think Hillary is a good person?
On balance, yes.
I have yet to get at anything specific that marks her as somehow evil, despite the 30 year propaganda campaign against her.
She's a greedy human being but she also gives millions to charity.
Yeah, so pro-Shillary idiots can say 'see she's not that bad'.
On balance, yes.
I have yet to get at anything specific that marks her as somehow evil, despite the 30 year propaganda campaign against her.
:lol
RandomGuy
10-02-2016, 03:14 PM
:lol
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, until I have some actual evidence.
For Hillary, I hear lots of people mindlessly parroting a narrative, but when I ask for specifics, I don't get anything. That leads me to be rather skeptical of the narrative.
Do you have anything specific?
dabom
10-02-2016, 03:15 PM
Come on :fkla
We gotta compare both candidates and see which one you prefer. And also be realistic on the consequences of voting for other candidates.
Hillary is the clear cut winner here. :tu
I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, until I have some actual evidence.
For Hillary, I hear lots of people mindlessly parroting a narrative, but when I ask for specifics, I don't get anything. That leads me to be rather skeptical of the narrative.
Do you have anything specific?
Well, her lies and flip flops can be found with a quick search. As far as the corruption, it's a world neither you nor I are a part of. So no, I don't have anything concrete there. It doesn't take a genius to realize why she won't release her speech transcripts though. Or the emails. Or why she's receiving large donations to her 'foundation' from shady governments and individuals. Or that the Rich pardon probably included a large payoff. The list goes on. You don't build an empire through 'public service' by being clean. Look at Bernie, his net worth was estimated at like $250k, that's what being an honest politician gets you.
ducks
10-02-2016, 04:03 PM
Relative question.
She's a greedy human being but she also gives millions to charity.
Really? 90 percent of stuff to foundation goes to pay their bills not chartity work
Warlord23
10-02-2016, 04:14 PM
Really? 90 percent of stuff to foundation goes to pay their bills not chartity work
Did you read this at Breitbart or Fox? They have 12% overheads, and spend 88% on programs, and are audited.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
Do they funnel some of the program cash to favored companies? Possibly, but ultimately they don't spend it on themselves. Unlike your Orange Calf, who settles lawsuits and buys paintings of himself with his charity money, which btw isn't registered as a proper charity to avoid scrutiny.
On balance, yes.
I have yet to get at anything specific that marks her as somehow evil, despite the 30 year propaganda campaign against her.
Marc Rich (I know it was Bill, but I kind of lump them together).
CosmicCowboy
10-02-2016, 04:19 PM
Trump sucks and deserves to lose but I suspect we will all dislike Hillary in 4 years...:lol
TeyshaBlue
10-02-2016, 04:33 PM
On balance. :lol
Splits
10-02-2016, 04:59 PM
Trump sucks and deserves to lose but I suspect we will all dislike Hillary in 4 years...:lol
outside of Reck, pretty sure there is unanimous consent by all liberals on this board that we already hate her. We just recognize that the world as we know it doesn't end if she's elected.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-02-2016, 05:10 PM
Do you think Hillary is a good person?
Deflection noticed.
TheSanityAnnex
10-02-2016, 05:14 PM
That documentary is shit but thanks for playing.
Did you actually watch it? I thought the same going into it and couldn't have been more wrong. He actually missed opportunities for an even more powerful doc.
If you have indeed watched it expand a bit on why it's shit.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-02-2016, 05:19 PM
Yeah, so pro-Shillary idiots can say 'see she's not that bad'.
If all you have is that youtube I am not sure what your expect people to see.
I'm concerned about her Iraq war vote. I am concerned about her husband selling out to the banking industry in 1997 and her taking 10s of millions from them. I'm concerned about her being another Obama in going back on central campaign promises.
OTOH, I'm concerned about all of those things with Trump plus his SCOTUS nominations, his supply side policy, his track record of abuse towards women, his stark racism and blaming of the poor, his protectionist trade policy, his pandering to the Russians following a financial conflict of interest, his disregard for NATO and military treaties, and his temper with a potential CiC.
Hillary does not exist in a vacuum or against an ideal. I too would have preferred Sanders yet I deal with reality as it is. I want the political system changed but that doesn't mean I take my vote and go home. The reality is that this race is between Trump and Hillary for all her flaws.
IF it makes you feel better unless Texas polls within 5 points I'm voting Gary Johnson to bolster the top alternative party. I'm a pragmatist.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-02-2016, 05:36 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hc6ESwRf8c
Trump sucks and deserves to lose but I suspect we will all dislike Hillary in 4 years...:lol
I don't like her now and I'm going to vote for her. That's the situation we're in.
Blake
10-02-2016, 06:59 PM
Yeah, so pro-Shillary idiots can say 'see she's not that bad'.
She's not as bad, imo.
But determining good person/bad person is mostly subjective.
...unless you can prove they conned people with their phony universities and foundations.....which I think at that point we can all agree on bad
MannyIsGod
10-02-2016, 07:13 PM
Woman running for president is characterized as arrogant. Male running for president is characterized as bold, confident, assertive. You'll never convince me that in a race where Trump gets to stand up there and blame her for her husbands infidelities while not commenting on his own that there isn't a ton of sexism and misogyny at play. From all accounts of those who have known her, Hillary is incredibly smart and takes a big interest in the actual nuts and bolts of the policies she advocates for. Do I think she's a good person? Absolutely. Spurstalk has always been an incredibly sexist environment - even more so than racist which is saying something - so it doesn't surprise me that most here have a bad view of her. And thats fine. But this threads title, in and of itself, is extremely telling. Same was said about Obama, though. I guess when women and black men get uppity, there's always gonna be a brave soul on the internet ready to call them on it.
Blake
10-02-2016, 07:14 PM
Lol holy shit a Manny sighting
benefactor
10-02-2016, 07:21 PM
Sup Manny? You ready to watch Hurricane Matthew dickwhip the Caribbean?
Splits
10-02-2016, 07:31 PM
Damn, Manny busting out... guess he finished checking out sex tape...
Dirk Oneanddoneski
10-02-2016, 07:46 PM
Yeah, so pro-Shillary idiots can say 'see she's not that bad'.
Are you #JillnotHill now?
http://i.imgur.com/6O2B4e8.jpg
RandomGuy
10-03-2016, 09:21 AM
Well, her lies and flip flops can be found with a quick search. As far as the corruption, it's a world neither you nor I are a part of. So no, I don't have anything concrete there. It doesn't take a genius to realize why she won't release her speech transcripts though. Or the emails. Or why she's receiving large donations to her 'foundation' from shady governments and individuals. Or that the Rich pardon probably included a large payoff. The list goes on. You don't build an empire through 'public service' by being clean. Look at Bernie, his net worth was estimated at like $250k, that's what being an honest politician gets you.
If it is "easy" then you should be able to provide a list of better caliber than what ducks can do.
Don't really care about the emails. Stupid, but not really a fatal flaw.
RandomGuy
10-03-2016, 09:23 AM
Woman running for president is characterized as arrogant. Male running for president is characterized as bold, confident, assertive. You'll never convince me that in a race where Trump gets to stand up there and blame her for her husbands infidelities while not commenting on his own that there isn't a ton of sexism and misogyny at play. From all accounts of those who have known her, Hillary is incredibly smart and takes a big interest in the actual nuts and bolts of the policies she advocates for. Do I think she's a good person? Absolutely. Spurstalk has always been an incredibly sexist environment - even more so than racist which is saying something - so it doesn't surprise me that most here have a bad view of her. And thats fine. But this threads title, in and of itself, is extremely telling. Same was said about Obama, though. I guess when women and black men get uppity, there's always gonna be a brave soul on the internet ready to call them on it.
+1
I think no small part of the visceral reaction to Hillary has been because she is a woman. I see her coming under criticism that no man would.
+1
I think no small part of the visceral reaction to Hillary has been because she is a woman. I see her coming under criticism that no man would.
Does that apply to me - shouldn't I be rah-rah-ing over the first female president?
Blake
10-03-2016, 09:50 AM
Does that apply to me - shouldn't I be rah-rah-ing over the first female president?
Anyone want to take a stab at which type of logical fallacy this is?
outside of Reck, pretty sure there is unanimous consent by all liberals on this board that we already hate her. We just recognize that the world as we know it doesn't end if she's elected.
rolf.
I just dont concern myself with how the Clinton's decide to live their lives. What kind of homo sits there crying about what they're doing? If it's not harming my way of life or the United States where i live, why would I give a fuck about how she earns money?
+1
I think no small part of the visceral reaction to Hillary has been because she is a woman. I see her coming under criticism that no man would.
Did Bill not get pretty much the same treatment?
And God damn, now this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/fbi-allowed-2-hillary-aides-destroy-their-laptops-newly-exposed-side-agreements
At what point does all this smoke not make some of her supporters think, "Hmmmmm. There might be some fire here." Trying to justify a vote for her without mentioning her opponent being a greater evil is impossible, IMO. I can appreciate voting against Donald. I can't understand voting FOR her. And Vice Versa.
and how the fuck is this related to her being a woman?!?
boutons_deux
10-03-2016, 01:06 PM
"all this smoke"
... has been for 25+ years ALL FROM THE Repub/VRWC SMOKE MACHINE. It seems like you "do inhale"
The false-equivalence defense of Trash's grifting, fraud, theft, tax evasion, stiffing investors and workers, etc, that says Hillary is just as bad" is total bullshit.
Chucho
10-03-2016, 02:50 PM
"all this smoke"
... has been for 25+ years ALL FROM THE Repub/VRWC SMOKE MACHINE. It seems like you "do inhale"
The false-equivalence defense of Trash's grifting, fraud, theft, tax evasion, stiffing investors and workers, etc, that says Hillary is just as bad" is total bullshit.
The nation of Haiti calls bullshit on you and your ilk. Trumps grift is nowhere near as bad as Hitlery's complete robbery and denial of aid to an impoverished nation that just had a catastrophic natural disaster ruin their entire country, then to have the Clinton Foundation and their packs of hyenas that paid to rip their pieces from that carcass, is just satanic.
Go ahead and try and downplay your side, but sorry that you are cool with the complete and utter destruction of a 3rd world nation due to exploitation to create a slush fund they predatorily stole from those poor Haitan victims.
TheSanityAnnex
10-03-2016, 04:27 PM
Did Bill not get pretty much the same treatment?
And God damn, now this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/fbi-allowed-2-hillary-aides-destroy-their-laptops-newly-exposed-side-agreements
At what point does all this smoke not make some of her supporters think, "Hmmmmm. There might be some fire here." Trying to justify a vote for her without mentioning her opponent being a greater evil is impossible, IMO. I can appreciate voting against Donald. I can't understand voting FOR her. And Vice Versa.
The entire investigation was a sham from the start. WH and DOJ told the FBI nothing will come of this. Comey's hands were tied from the start and I think he is leaking this to show how corrupt it all is from the top down, it is all he can do at this point.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-03-2016, 04:49 PM
The nation of Haiti calls bullshit on you and your ilk. Trumps grift is nowhere near as bad as Hitlery's complete robbery and denial of aid to an impoverished nation that just had a catastrophic natural disaster ruin their entire country, then to have the Clinton Foundation and their packs of hyenas that paid to rip their pieces from that carcass, is just satanic.
Go ahead and try and downplay your side, but sorry that you are cool with the complete and utter destruction of a 3rd world nation due to exploitation to create a slush fund they predatorily stole from those poor Haitan victims.
I went and looked this up and the first two sites I found were Sputnik.com and the nationalreview.
https://sputniknews.com/world/20161003/1045934782/hurricane-matthew-hillary-haiti-earthquake.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
Nice account.
CosmicCowboy
10-03-2016, 05:16 PM
Cliton's are gonna get another shot at Haiti cash after this hurricane fucks em up.
:lol At pulling the woman card. As if it's just men that think she's dishonest.
TheSanityAnnex
10-03-2016, 05:41 PM
I went and looked this up and the first two sites I found were Sputnik.com and the nationalreview.
https://sputniknews.com/world/20161003/1045934782/hurricane-matthew-hillary-haiti-earthquake.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
Nice account.You didn't look very well
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368
If it is "easy" then you should be able to provide a list of better caliber than what ducks can do.
Don't really care about the emails. Stupid, but not really a fatal flaw.
Why won't she release her speech transcripts? Her emails? Why the connections to shady individuals and regimes? What was up with the Rich pardon? The leaked DNC emails that showed bias against the great Bernard Sanders? How did they manage to build an empire through public service? That's just her character. As far as her political record goes, she's best known for supporting a disastrous trade agreement and war.
She's a shit candidate with a repulsive personality that has gotten by on name recognition and her vagina. Take away the Clinton last name and give her a set of balls and nobody would give a fuck about her.
Blake
10-03-2016, 05:55 PM
The entire investigation was a sham from the start. WH and DOJ told the FBI nothing will come of this. Comey's hands were tied from the start and I think he is leaking this to show how corrupt it all is from the top down, it is all he can do at this point.
What crime exactly do you think hillary committed, just curious
Why won't she release her speech transcripts? Her emails? Why the connections to shady individuals and regimes? What was up with the Rich pardon? The leaked DNC emails that showed bias against the great Bernard Sanders? How did they manage to build an empire through public service? That's just her character. As far as her political record goes, she's best known for supporting a disastrous trade agreement and war.
She's a shit candidate with a repulsive personality that has gotten by on name recognition and her vagina. Take away the Clinton last name and give her a set of balls and nobody would give a fuck about her.
Why else would she stay with that serial philanderer?
Why else would she stay with that serial philanderer?
One wonders why Melania is staying with Trump as well?
After all, the dude is on his third marriage.
One wonders why Melania is staying with Trump as well?
After all, the dude is on his third marriage.
Where's the proof or even hints that he's cheating on Melania?
Where's the proof or even hints that he's cheating on Melania?
Doesn't have to be cheating on her at the moment for him to be a women philanderer. The fact that he's had multiple marriages already speaks to that.
tlongII
10-03-2016, 06:13 PM
+1
I think no small part of the visceral reaction to Hillary has been because she is a woman. I see her coming under criticism that no man would.
You and Manny are being ridiculous. Trump has come under far more criticism than Hillary. Is it deserved? Maybe, but stating that Hillary is being unfairly criticized isn't "intellectually honest" when comparing the two candidates.
Doesn't have to be cheating on her at the moment for him to be a women philanderer. The fact that he's had multiple marriages already speaks to that.
He's been with Melania for 18 years - that's a pretty long time.
Winehole23
10-03-2016, 10:21 PM
Did Bill not get pretty much the same treatment?
And God damn, now this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/fbi-allowed-2-hillary-aides-destroy-their-laptops-newly-exposed-side-agreements
At what point does all this smoke not make some of her supporters think, "Hmmmmm. There might be some fire here." Trying to justify a vote for her without mentioning her opponent being a greater evil is impossible, IMO. I can appreciate voting against Donald. I can't understand voting FOR her. And Vice Versa.
Gary Lynch, GM at Rising S Bunkers, a Texas-based company that specializes in underground bunkers and services scores of Los Angeles residences, says that sales at the most upscale end of the market — mainly to actors, pro athletes and politicians (who require signed NDAs) — have increased 700 percent this year compared with 2015, and overall sales have risen 150 percent. "Any time there is a turbulent political landscape, we see a spike in our sales. Given this election is as turbulent as it is, we are gearing up for an even bigger spike," says marketing director Brad Roberson of sales of bunkers that start at $39,000 and can run $8.35 million or more (FYI, a 12-stall horse shelter is $98,500).
Adds Mike Peters, owner of Utah-based Ultimate Bunker, which builds high-end versions in California, Texas and Minnesota: "People are going for luxury [to] live underground because they see the future is going to be rough. Everyone I've talked to thinks we are doomed, no matter who is elected."http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bunker-builders-anticipate-lucrative-trumpocalypse-932748
Winehole23
10-03-2016, 10:23 PM
once again, the election presents a fecal duality. both ends of the stick are shitty.
boutons_deux
10-03-2016, 10:36 PM
once again, the election presents a fecal duality. both ends of the stick are shitty.
false equivalence
Why won't she release her speech transcripts? Her emails? Why the connections to shady individuals and regimes? What was up with the Rich pardon? The leaked DNC emails that showed bias against the great Bernard Sanders? How did they manage to build an empire through public service? That's just her character. As far as her political record goes, she's best known for supporting a disastrous trade agreement and war.
She's a shit candidate with a repulsive personality that has gotten by on name recognition and her vagina. Take away the Clinton last name and give her a set of balls and nobody would give a fuck about her.
Yup.
lol Hillary defenders. Stick to destroying Trump.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bunker-builders-anticipate-lucrative-trumpocalypse-932748
Lol.
Yeah, we're doomed, but we'll be alright. Checks and balances are a wonderful thing. I can't believe in this election that EVEN my vote for the libertarian is going to involve holding my nose. He's a clown, but he seems an honest clown.
Besides, can't afford a bunker. Just stocking up on Ammo to take one when it all goes to shit.
false equivalence
Hitler and Nixon were both horrible people. Saying so doesn't make them equivalent.
Blake
10-04-2016, 08:30 AM
Hitler and Nixon were both horrible people. Saying so doesn't make them equivalent.
Yeah, that's bouts point
Yeah, that's bouts point
No one made an equivalence. To do so is to distract everyone who has chosen a side with, "Yeah, but...." All WH pointed out was that both were shit.
FromWayDowntown
10-04-2016, 09:20 AM
You and Manny are being ridiculous. Trump has come under far more criticism than Hillary. Is it deserved? Maybe, but stating that Hillary is being unfairly criticized isn't "intellectually honest" when comparing the two candidates.
She's been criticized for not smiling enough and for being too serious; she's been criticized for the way that she looks; she's been criticized for being too certain of herself.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Hillary Clinton about a great many things. None of the above mentioned matters are reasonable things to criticize her for unless you hold a woman running for office to a different standard than a man running for the same office.
Blake
10-04-2016, 09:37 AM
No one made an equivalence. To do so is to distract everyone who has chosen a side with, "Yeah, but...." All WH pointed out was that both were shit.
Eh...."fecal duality" seems to imply both being equally shitty.
Whatever.
Warlord23
10-04-2016, 09:37 AM
And do you remember Hillary and that break she took in her debate with Sanders? I know where she went - it's disgusting, I don't want to talk about it. No, it's too disgusting. Don't say it, it's disgusting. Let's not talk - we want to be very, very straight up, OK? But I thought that was - wasn't that a weird deal? We're ready to start and we're looking - they gave her every benefit of the doubt, because you know - it's ABC and she practically owns ABC, she really does.
But I will tell you this - she doesn't have the look. I just don’t believe she has a presidential look, and you need a presidential look. She doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina, I said she doesn't have the stamina, and I don't believe she does have the stamina.
RandomGuy
10-04-2016, 10:02 AM
Does that apply to me - shouldn't I be rah-rah-ing over the first female president?
No, you should pick whomever you think better.
That said, I can point you to studies that show men and women are perceived differently for the same actions.
https://www.vitalsmarts.com/press/2015/08/new-study-women-judged-more-harshly-when-speaking-up-assertively/
http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1986.9713632?journalCode=vsoc20
Do a google search.
Now, with the added information that men and woman are, in fact, perceived differently, how has that affected your view of Hillary Clinton's actions?
Ask yourself, how much has your perception of her been colored by an unconscious bias that you likely aren't aware of?
Part of any good critical thinking means figuring out what kinds of biases are at play. One makes better decisions when one is honest about that stuff, especially if that bias is without merit.
RandomGuy
10-04-2016, 10:11 AM
Did Bill not get pretty much the same treatment?
And God damn, now this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/fbi-allowed-2-hillary-aides-destroy-their-laptops-newly-exposed-side-agreements
At what point does all this smoke not make some of her supporters think, "Hmmmmm. There might be some fire here." Trying to justify a vote for her without mentioning her opponent being a greater evil is impossible, IMO. I can appreciate voting against Donald. I can't understand voting FOR her. And Vice Versa.
What do you think about Trump using his foundation to pay his legal obligations?
tlongII
10-04-2016, 10:19 AM
She's been criticized for not smiling enough and for being too serious; she's been criticized for the way that she looks; she's been criticized for being too certain of herself.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Hillary Clinton about a great many things. None of the above mentioned matters are reasonable things to criticize her for unless you hold a woman running for office to a different standard than a man running for the same office.
And Trump gets criticized for his hair and having the sniffles.
RandomGuy
10-04-2016, 10:20 AM
You and Manny are being ridiculous. Trump has come under far more criticism than Hillary. Is it deserved? Maybe, but stating that Hillary is being unfairly criticized isn't "intellectually honest" when comparing the two candidates.
You missed the point, yet again.
See my response to rmt, and answer the same questions. I know you don't like being honest, or doing the heavy lifting of reading things, so I am not expecting you to bother with either, but it is still up to me to point you at evidence/information, and give you good critical thinking questions.
What you do with that remains on you, and says volumes about your character.
What do you think about Trump using his foundation to pay his legal obligations?
Not that big of a deal, tbh. I won't vote for him, but for any number of other reasons.
Try to make a case FOR Hillary. It's far harder than making a case against Trump.
tlongII
10-04-2016, 10:38 AM
You missed the point, yet again.
See my response to rmt, and answer the same questions. I know you don't like being honest, or doing the heavy lifting of reading things, so I am not expecting you to bother with either, but it is still up to me to point you at evidence/information, and give you good critical thinking questions.
What you do with that remains on you, and says volumes about your character.
When I see you give me good critical thinking questions I'll let you know.
CosmicCowboy
10-04-2016, 10:44 AM
No, you should pick whomever you think better.
That said, I can point you to studies that show men and women are perceived differently for the same actions.
https://www.vitalsmarts.com/press/2015/08/new-study-women-judged-more-harshly-when-speaking-up-assertively/
http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.1986.9713632?journalCode=vsoc20
Do a google search.
Now, with the added information that men and woman are, in fact, perceived differently, how has that affected your view of Hillary Clinton's actions?
Ask yourself, how much has your perception of her been colored by an unconscious bias that you likely aren't aware of?
Part of any good critical thinking means figuring out what kinds of biases are at play. One makes better decisions when one is honest about that stuff, especially if that bias is without merit.
I view Bill and Hillary with equal disgust.
baseline bum
10-04-2016, 10:50 AM
Not that big of a deal, tbh. I won't vote for him, but for any number of other reasons.
Try to make a case FOR Hillary. It's far harder than making a case against Trump.
The case for Hillary is you'd have Republican control of the entire country with a Trump win. What a disaster that would be.
The case for Hillary is you'd have Republican control of the entire country with a Trump win. What a disaster that would be.
Thanks for making my point.
baseline bum
10-04-2016, 11:11 AM
Thanks for making my point.
It's not a case against Trump so much as it is a case against the shitheads in the house.
Not that big of a deal, tbh. I won't vote for him, but for any number of other reasons.
Try to make a case FOR Hillary. It's far harder than making a case against Trump.
Dont be that guy..
Trump would:
Keep the tax as low as can be for the rich
Appoint a far right wing supreme court justice
Do zero for climate change
Keep the poor poorer
Clinton would:
Raise taxes on the super rich
Appoint (at the very least) a progressive supreme court justice
Acknowledge and take steps to combat climate change
To a certain degree, provide tuition free college
You can go through a whole list and see a clear difference in policies. You dont have to like her to know she would be better overrall. Period.
It's not a case against Trump so much as it is a case against the shitheads in the house.
Fair enough. Still not a positive for Hillary.
baseline bum
10-04-2016, 11:29 AM
Clinton would:
Raise taxes on the super rich
I doubt it, she just wouldn't cut them like Trump would.
Appoint (at the very least) a progressive supreme court justice
I don't see it, nothing about how she or her husband has governed has been progressive.
Acknowledge and take steps to combat climate change
Maybe. The best thing she could do here would be to subsidize R&D in solar in the hope that it can eventually be done cheaply.
To a certain degree, provide tuition free college
Not a shot in hell. She is pretending to be Santa Claus to the Bernie voters but how can anyone believe that proposal she made? No way Queen Center-Right turns into FDR overnight.
Clinton would:
Raise taxes on the super rich
Appoint (at the very least) a progressive supreme court justice
Acknowledge and take steps to combat climate change
To a certain degree, provide tuition free college
You can go through a whole list and see a clear difference in policies. You dont have to like her to know she would be better overrall. Period.
Reck, you are assuming that everyone thinks these are good things. I don't.
CosmicCowboy
10-04-2016, 11:38 AM
You guys need to remember that with the Clinton's words really matter. When Hillary promises free "tuition" that may not really mean free school. I've paid enough college bills to know the tuition was just a small part of the whole bill.
You guys need to remember that with the Clinton's words really matter. When Hillary promises free "tuition" that may not really mean free school. I've paid enough college bills to know the tuition was just a small part of the whole bill.
Yep, it's those "fees" and room and board.
I doubt it, she just wouldn't cut them like Trump would.
I don't see it, nothing about how she or her husband has governed has been progressive.
Maybe. The best thing she could do here would be to subsidize R&D in solar in the hope that it can eventually be done cheaply.
Not a shot in hell. She is pretending to be Santa Claus to the Bernie voters but how can anyone believe that proposal she made? No way Queen Center-Right turns into FDR overnight.
:lol
So she'll goverm as a republican would?
She's already laid out plans to put something like half billion solar panels by the end of her first term.
Those are drastic efforts. As far as tuition free college, it can be done by raising taxes on the rich.
Besides, its not a blanket plan. Only those making less the 125k will be eligeble.
It's not a Bernie plan but it's half way there. If she wants to win re-election or even think about getting there she's going to appease the hardcore liberals and what better way to do that with doing the most basic things which is appointing a liberal judge, throw the millenials a bone and pretend she cares about climate change.
Those are things that can be done, easily. Or at least show the efforts.
Blake
10-04-2016, 11:50 AM
Try to make a case FOR Hillary. It's far harder than making a case against Trump.
True, it's ridiculously easy to make a case against Trump
Just how much money do you think can be gotten by raising taxes on the rich. And do you think they got rich by being stupid - they will find ways around it or leave.
Dont be that guy..
Trump would:
Keep the tax as low as can be for the rich
Appoint a far right wing supreme court justice
Do zero for climate change
Keep the poor poorer
Clinton would:
Raise taxes on the super rich
Appoint (at the very least) a progressive supreme court justice
Acknowledge and take steps to combat climate change
To a certain degree, provide tuition free college
You can go through a whole list and see a clear difference in policies. You dont have to like her to know she would be better overrall. Period.
I'm not talking policy. But you have a point. The Super Rich have really gotten soaked by Obama...and the poor have really made great gains! Hillary (who has traditionally been to O's right), I'm sure will correct that.
Enjoy your blue kool aid.
You guys need to remember that with the Clinton's words really matter. When Hillary promises free "tuition" that may not really mean free school. I've paid enough college bills to know the tuition was just a small part of the whole bill.
This. My kids get free tuition (wife being a professor). Just wrote a check for $6800 for this semester for my daughter.
Sportcamper
10-04-2016, 12:05 PM
I've paid enough college bills to know the tuition was just a small part of the whole bill.
Books, parking, housing, food, car, auto insurance, clothing, mandatory studies abroad, medical $ $ $...I thank The Good Lord everyday for remaining gainfully employed…:toast
baseline bum
10-04-2016, 12:11 PM
Yes, I think she'd govern as a pre-Gingrich Republican would, just like her husband did.
Yes, I think she'd govern as a pre-Gingrich Republican would, just like her husband did.
The only thing I know for SURE is that it will be lucrative for the Clinton's. I don't think the country will be particularly screwed by her policies; it's just a shame the Dems gave her the title, when there were others more deserving. 24 years later, it's 1992 all over again. Progress. Regan/Bush 12, Clinton 8, Bush 8, Obama/Clinton 12. It's a fucking palindrome.
RandomGuy
10-04-2016, 12:41 PM
Not that big of a deal, tbh. I won't vote for him, but for any number of other reasons.
Try to make a case FOR Hillary. It's far harder than making a case against Trump.
Sorry, I wasn't completely clear in my post.
I was merely curious about what you made of it, since you are one of the moderates here, whose opinion I respect. My intent was merely to see how you perceived it, rather than trying to make a case FOR anyone.
I had thought it was a bit sloppy too, but the auditor side of me wondered at how that particular mistake could be made, in a business sense. That kind of thing is a "red flag".
Turns out, after they did a bit more digging, the Trump Foundation really was treated like a private piggybank and extension of his business. Trump himself never donated much, if anything, to it, and the donations into it almost were entirely of his business partners and the money out tended to benefit those business partners in amounts that corresponded to the money they put in. (there is an NPR story on it somewhere with details about all this)
The Trump Foundation is pretty much not a charity in any meaningful sense, and borders on an abuse of the tax law in most things, aside from the blatant breaking of the law in a few cases.
What is does do, is paints another brush stroke in a picture of a greedy vain person. Not that we didn't know that about Trump already, but the thing we did learn is the lengths of dishonesty the man goes to, in furtherance of that.
Again, not making a case for or against here, just offering some thoughts.
RandomGuy
10-04-2016, 12:45 PM
Just how much money do you think can be gotten by raising taxes on the rich. And do you think they got rich by being stupid - they will find ways around it or leave.
The laffer curve argument.
Given that most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in very few hands, the only people who have money to spare are those wealthy who benefitted from the system we have.
Let's shift tacks here.
Do you think people who benefit from any given economic system have any ethical imperative to give back to that system?
RandomGuy
10-04-2016, 12:47 PM
You guys need to remember that with the Clinton's words really matter. When Hillary promises free "tuition" that may not really mean free school. I've paid enough college bills to know the tuition was just a small part of the whole bill.
Very good point.
Also a good point:
Anything helps when you are looking at rising student debt loads, and the corresponding drag on the economy.
Here is a question for you:
Does student debt help or hinder the ability of a college graduate who wants to be an entrepreneur to raise needed capital?
Th'Pusher
10-04-2016, 12:50 PM
I'm not talking policy. But you have a point. The Super Rich have really gotten soaked by Obama...and the poor have really made great gains! Hillary (who has traditionally been to O's right), I'm sure will correct that.
Enjoy your blue kool aid.
Well, Taxes have gone up on the wealthy under Obama. There's no denying that. And the economy didn't come to a grinding halt like so many Republicans warned.
Also, according to the latest US Census report, median household income gains were up 5%, the largest increase in 50 years.
The laffer curve argument.
Given that most of the wealth in this country is concentrated in very few hands, the only people who have money to spare are those wealthy who benefitted from the system we have.
Let's shift tacks here.
Do you think people who benefit from any given economic system have any ethical imperative to give back to that system?
LOL - ethical imperative to give back - people are gonna do what's in their self-interest - not sit there wondering about some mythical "ethical imperative.". Maybe if one is a Bill Gates and has loads of extra money but not normal people like me - I've got to worry about my old age (since SS and Medicare will be in serious trouble by then), I've got to worry about whether there'll be jobs for my kids or I'll have to be putting them up in my non-basement. I tithe, give generously of my time and pay enough taxes - I don't feel any "ethical imperative" to contribute to anyone's college tuition but my own kids'. When the government gets its irresponsible waste and overspending under control and starts working on that $20trillion debt is when I'll think that they should have more of my money in taxes - meaning NEVER.
Sorry, I wasn't completely clear in my post.
I was merely curious about what you made of it, since you are one of the moderates here, whose opinion I respect. My intent was merely to see how you perceived it, rather than trying to make a case FOR anyone.
I had thought it was a bit sloppy too, but the auditor side of me wondered at how that particular mistake could be made, in a business sense. That kind of thing is a "red flag".
Turns out, after they did a bit more digging, the Trump Foundation really was treated like a private piggybank and extension of his business. Trump himself never donated much, if anything, to it, and the donations into it almost were entirely of his business partners and the money out tended to benefit those business partners in amounts that corresponded to the money they put in. (there is an NPR story on it somewhere with details about all this)
The Trump Foundation is pretty much not a charity in any meaningful sense, and borders on an abuse of the tax law in most things, aside from the blatant breaking of the law in a few cases.
What is does do, is paints another brush stroke in a picture of a greedy vain person. Not that we didn't know that about Trump already, but the thing we did learn is the lengths of dishonesty the man goes to, in furtherance of that.
Again, not making a case for or against here, just offering some thoughts.
Honestly? If it were my business, and I wrote a check to a charity for any reason whatsoever? I'm writing that off. I don't have a foundation, but it's basically the same thing. Technically not right, but I can't imagine it's not something anyone wouldn't do in a similar situation. It's also, in the relative Trumpian scheme of things, small potatoes. A check written by a foundation to a charity is not a red flag. That's kind of the point. You have to connect the dots, but the government, with it's differing regulatory bodies with various agendas and practices are not good at connecting dots. You don't get to be a billionaire without being greedy and vain, in my opinion. The Clinton's are at $80 Million. I, for one, can't identify what money making enterprise or product they are associated with to have gone from "Dead Broke" in 2000, to that now. Hillary was a Senator and SOC for most of those years. I know they got paid for some speeches, but damn. That's a lot of money. To accumulate that wealth that quickly is not an accident. It doesn't point towards anything illegal, but I think "greed" can pretty well be assumed.
Blake
10-04-2016, 02:05 PM
You guys need to remember that with the Clinton's words really matter. When Hillary promises free "tuition" that may not really mean free school. I've paid enough college bills to know the tuition was just a small part of the whole bill.
This. My kids get free tuition (wife being a professor). Just wrote a check for $6800 for this semester for my daughter.
Books, parking, housing, food, car, auto insurance, clothing, mandatory studies abroad, medical $ $ $...I thank The Good Lord everyday for remaining gainfully employed…:toast
Is there really anyone out there that is thinking free room and board too?
The gubmint didn't pay your kids room and board during their high school years, did they?
Is there really anyone out there that is thinking free room and board too?
The gubmint didn't pay your kids room and board during their high school years, did they?
I hope I didn't imply that I WANTED a free ride. In fact it is a nice benefit of my wife being a prof that we get to take advantage of. But she has earned that for our kids/ourselves. I don't want, or expect, a handout. I just replied because the memory of writing the check was so fresh.
CosmicCowboy
10-04-2016, 02:18 PM
Is there really anyone out there that is thinking free room and board too?
The gubmint didn't pay your kids room and board during their high school years, did they?
Ever seen a college bill?
dabom
10-04-2016, 02:18 PM
Well, Taxes have gone up on the wealthy under Obama. There's no denying that. And the economy didn't come to a grinding halt like so many Republicans warned.
Also, according to the latest US Census report, median household income gains were up 5%, the largest increase in 50 years.
:omg
FuzzyLumpkins
10-04-2016, 03:20 PM
Ever seen a college bill?
Ever realized that tuition is hardly the only cost?
TheSanityAnnex
10-04-2016, 03:53 PM
Ever realized that tuition is hardly the only cost?
Ever seen a post #78?
CosmicCowboy
10-04-2016, 04:56 PM
Ever seen a post #78?
LOL thanks. Fuzzy just automatically ankle bites without reading.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-04-2016, 04:59 PM
LOL thanks. Fuzzy just automatically ankle bites without reading.
Not my fault you are inconsistent.
CosmicCowboy
10-04-2016, 05:09 PM
Not my fault you are inconsistent.
:lol
not my fault your reading comprehension sucks.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-04-2016, 05:23 PM
:lol
not my fault your reading comprehension sucks.
Oh so when someone mentions costs beyond tuition and you insist on the significance of the tuition I should realize something was written that contradicts that sentiment on the previous page. :rolleyes
TheSanityAnnex
10-04-2016, 05:37 PM
Both feet now firmly in mouth. Is there room for more.
Blake
10-04-2016, 06:38 PM
Ever seen a college bill?
Yes. Is your kid getting the semi free tuition you're referring to?
MannyIsGod
10-05-2016, 03:01 PM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bunker-builders-anticipate-lucrative-trumpocalypse-932748
The take away here should be that one of the candidates for president represents a large increase in the chance of nuclear exchange. That candidate has a non negligible chance of being elected, and as such you're seeing a risk management response. I'm not sure there is any credible evidence that Clinton represents an increase in the risk of nuclear warefare or any other catastrophic type of situation.
As for the question of when does the smoke become enough to assume fire? Probably at the point where someone stops calling every thing that is in the sky smoke and actually proves that a fire has occurred. I'm supposed to get up in arms over a charity foundation where no evidence of wrong doing can be found while that charity does amazing work world wide? I'm supposed to get upset over the refusal of the FBI to prosecute in an action consistent with previous decisions regarding that law? Or am I supposed to believe all the other bullshit the GOP has tried to manufacture for decades now and still has yet to make anything stick?
There are two possible reasoning here. One, Clinton is somehow shitty enough at enacting conspiracies that you always hear about them but just not shitty enough to leave anything around that actually proves they exist. That would be rather amazing. The other is that there's been a long line of bullshit tossed against the wall and none of it has managed to stick even when investigated to death and even when investigations are conducted by her political enemies.
So I ask you in turn, when do you start wondering how much bullshit can possibly be tossed against one person before you start to believe that maybe those tossing the bullshit have an agenda? But I get it, the GOP is so good at acknowledging facts in other areas, surely they'd do it here too.
SnakeBoy
10-05-2016, 03:04 PM
The take away here should be that one of the candidates for president represents a large increase in the chance of nuclear exchange.
Nuclear exchange with what country?
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 03:13 PM
The take away here should be that one of the candidates for president represents a large increase in the chance of nuclear exchange. That candidate has a non negligible chance of being elected, and as such you're seeing a risk management response. I'm not sure there is any credible evidence that Clinton represents an increase in the risk of nuclear warefare or any other catastrophic type of situation.
As for the question of when does the smoke become enough to assume fire? Probably at the point where someone stops calling every thing that is in the sky smoke and actually proves that a fire has occurred. I'm supposed to get up in arms over a charity foundation where no evidence of wrong doing can be found while that charity does amazing work world wide? I'm supposed to get upset over the refusal of the FBI to prosecute in an action consistent with previous decisions regarding that law? Or am I supposed to believe all the other bullshit the GOP has tried to manufacture for decades now and still has yet to make anything stick?
There are two possible reasoning here. One, Clinton is somehow shitty enough at enacting conspiracies that you always hear about them but just not shitty enough to leave anything around that actually proves they exist. That would be rather amazing. The other is that there's been a long line of bullshit tossed against the wall and none of it has managed to stick even when investigated to death and even when investigations are conducted by her political enemies.
So I ask you in turn, when do you start wondering how much bullshit can possibly be tossed against one person before you start to believe that maybe those tossing the bullshit have an agenda? But I get it, the GOP is so good at acknowledging facts in other areas, surely they'd do it here too.
There is a third possibility you left out. Nothing has stuck because she's being protected by the White House.
DOJ grants immunity to 5 key witnesses instead of issuing subpoenas
FBI agrees to destroy laptops after examining and also agrees to only search limited timeframe on laptops
Impossible to prosecute anyone under these conditions
MannyIsGod
10-05-2016, 03:13 PM
Not that big of a deal, tbh. I won't vote for him, but for any number of other reasons.
Try to make a case FOR Hillary. It's far harder than making a case against Trump.
To make a case for Hillary I just point to her climate change proposals. She's got by far the best and most level headed approach to energy and climate change than anyone else who ran for president this time around and that isn't limited to Trump. That means Stein, Sanders, and any of the GOP or Libertarians who outright deny its a problem. She's making it a point to acknowledge that implicit bias is actually a thing that we should address and that it should be at the forefront of our society's conversations of race. She's actually got reasonable tax proposals that would do well for our country. She's also a policy wonk who's got a fantastic reputation of making extremely analytical decisions on situations and problems. She's got a lot going for her, and to act like she's some kind of idiot who has somehow stumbled her way to this point is laughable.
Is she perfect and do I agree with her in every policy position? No. But do I think she's atrocious? Far from it.
But the thing is the case for her alone doesn't need to be made. The GOP is such a non functional cluster fuck hell bent on white nationalism that they decided to nominate the most unqualified candidate of our era if not ever. So now, she gets the endorsements of institutions that have never before nominated anyone outside of the GOP and former GOP heads of state. She gets the endorsements of GOP operatives and those who are familiar with foreign policy and national security at rates that no democrat ever DREAMED of. We're not talking Collin Powel. We're talking a large segment of the GOP that is alive and has ever been involved in national security issues because the GOP felt that it was more important to nominate someone who hates (or at least acts like he hates) muslims and Mexicans more than he understands nuclear weapons policy.
So you can say "make the case for her in this hypothetical way" all you want but the fact is that people have to decide between her and Trump. Although deciding between her and the OTHER guy who apparently is running for president and can't be bothered to learn a thing or two about foreign policy either isn't much harder. Gary Johnson should be thanking the world for Trump because otherwise he'd be the biggest laughing stock in this "race".
MannyIsGod
10-05-2016, 03:15 PM
Nuclear exchange with what country?
The first one who's soldiers insult him and hurt his feelings enough for him to become unhinged?
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 03:15 PM
So now Trump is the warhawk? :lol
MannyIsGod
10-05-2016, 03:16 PM
There is a third possibility you left out. Nothing has stuck because she's being protected by the White House.
DOJ grants immunity to 5 key witnesses instead of issuing subpoenas
FBI agrees to destroy laptops after examining and also agrees to only search limited timeframe on laptops
Impossible to prosecute anyone under these conditions
So its a conspiracy. OK. Then believe that if you want.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 03:19 PM
The take away here should be that one of the candidates for president represents a large increase in the chance of nuclear exchange. That candidate has a non negligible chance of being elected, and as such you're seeing a risk management response. I'm not sure there is any credible evidence that Clinton represents an increase in the risk of nuclear warefare or any other catastrophic type of situation.
As for the question of when does the smoke become enough to assume fire? Probably at the point where someone stops calling every thing that is in the sky smoke and actually proves that a fire has occurred. I'm supposed to get up in arms over a charity foundation where no evidence of wrong doing can be found while that charity does amazing work world wide? I'm supposed to get upset over the refusal of the FBI to prosecute in an action consistent with previous decisions regarding that law? Or am I supposed to believe all the other bullshit the GOP has tried to manufacture for decades now and still has yet to make anything stick?
There are two possible reasoning here. One, Clinton is somehow shitty enough at enacting conspiracies that you always hear about them but just not shitty enough to leave anything around that actually proves they exist. That would be rather amazing. The other is that there's been a long line of bullshit tossed against the wall and none of it has managed to stick even when investigated to death and even when investigations are conducted by her political enemies.
So I ask you in turn, when do you start wondering how much bullshit can possibly be tossed against one person before you start to believe that maybe those tossing the bullshit have an agenda? But I get it, the GOP is so good at acknowledging facts in other areas, surely they'd do it here too.
:bobo
MannyIsGod
10-05-2016, 03:19 PM
So now Trump is the warhawk? :lol
Now?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/
There's definitely arguments to be made about Hillary's poor foreign policy and her likely continued use of drones in the manner that Obama has done, but to act as if Trump doesn't present a set of dangers involving war that are much more severe is to completely ignore his statements and his temperament. This is the man who asked why we couldn't use nuclear weapons.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 03:25 PM
Now?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-iran/
There's definitely arguments to be made about Hillary's poor foreign policy and her likely continued use of drones in the manner that Obama has done, but to act as if Trump doesn't present a set of dangers involving war that are much more severe is to completely ignore his statements and his temperament. This is the man who asked why we couldn't use nuclear weapons.
:lol What's a torpedo boat?
We shoot one of their boats then they all drop their torpedoes and whatever coastal installations the Iranians also have come into bear. What a dumbfuck.
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 03:25 PM
So its a conspiracy. OK. Then believe that if you want.
Do you deny that 5 immunity deals were given by the DOJ?
MannyIsGod
10-05-2016, 03:31 PM
I'm not going to try to dissuade you from having conspiracy theories. Knock yourself out. There's no point in trying to have a rational conversation at that point.
SnakeBoy
10-05-2016, 03:35 PM
The first one who's soldiers insult him and hurt his feelings enough for him to become unhinged?
So the guy who is being attacked for not being anti Russian enough is the war hawk. Let's see...under Obama/Clinton relations with Russia have been "reset" back to cold war status, Libya has been turned into a failed state, tensions between Japan & China/North Korea are escalating rapidly, and we are quietly living through a new and more dangerous nuclear arms race as both the US and Russia modernize their arsenal towards smaller "more usable" nuclear weapons ...but Trump is the one who is going to blow up the world.
There's literally a thousand actual things to slam Trump on but jumping over all of them to go straight to nuclear armageddon argument is dumb as fuck.
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 03:35 PM
I'm not going to try to dissuade you from having conspiracy theories. Knock yourself out. There's no point in trying to have a rational conversation at that point.
Just discussing the facts. Did you find it normal practice for immunity to be given to 5 key witnesses for nothing in return?
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 03:38 PM
So the guy who is being attacked for not being anti Russian enough is the war hawk. Let's see...under Obama/Clinton relations with Russia have been "reset" back to cold war status, Libya has been turned into a failed state, tensions between Japan & China/North Korea are escalating rapidly, and we are quietly living through a new and more dangerous nuclear arms race as both the US and Russia modernize their arsenal towards smaller "more usable" nuclear weapons ...but Trump is the one who is going to blow up the world.
There's literally a thousand actual things to slam Trump on but jumping over all of them to go straight to nuclear armageddon argument is dumb as fuck.
Russia is the only country we can go to war with?
Blake
10-05-2016, 03:42 PM
Just discussing the facts. Did you find it normal practice for immunity to be given to 5 key witnesses for nothing in return?
Grassy knoll goods
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 03:45 PM
Grassy knoll goods
:lol nothing in return? they testified without invoking their 5th amendment rights.
Monostradamus
10-05-2016, 03:51 PM
Do you think Hillary is a good person?
tbh how many of our presidents were actually good people? The vast majority have been slave owners/murderers/crooks/racists.
CosmicCowboy
10-05-2016, 03:52 PM
:lol nothing in return? they testified without invoking their 5th amendment rights.
You don't need to use the 5th if you can't remember :lol
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 03:53 PM
:lol nothing in return? they testified without invoking their 5th amendment rights.
You may want to fact check your claim
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 04:02 PM
You don't need to use the 5th if you can't remember :lol
Hillary Clinton---40 I don't recalls
Cheryl Mills---189 I don't recalls
Bryan Pagliano---invoked 5th 125+ times
SnakeBoy
10-05-2016, 04:13 PM
Russia is the only country we can go to war with?
So do you agree with Manny that a nuclear war is likely if Trump is POTUS? If so, what country would it likely be with if not Russia?
CosmicCowboy
10-05-2016, 04:31 PM
So do you agree with Manny that a nuclear war is likely if Trump is POTUS? If so, what country would it likely be with if not Russia?
:lmao
Democrats have been using the nuclear war boogeyman for over 100 years. I can still remember the "Goldwater is for war, LBJ is for peace!" slogans. Look what that got us.
To make a case for Hillary I just point to her climate change proposals. She's got by far the best and most level headed approach to energy and climate change than anyone else who ran for president this time around and that isn't limited to Trump.
This is your case for Hillary - lol. These experts can't even tell me if this hurricane is gonna hit us tomorrow so I am forced to put up hurricane shutters on my rental, my mom's house, my mother-in-law's house and my house. If they can't tell me what's gonna happen tomorrow, why should I believe what they claim is gonna happen 30, 40, 50 years from now. Excuse me while I spend the next few hours of daylight putting up shutters.
This is your case for Hillary - lol. These experts can't even tell me if this hurricane is gonna hit us tomorrow so I am forced to put up hurricane shutters on my rental, my mom's house, my mother-in-law's house and my house. If they can't tell me what's gonna happen tomorrow, why should I believe what they claim is gonna happen 30, 40, 50 years from now. Excuse me while I spend the next few hours of daylight putting up shutters.
It's really not. It's just fact.
Well, at least those are the plans if she becomes president.
I get the sense you're a climate change denier so I dont think anything that anyone says or does would change your mind.
Baby boomers with no kids are probably fine with checking off the fact climate change does exist and it is a thing with reassurance they won't suffer because they won't be around to see the disater. It's on the next generation's back.
spurraider21
10-05-2016, 04:45 PM
i'll take corruption and evil over corruption and evil + socially backwards view on the world and people in general
Winehole23
10-05-2016, 05:12 PM
Eh...."fecal duality" seems to imply both being equally shitty.
Whatever.a reasonable but not necessary inference. they're shitty in different ways.
for me temperament and competence weigh more than character in this matchup. Trump can't control himself, is wildly inconsistent and has been a notably incompetent campaigner, even next to HRC, who ain't that great at it. don't get me wrong, I can't imagine voting for Hilary in any circumstance, but as to who's shittier for president, it's Trump hands down.
how can Trump be expected to run the country if he can't even run his own campaign?
Spurminator
10-05-2016, 05:15 PM
I'm not sure why corruption, secrecy, and questionable foreign policy decision-making are such deal breakers for the Party of Reagan, tbh.
Winehole23
10-05-2016, 05:52 PM
there are plenty of things wrong with HRC. all of the things you just mentioned.
unfortunately for the GOP, Trump doesn't foreseeably improve on most of HRC's faults and in fact, could be a lot worse.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 07:18 PM
So do you agree with Manny that a nuclear war is likely if Trump is POTUS? If so, what country would it likely be with if not Russia?
More likely as opposed to the alternative? You betcha. A whole lot of the national security types agree with me.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 07:19 PM
:lmao
Democrats have been using the nuclear war boogeyman for over 100 years. I can still remember the "Goldwater is for war, LBJ is for peace!" slogans. Look what that got us.
The southern democrats migrated since then but okay.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 07:20 PM
This is your case for Hillary - lol. These experts can't even tell me if this hurricane is gonna hit us tomorrow so I am forced to put up hurricane shutters on my rental, my mom's house, my mother-in-law's house and my house. If they can't tell me what's gonna happen tomorrow, why should I believe what they claim is gonna happen 30, 40, 50 years from now. Excuse me while I spend the next few hours of daylight putting up shutters.
Meteorology is not perfect therefor we cannot predict climate change? gmfb.
Th'Pusher
10-05-2016, 07:25 PM
There is a third possibility you left out. Nothing has stuck because she's being protected by the White House.
DOJ grants immunity to 5 key witnesses instead of issuing subpoenas
FBI agrees to destroy laptops after examining and also agrees to only search limited timeframe on laptops
Impossible to prosecute anyone under these conditions
If Barry can order pretty much anyone in the government around like a king, what's taking him so long to force the IRS to wrap up their audit on Trump so he wont have any more excuses for refusing to release his tax returns?
If Barry can order pretty much anyone in the government around like a king, what's taking him so long to force the IRS to wrap up their audit on Trump so he wont have any more excuses for refusing to release his tax returns?
Maybe Trump hires good enough tax lawyers and accountants to drag it out?
Th'Pusher
10-05-2016, 07:45 PM
Maybe Trump hires good enough tax lawyers and accountants to drag it out?
Of course. Great take as always rmt.
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 07:48 PM
If Barry can order pretty much anyone in the government around like a king, what's taking him so long to force the IRS to wrap up their audit on Trump so he wont have any more excuses for refusing to release his tax returns?
IRS too busy helping Clinton Foundation clean this up.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/clinton-foundation-trump-foundation-filing-issues/index.html
IRS too busy helping Clinton Foundation clean this up.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/clinton-foundation-trump-foundation-filing-issues/index.html
Do you always have to connect everything back to the Clinton's? You're such a retard bro.
Clipper Nation
10-05-2016, 07:52 PM
More likely as opposed to the alternative? You betcha. A whole lot of the national security types agree with me.
The same "national security types" you hated during the Bush era? The ones who led us into an unwinnable oil war in Iraq under false pretenses? Wow, what a ringing endorsement for Hillary.
Th'Pusher
10-05-2016, 07:53 PM
IRS too busy helping Clinton Foundation clean this up.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/clinton-foundation-trump-foundation-filing-issues/index.html
All the more reason to tell them to wrap up the audit. They can redirect resources. Just give him a pass and leak it to the media the audit is complete.
All the more reason to tell them to wrap up the audit. They can redirect resources. Just give him a pass and leak it to the media the audit is complete.
This is up for negotiation if you listen to Trump.
He says he would release his taxes if Hillary releases her 33k lost emails.
Wait..if you're not releasing your taxes because you're being audited, then why would you say you would if Hillary did this or that?
The audit as we've all known all along is an excuse. He could have release them any time he wanted. But obviously he won't under no circustance because the gig would be up and he would lose.
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 08:05 PM
Do you always have to connect everything back to the Clinton's? You're such a retard bro.
You are in a thread discussing Hillary Clinton bro. Her name is in the title of the thread for fucks sake.
Better get in as many posts as you can, your days here are numbered. The ELE bet looms.
Th'Pusher
10-05-2016, 08:09 PM
This is up for negotiation if you listen to Trump.
He says he would release his taxes if Hillary releases her 33k lost emails.
Wait..if you're not releasing your taxes because you're being audited, then why would you say you would if Hillary did this or that?
The audit as we've all known all along is an excuse. He could have release them any time he wanted. But obviously he won't under no circustance because the gig would be up and he would lose.
I understand that. I'm just wondering why it's taking king Obama so long to take away Trump's excuse and order the IRS to get in fucking line like he did with the DOJ and the FBI!
You are in a thread discussing Hillary Clinton bro. Her name is in the title of the thread for fucks sake.
Better get in as many posts as you can, your days here are numbered. The ELE bet looms.
I'm shaking in my boots.
NOT.
Splits
10-05-2016, 08:46 PM
This is your case for Hillary - lol. These experts can't even tell me if this hurricane is gonna hit us tomorrow so I am forced to put up hurricane shutters on my rental, my mom's house, my mother-in-law's house and my house. If they can't tell me what's gonna happen tomorrow, why should I believe what they claim is gonna happen 30, 40, 50 years from now. Excuse me while I spend the next few hours of daylight putting up shutters.
This might be the stupidest, most ignorant and fact-free post of the year on this forum since :cry don't teach my son climate change in science class :cry (also stated by this retard)
Jesus fuck, this woman...
"they" in this scenario is some 2-bit weather-bunny in Miami who got her job because she's got a nice rack, and also a consortium of PhDs who study historical trends in climate and weather patterns.
Fucking moran.
I hope you live in a flood zone and your house gets permanantly wiped off the map to teach you a lesson that denying science is fatal. You deserve a Hurricance Matthew double-tap
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 09:05 PM
I understand that. I'm just wondering why it's taking king Obama so long to take away Trump's excuse and order the IRS to get in fucking line like he did with the DOJ and the FBI!
https://jonathanturley.org/2016/09/29/104516/#more-104516
Th'Pusher
10-05-2016, 09:37 PM
https://jonathanturley.org/2016/09/29/104516/#more-104516
You're a ridiculous human being
SnakeBoy
10-05-2016, 09:43 PM
More likely as opposed to the alternative? You betcha. A whole lot of the national security types agree with me.
What nation do you think Trump will start a nuclear war with?
Th'Pusher
10-05-2016, 09:58 PM
What nation do you think Trump will start a nuclear war with?
My guess is Pakistan
TheSanityAnnex
10-05-2016, 10:00 PM
You're a ridiculous human being
You're a naive human being.
Th'Pusher
10-05-2016, 10:02 PM
You're a naive human being.
Ok. So in all seriousness, why hasn't Barry put the screws to the IRS to wrap up that Trump audit?
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 10:55 PM
What nation do you think Trump will start a nuclear war with?
Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, whoever he gets butthurt at at any point really.
FuzzyLumpkins
10-05-2016, 11:00 PM
You're a ridiculous human being
Ask him to explain the conspiracy. It's a good time. :rolleyes
TheSanityAnnex
10-06-2016, 09:44 AM
Ask him to explain the conspiracy. It's a good time. :rolleyes
There is no conspiracy, the administration isn't even trying to hide it anymore.
TheSanityAnnex
10-06-2016, 11:03 AM
Ask him to explain the conspiracy. It's a good time. :rolleyes
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/category/clinton-foundation/
Blake
10-06-2016, 12:17 PM
Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, whoever he gets butthurt at at any point really.
Mexico
TheSanityAnnex
10-06-2016, 12:51 PM
I went and looked this up and the first two sites I found were Sputnik.com and the nationalreview.
https://sputniknews.com/world/20161003/1045934782/hurricane-matthew-hillary-haiti-earthquake.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
Nice account.
You ignored the Politico article like the pussy you are, maybe Huffington Post is more your thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/57f604f9e4b087a29a5486fd
Goodman: What is the Clinton Foundation controversy in Haiti about?
Ortel: The simple answer is that billions of dollars in “aid” supposedly were raised to help the desperately poor people of Haiti, yet Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation refuse to account, in granular and verified fashion, for any of this aid. If Haiti (before the latest storm) had obviously been better off, perhaps this controversy would not now be swirling with hurricane force winds. But accounts from multiple parties suggest that Haiti has little to show in the parts of the nation that were devastated in January 2010.
So Haitians are more than upset over what happened to their missing aid.
Goodman: What role did the Clinton Foundation have in bringing multinational companies into Haiti?
Ortel: The simple answer is that no one really knows precisely because auditors have never checked any part of the Clinton Foundation properly since it was formed on 23 October 1997. Crucial documents concerning the period when Bill was Special UN Envoy forward are omitted from the Clinton Foundation website but available on State Regulatory websites, including here:https://www.charitiesnys.com/RegistrySearch/search_charities.jsp
Punch in “Clinton-Bush Haiti” and you should get their IRS application, and 990s for 2010 forward—but key information therein does not square with these Clinton Foundation disclosures in 2009 and 2010:https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/annualReport_cf_2009.pdf
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/clinton-foundation-financial-report-2009.pdf
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/annualreport_cf_2010.pdf
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/files/clinton-foundation-financial-report-2010.pdf
Much of the multinational work seems to have been done through the Clinton Global Initiative. When you punch in “Haiti” to this searchable database of CGI “Commitments to Action”, you may find numerous examples worth studying carefully to see whether anything concrete and positive ever happened.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments
Goodman: What were some major problems with the Clinton Foundation’s efforts in Haiti?
Ortel: The Clinton Foundation began operating in Haiti around 2003 and 2004 and many have written about their activities. One excellent resource is a biology professor named Dady Chery (http://www.dadychery.org/contact/). The first issue with Clinton Foundation efforts is that the main Foundation was NEVER validly authorized by the IRS to do anything outside the US, to provide international disaster relief, or to “fight HIV/AIDS” internationally. Though required by state, federal, and foreign laws to make truthful, granular disclosures concerning its key initiatives, the Clinton Foundation (meaning all of its related entities) has never done so.
Goodman: After the earthquake, did the Haitian government ask the Clinton Foundation for assistance?
Ortel: Prior to the Earthquake, Bill Clinton had been appointed UN Special Envoy to Haiti early in 2009. But they also did something quite curious in Florida related to Haiti—they set up an entity called William J. Clinton Foundation Corporation. Ordinarily, the Foundation might simply have registered its AR parent as licensed to do charity work inside FL, but instead Cheryl Mills et al seem to have established a brand new domestic FL entity with a similar sounding name as the main entity. This practice is frowned upon, and deemed by many to be a warning sign for charity fraud.
Goodman: How did the Clinton Foundation benefit from the disaster in Haiti?
Ortel: In the beginning, the Foundation received lots of positive publicity. This disaster created an opportunity for the Clinton Foundation and its allies to raise substantial funds, especially over the internet. With lax to non-existent financial controls and no real audits, the possibility to divert funds from incoming streams of donations presented itself.
Goodman: How much money did the Clinton Foundation raise for Haiti and how much of that money went to the Haitian people?
Ortel: The books of the Clinton Foundation and of Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund suggest that around $100 million or so may have been raised—but the truth is that no one really knows. One major warning sign is that the Clinton Fondation 990 for 2010 (and the amended return for 2010 filed in November 2015) show the largest single expenditure as being a $37 million grant to the CBHF—the trouble is that both declarations list a PO Box address in Baltimore, MD as that of the CBHF, whereas other declarations made under penalties of perjury state that the CBHF had one office only and that was in Washington, DC.
Another problem is that the CBHF claims in its 990s to the IRS that it had no foreign bank accounts—-but Haiti does not use the US Dollar, so how, in fact, did CBHF function turning donated sums into local Haitian currency? And how did they manage millions of dollars inside Haiti? All told, high end estimates of how much money may have been sent towards Haiti exceed $10 billion—this amount is about equal to the total incomes earned by all Haitians during 2010, so it is a mammoth sum, considered in the context of Haiti.
Very little, trifling amounts, seem to have actually helped. So where did all these missing billions go?
Goodman: Are there other examples similar to Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation utilized a tragedy in a similar manner?
Ortel: The Clintons seem to be “merchants around misery”, operating as a kind of “Robin Hood in Reverse”—-there are many disasters that they seem to have exploited. In brief, the Clinton Foundation solicited massive sums to “fight HIV/AIDS” but did not check carefully enough to ensure that these drugs were supplied in intact form, and neither adulterated nor watered-down.
A key supplier, Ranbaxy, subsequently paid a $500 million economic penalty and plead guilty to numerous felonies—we may never know how many of the HIV/AIDS drugs that the Clinton Foundation claims credit for having distributed from July 2002 forward internationally may have been “dirty” and dangerous. Around the world, the Clinton Foundation seems to seek out desperate nations with limited infrastructure, or disasters, and then insert itself in front of incoming aid flows. They did this in Mozambique, in Papua New Guinea, in Haiti, and with Katrina in New Orleans, and in many other places.
Goodman: In terms of the money and the issue of the Clinton Foundation being a charity, are there any red flags in terms of the financial aspect of the controversy?
Ortel: Absolutely—-Americans and others in wealthy nations are generous. There is no global regulator for charities that operate internationally, while State regulators typically are stretched thin cover the estimated 1.2 million or more tax-exempt organizations that exist inside the U.S. alone. The easiest “red flag” to see is that there are no compliant audits of the financial statements of any Clinton Foundation entity from 23 October 1997 forward.
There is no information provided concerning the international HIV/AIDS fighting activities from July 2002 through 23 March 2004. The application to authorize Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc. (the entity was formed 24 March 2004 in Little Rock, AR) is omitted from the Clinton Foundation website, as in any determination letter that may have been issued (if one was issued) by the IRS.
The Annual Reports for this entity on IRS Form 990 for 2004 and 2005 are omitted from the website—-I have these and they show that the entity and the Clinton Foundation failed, numerous ways, to register appropriately and to solicit in many legal jurisdictions. Financial information for 2000 through 2004 concerning the Clinton Foundation is omitted from the website, but available online—-this information shows that accounting during this key period, when the Clinton Foundation complex was being built was performed using accounting principles that are not allowed inside the U.S.
The final area that raises red flags arises when you check disclosures made by key donors to the Clinton Foundation (UNITAID (the largest cumulative donor at $650 million, and a collection of governments/Gates), other governments and Gates Foundation, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK), and others)—amounts these donors believe they gave are much larger than amounts Clinton Foundation entities appear to claim they received.
Goodman: How much money in aggregate did the country of Haiti receive and how much money did the citizens of Haiti receive?
Ortel: The math is staggering—-if we count all estimated donations $10,000,000,000 or more as the base, and use $100 million as the approximate amount declared, we arrive at 1%.
But then look here at how much benefit one donor, involved in Haiti, may have derived from the World Bank, potentially through intercession of the Clinton network, spread throughout many government and multi-lateral organizations:
http://ppi.worldbank.org/snapshots/sponsor/digicel-595
When you click on each link and then add up the totals you will be amazed.
Blake
10-06-2016, 12:52 PM
Let me know when the red flags turn into hard evidence.
TheSanityAnnex
10-06-2016, 01:00 PM
Let me know when the red flags turn into hard evidence.
ask and you shall receive
http://charlesortel.com/
TheSanityAnnex
10-06-2016, 02:15 PM
I went and looked this up and the first two sites I found were Sputnik.com and the nationalreview.
https://sputniknews.com/world/20161003/1045934782/hurricane-matthew-hillary-haiti-earthquake.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
Nice account.
Maybe you'd prefer the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html
Th'Pusher
10-06-2016, 02:41 PM
ask and you shall receive
http://charlesortel.com/
Brietbart contributor. Nice! And you said you never linked Brietbart.
TheSanityAnnex
10-06-2016, 03:14 PM
Brietbart contributor. Nice! And you said you never linked Brietbart.
Excellent rebuttal. You really decimated his work.
TheSanityAnnex
10-06-2016, 03:19 PM
Brietbart contributor. Nice! And you said you never linked Brietbart.
Linking a Brietbart contributor through a Huffington Post article still falls short of what you hoped for, unless Huff is now also the alt-right. Hard to keep track off all things labeled alt-right these days after the whole cartoon frog and white racist black dick sucking homosexual fiasco.
All I know is Trump is going to win the debate on Sunday. He's going to excel in the townhall format better than any of you can imagine. Trump is essentially in the hospitality business. He knows how to charm when he needs to and Hillary does not.
In fact, I bet he wins the Drudge poll of who won the debate by at least a 50 point margin!!! Amazing!
FuzzyLumpkins
10-06-2016, 03:50 PM
Brietbart contributor. Nice! And you said you never linked Brietbart.
:lol does he really calim that horseshit now?
Blake
10-06-2016, 06:41 PM
Maybe you'd prefer the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html
more circumstantial speculation. Do you understand what hard evidence means?
"......While there is no evidence that Mr. Rodham got preferential treatment, his ventures were quickly inflated into rumors, heard often on the streets and airwaves, that the Clintons had been busy buying land in Haiti for profit........."
Blake
10-06-2016, 06:42 PM
Brietbart contributor. Nice! And you said you never linked Brietbart.
Lol
clambake
10-06-2016, 06:44 PM
whats the verdict?
is she arrogant?
TheSanityAnnex
10-06-2016, 07:54 PM
more circumstantial speculation. Do you understand what hard evidence means?
"......While there is no evidence that Mr. Rodham got preferential treatment, his ventures were quickly inflated into rumors, heard often on the streets and airwaves, that the Clintons had been busy buying land in Haiti for profit........."
http://charlesortel.com/
here is your hard evidence.
Blake
10-06-2016, 09:20 PM
http://charlesortel.com/
here is your hard evidence.
Nope. More circumstantial.
TheSanityAnnex
10-07-2016, 04:02 PM
A failed state, a terrorist haven, four dead Americans – this is the Hillary Clinton record in Libya we know about.
But new evidence -- and a review of the public record -- reveals that Hillary Clinton’s actions in Libya were not just disastrous policy, but a violation of U.S. anti-terrorism law.
A recent report (https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/libya-report-published-16-17/) to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons concluded that Western intervention in Libya was based on "inaccurate intelligence" and "erroneous assumptions." Advocates failed to recognize that “the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element," and the failure to plan for a post-Qaddafi Libya led to the "growth of ISIL" in North Africa.
However, “inaccurate intelligence” doesn’t fully describe the whole story. A closer examination of the run-up to the Libya debacle on September 11, 2012 leads to the irrefutable conclusion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knowingly armed radical Islamist terrorists in Libya.
False pretenses
The American public was told that the intervention in Libya was necessary to prevent a humanitarian crisis. But just as Hillary Clinton would describe the attack on our Benghazi diplomats as a spontaneous protest over a video, the military intervention that led inexorably to the debacle in Benghazi was sold on false pretenses: to prevent an imminent massacre of civilians engaged in a pro-democracy uprising.
Hillary Clinton described the 2011 Arab Spring rebellion in eastern Libya as a spontaneous pro-democracy uprising, but the Libyan connection to radical Islamic extremist groups was well known long before 2011. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/libyan-islamic-fighting-group-leaders)
The region where the rebellion began was a fervid recruiting ground (https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/al-qaidas-foreign-fighters-in-iraq-a-first-look-at-the-sinjar-records) for jihadis who killed American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The leaders of the “civilian uprising” that Hillary Clinton supported were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who had pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. They refused to take orders from non-Islamist commanders and assassinated the then leader of the rebel army, Abdel Fattah Younes.
The LIFG had been jailed under Qaddafi until hundreds of their members were released through a de-radicalization (https://www.ict.org.il/UserFiles/JWMG_De-Radicalization.pdf) program. That program was spearheaded by an exiled Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Libyan cleric based in Qatar named Ali al-Sallabi. The jihadis pledged they would never use violence against Gaddafi again.
But nearly as soon as the LIFG was released they took up arms against the Qaddafi regime.
Just as there was ample evidence that Hillary’s “pro-democracy protestors” were radical Islamists, there was no truth to the assertion a civilian massacre was imminent.
Libyan doctors told United Nations investigators that, of the more than 200 corpses in Tripoli’s morgues following fighting in late February 2011, only two were female. This indicates Qaddafi’s forces targeted male combatants and did not indiscriminately attack civilians. Nor had Qaddafi forces attacked civilians after retaking towns from the rebels in early February 2011.
While Muammar Qaddafi had a 40-year record of appalling human rights violations, his abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians. We restored full diplomatic relations with Qaddafi in 2007 and he was a key partner in counter-terrorism efforts.
LIFG and affiliated jihadis received at least 18 shipments of arms from Qatar with the blessing of the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reports (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204002304576627000922764650). The arms shipments were funneled through none other than Ali al-Sallabi, the Qatar cleric who brokered their release from prison.
The Islamists were able to pay for the weapons because Clinton had convinced Obama to grant full diplomatic recognition to the rebels, against the advice of State Department lawyers and the Secretary of Defense.
As the Washington Post reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html), this move “allowed the Libyans access to billions of dollars from Qaddafi’s frozen accounts.”
These arms shipments are significant for several reasons. It led to the indictment of American arms dealer Marc Turi (http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2015/06/27/exclusive-arming-benghazi.html) who was charged with selling weapons to Islamist militants in Libya through Qatar. The charges were dropped this week after Turi threatened to reveal emails showing Clinton had approved the sales.
Here’s where it gets very sticky for Secretary Clinton. The rebel leaders were on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization list. It is a direct violation of the law to provide material support for terrorist organizations under 18 U.S. Code 2339A & 2339B (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41333.pdf). Penalties for providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism include imprisonment from 15 years to life.
Nor is the Qatar connection insignificant. Qatar has donated anywhere from $1 to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and emails (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/01/hillary-clinton-emails-cherie-blair-lobbied-qatari-royal-family) reveal members of the Qatari royal family were privileged with back channel meetings with Secretary Clinton at the State Department. While whipping up support for the Libya military campaign, Clinton told Arab leaders, “it’s important to me personally,” the Washington Post reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillarys-war-how-conviction-replaced-skepticism-in-libya-intervention/2011/10/28/gIQAhGS7WM_story.html).
Hillary Clinton’s prosecution of foreign policy in Libya crossed several lines: she showed extremely bad judgment by ignoring military and intelligence officials, she let personal interests conflict with U.S. foreign policy and, most importantly, she may have broken the law -- again.
Any one of these transgressions should disqualify her from holding any kind of leadership role in our government, let alone president of the United States. The last one qualifies Hillary Clinton for government housing, though not in the White House.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/06/gen-mike-flynn-why-hillarys-record-on-libya-is-even-worse-than-think.html
Winehole23
10-07-2016, 05:46 PM
white racist black dick sucking homosexual fiascoI missed that one. Elaborate?
TheSanityAnnex
10-07-2016, 05:48 PM
I missed that one. Elaborate?
Milo
Winehole23
10-07-2016, 05:50 PM
Any one of these transgressions should disqualify her from holding any kind of leadership role in our government, let alone president of the United States. Unfortunately for the GOP, HRC is running against the worst candidate for president ever.
She'll beat him handily.
Winehole23
10-07-2016, 06:02 PM
MiloMilo Yiannopoulos. What fiasco?
Spurtacular
07-20-2019, 05:58 PM
Relative question.
She's a greedy human being but she also gives millions to charity.
Pay for play, you stupid fuck.
Pay for play, you stupid fuck.
Pay to play...in shitty rundown Haiti. :lol
Spurtacular
07-20-2019, 06:07 PM
Pay to play...in shitty rundown Haiti. :lol
She greased the right palms and then raped the Haitians.
Gawd, you're dumb!
spurraider21
07-20-2019, 06:10 PM
how derp and co see hillary
https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rs-221383-RedGun.jpg
Spurtacular
07-20-2019, 06:14 PM
how derp and co see hillary
https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rs-221383-RedGun.jpg
She wouldn't have to think twice if her payout was to her liking.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.