Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 5 of 46
I agree about her hawkishness.
I was looking at her speech more indirectly. It seems to me that she wants to continue provoking Russia, under the assumption that Russia won't respond directly militarily, especially not with nuclear weapons. She's going to presume on Putin having endless restraint, though he's already said he'll use nuclear weapons if threatened. She seems like she'll keep poking the Russian (nuclear) bear with no goal or stopping point.
So, where does her confidence in her omniscience come from? Is it because Libya went s well? Or Ukraine? How did Syria turn out?
Either Libya et al turned out exactly according to plan, or she's pathological.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yours is exactly the attitude that yawns when presented with official wrongdoing, and then freaks out when there is a major terrorist attack/ financial meltdown in this country. You don't think that there'll be consequences.
Also you and your compatriots are ethically-challenged.
Fuck you and the little red pony you rode in on. Seriously, you need to see a shrink a.s.a.p.
Also, you and your compatriots are ethically-challenged.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a question for all you Hillaryphiles.
You've thrown a lot of snark. You really dislike Bernie's age. You've discussed politics. Numbers. Trump.
But none of you have discussed Hillary's voting record, her warmongering record as Secy of State, her collusion with neocons, her support of prison corporations, her profitable relationship with international corporatists, support of 'free' trade agreements (all of them) or her stated policies like for example her support of Israel no matter what. You seem to think she''l sail past her ~55% unfavorability rating. You seem to think simply having a 'D' after her name is enough of a reason to vote for her.
But it's not enough for me. I'm not about scoring points for 'my' 'side'. I'm about what kind of economy we'll have, whether or not we'll be at war, and will it be with Russia, how much spying will we be subject to, and other vital questions.
So, assume I'm like a lot of other Bernie supporters who truly don't see a future with Hillary. I'm asking you to discuss Hillary's potential in the face of these questions, and to give me a reason to vote FOR her.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, here's the thing, and I said this to a bunch of folks at a barbecue yesterday - If any of you are going to be distraught, devastated, or depressed about Hillary getting elected President, you best start preparing to deal with it now.
Not going to be any of those, I'm going to be angry. Also, the way I'm preparing for her reign is by getting my "I told you so" posts ready ahead of time.
Sorry 1kiki, Putin can't be president. Really laughable how you worship him but can't stomach Hilary or any other western leader. Comrade
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a question for all you Hillaryphiles.
You've thrown a lot of snark. You really dislike Bernie's age. You've discussed politics. Numbers. Trump.
But none of you have discussed Hillary's voting record, her warmongering record as Secy of State, her collusion with neocons, her support of prison corporations, her profitable relationship with international corporatists, her support of 'free' trade agreements (all of them) or her stated policies, for example, her support of Israel no matter what. You seem to think she'll sail past her ~55% unfavorability rating. You seem to think simply having a 'D' after her name is enough of a reason to vote for her.
But it's not enough for me. I'm not about scoring points for 'my' 'side'. I'm about what kind of economy we'll have, whether or not we'll be at war, and will it be with Russia, how much spying will we be subject to, and other vital questions.
So, assume I'm like a lot of other Bernie supporters who truly don't see a future with Hillary. I'm asking you to discuss Hillary's potential in the face of these questions, and to give me a reason to vote FOR her.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Getting back to Hillary, this old definition applies to her:
The definition of an honest politician is one who, once they're bought, STAY bought.
By that definition, Hillary is not an honest politician.
I don't trust Hillary, but I find this fascinating.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-rejects-endorsement-koc
h-brother/story?id=38638619
Who turns down the kind of dough they come with?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, of course not. Just being a Democrat is never enough to deserve election. She's also a woman!
You seem to think simply having a 'D' after her name is enough of a reason to vote for her.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The dratted double!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The facts, from Paul Craig Roberts
Quote:
Has Hillary not accepted massive speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations? Were not Bill and Hillary Clinton paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000?
$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-pa
id-speeches/
That's not thousand, but MILLION
Quote:
As Presidential candidate, was she not paid $485,000 for one speech by DB and $675,000 by Goldman Sachs?
YES
$675 from Goldman Sachs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/the-new-york
-times-just-perfectly-explained-why-hillary-clintons-answers-on-her-paid-speeches-dont-work/
Hillary Clinton, Deutschebank connections ... and more! Please note that this is from that left-wing website Investopedia
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030415/hillary-clintons
-wall-street-ties.asp
Quote:
Is she not "under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison"?
YES
You don't really need me to provide links for this, do you?
Quote:
Did she not promulgate the destruction of Libya, and create "a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy"?
YES
"We came, we saw, he died [laughter]" infamously recorded by CBS
Quote:
Was she not charged with arranging "favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation" as Scy State?
YES
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/10/hillary-clintons-favor
s-to-foundation-donors-stret/?page=all
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hil
lary-clintons-state-department-1934187
Quote:
As Scy State, did she not bring in "neoconservative Victoria Nuland into the State Department"?
YES
http://www.thenation.com/article/opinionnation-hillary-clinton-state-d
epartment-hawk-or-humanitarian/
Quote:
Did Hillary not call President Vladimir Putin of Russia the “new Hitler”?
Well, not exactly! What she did was compare what Hitler did to what Putin did!
Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article?
I wouldn't put it past you "G"ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES, to have gone thru all of the points in Paul Craig Roberts'* article and to ignore all of the provable supportive facts that you found, and the additional muck that you dug up, simply to focus on the most trivial and least supported. Because ... Hillary! ... yanno?
* BTW, I still your your criticism of Paul Craig Roberts' name was a hoot! It was so funny, and so completely trivial (yanno, kind of like you) that I thought to reproduce it here. My god, I laughed my ass off over it.
Quote:
Geezus, the man likes his hyperbole. (even his name is hyperbolic as fas as names go) -"G"
Wait ... wha ...? You're attacking a man because of HIS NAME???
How about ... Martin Luther King? Gosh, with such a hyperbolic name, I guess he had nothing worthwhile to say!
James Earl Jones? Couldn't have been much of an actor!
George Walker Bush Sounds like some hick from Bumfuk Kentucky. Couldn't have gotten very far in his life!
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Gosh, with a name like that, I'll bet he was given to hyperbole too. He might have even said something exaggerated like We have nothing to fear but fear itself. What a twit [FDR must have been]!
You have plumbed the depths of "nothing rational to say", ONEOFTHETHREESTOOGES. You suck as a source of reasonable discussion, but you're sometimes a hoot! - SIGNY
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sanders and Clinton are arguing about soda taxes — Clinton for, as a way to raise money for good stuff while discouraging self-destructive behavior, Sanders against, because regressive. I have no illusions that rational argument will make much difference in the short run; we’re in that stage where anything Clinton supports is ipso facto evil. It’s like that point in 2008 when Obama supporters hated, hated the individual mandate that eventually became, as it had to, a central piece of Obamacare.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
. . . give me a reason to vote FOR her.
But anyway, it does seem worth pointing out that progressivity of taxes is not the most important thing, even when your concern is inequality. Notably, Nordic countries — very much including Denmark, which Sanders has praised as a model — rely heavily on the VAT, which is a regressive tax; but they use that revenue to pay for a strong social safety net, which is much more important.
If we add in the reality that heavy soda consumption really is destructive, with the consequences falling most heavily on low-income children, I’d say that Sanders is very much on the wrong side here. In fact, I very much doubt that he’d be raising the issue at all if he weren’t still hoping to pull off some kind of political Hail Mary pass.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/a-note-on-the-soda-tax-con
troversy/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME