Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 9 of 46
Originally posted by Wishimay:
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?
I think it's the person who sees the Kochs as quaint, provincial, limited, backwater - in other words, minor and ignorable - compared to the international powers they've been playing with, and on whom they've staked their future.
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
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/dem
ocrats/
At present Clinton has 1662 pledged delegates while Sanders has 1373. It's now a 55/45 split. (It used to be 57/43.) While Sanders won't be able to overtake her, his relative popularity is going up, while Clinton's is going down. My impression is still correct - the democratic party is split nearly in half.
I HOPE Sanders's supporters don't vote for Clinton.
Trump is a chaotic unknown, but he's not beholden to the war-mongering neo-cons that the war-mongering Clinton is. This could be an existential decision. And I don't want Clinton at the helm, playing chicken with Russia, the way she did from her lowly position as Secretary of State.
I didn't start out thinking 'anybody but Clinton'. But I've moved in that direction as her true intentions (and arrogance, hubris and patently bad judgment) become more obvious.
Aside from her long-standing pattern of deliberately antagonizing Russia, here are some more of her stellar moments:
http://www.continuityinsights.com/news/2016/04/firms-paid-clinton-spee
ches-have-us-government-interests
It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.
The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government - lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hillary_clinton_is_lying_about_the_cri
minal_u_s_backed_coup_in_honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/
Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras. It should be as scandalous as Libya
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
Bump for kiki and Signy.
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Bump for kiki and Signy.Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
What, if anything, is factually wrong with the article?
you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.
So Sig, kiki, are you guys prepared to side with the predictions made by this article you keep going on about?
From the article:
"Hillary Clinton... would likely be the most reckless president in American history... Hillary’s arrogant self-confidence is likely to result in over-reach that ends in conflict between NATO and Russia. Considering the extraordinary destructive force of nuclear weapons, Hillary as president could mean the end of life on earth."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You ass. I haven't dealt with that article. Go suck your own cock.
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
Hillary Clinton will be the most-disliked nominee ever — except for Donald Trump
www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11565194/clinton-trump-unfavorable
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, let me just post this quote, which is still 100% true:
With all of the chaff that you threw into your post, it would be easy to overlook the fact that you had NOT A SINGLE THING TO SAY ABOUT THE FACTS LISTED IN THE ARTICLE.
^Kiki backing Signy's pushing of the article, and backing the supposed factuality of the article.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I LISTED the facts in the article. The last part of the article was opinion, which- if you're going to be honest about it (and you aren't) - I DIDN'T list.
Kiki backing me, while I back the facts of the article means that Kiki is backing this speculative end of this article when in fact she hasn't posted about it means that she's supposed to respond in some way about that paragraph?
That's just you being your usual prevaricative self.
In other words: troll.
So by the way, when will YOU respond to the facts of the article? Yanno, the hundreds of millions of dollars in speaking fees, the top 20 donors, the millions in foreign "donations" to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Scy State, the private email server, Stevens' role in Benghazi and HER role with Stevens (boss).
--------------
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:
I LISTED the facts in the article. The last part of the article was opinion
You have pushed this article repeatedly. It seems strange that you can support the arguments in the article so strongly and yet not agree with its conclusions. So are you ready to stand by the predictions made in this article you are repeatedly pushing?
Quote:
So by the way, when will YOU respond to the facts of the article?
No intention of even reading the article, beyond skim-reading it for its laughable predictions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You ass. I haven't dealt with that article. Go suck your own cock.
Heh - the mask slips, the troll is revealed.
And man oh man is it ugly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/dem
ocrats/
At present Clinton has 1662 pledged delegates while Sanders has 1373. It's now a 55/45 split. (It used to be 57/43.) While Sanders won't be able to overtake her, his relative popularity is going up, while Clinton's is going down. My impression is still correct - the democratic party is split nearly in half.
Still a 55/45 split after Indiana, with 1683/1362.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME