Hillary Clinton: just because she deserves her own thread
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 27, 2025 01:07
VIEWED: 114591
PAGE 16 of 46
Quote:
The Marines were just such wussies, right? Led by their pansy officers.
Nope, just much better behaved.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Mai got. Is this what passes for analysis? For thought? For reason and proportion? Is this the best reason to vote for her that Hillary's got going?
Just buy your Donald Trump hat and T-shirt already.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who I vote for is none of your concern. There's a reason why it's a secret ballot.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's interesting - despite being for Hillary, second hasn't posted here at all, and sgg's only posted one post which didn't say anything about her.
It's almost like they're afraid to discuss their candidate.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's interesting - despite being for Hillary, second hasn't posted here at all, and sgg's only posted one post which didn't say anything about her.
It's almost like they're afraid to discuss their candidate.
Are you kidding, look at SIG's opening post. Hillary Clinton, war monger.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Are you kidding, look at SIG's opening post. Hillary Clinton, war monger.
Well, you DID forget the video. I'll give you a hint - you don't even have to know how to read to watch it.
The ONE reply in her 'defense'?
Really!?
News Flash Everyone!
SGG
And what can be more factual than a video with a well-documented provenance? But Hillary's supporters seem to be unable to address the facts about her.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, instead of discussing Hillary by proxy by slamming Donald and pointedly ignoring Bernie, let's talk about Hillary specifically. We've already talked about her negatives - potential indictments, unconcern for the working and middle class and focus on big-money interests (those free trade agreements she was for before she was sort-of against; cozy big-bank relationships), famously insincere and hypocritical on the issues, running a campaign of identity politics; revolving-door wealth through the Clinton Foundation, State Department, and individually; corruptly in bed with the corrupt minions of the democratic party, a history of VERY BAD judgment on Libya, Ukraine and Syria - which she refuses to acknowledge and correct, and, my all-time favorite, neo-con war-hawk jonesing for a nuclear confrontation with Russia (probably by miscalculation, but hey, it's not like she has a history of serious miscalculations or anything! nope, if you listen to her everything's all good!).
How about we discuss her positives.
Anybody?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Third World War, the Key Is On “Start”
Originally appeared at Strogosekretno, translated by Borislav exclusively for SouthFront
On July the 8th to the 9th, Warsaw will hold a summit of NATO in the form of the North Atlantic Council. This will be the 25th jubilee summit of NATO to establish that which we were warning about for years – that the front line of the Third World War shifted to Eastern Europe, which, in the case of open hostilities will be destroyed completely. This is the goal of the US and NATO.
Currently, the activation is in Poland on the north, and Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey on the south.
The US and NATO flooded the Baltic and Black Sea with new bases and ships, and strengthened the front line on the ground – Baltic states – Poland – Ukraine – Romania – Bulgaria – Turkey.
The front is outlined. The key to the Third World War is set to “start”.
The nuclear escalation from the US to Europe continues with the transfer of the most advanced American attack plane, the F-22 Raptor, from the base in Tindal (Florida) to the base in Linkenholt (England) from where it will fly to other positions carrying the new US-nukes B 61 -12.
On May 12, in the base of Deveselu in Romania (40 km from the border with Bulgaria) the first 24 anti-rocket SM-3’s were activated as part of the American construction of a missile defense shield in Europe, against the strategic nuclear forces of Russia.
On May 13, the construction of the second element of this system began in the Polish base in Redzikovo.
In both places US officials, together with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced that the inauguration of a terrestrial AEGIS “increases the possibilities of protecting European allies against ballistic missiles outside the Euro-Atlantic area”. As is known, outside of this zone, only Russia has missiles.
The two ground missile bases will join the four AEGIS ships also armed with SM-3 missiles with vertical launchers sent from the US base in Rota, Spain, in the Mediterranean, the Black and Baltic seas, connected with the radar system in Turkey and command center in Germany.
On May 18, British General Alexander Sheriff, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in 2011-2014, said that “NATO should be preparing for war against Russia.”
On May 20, First Deputy Minister of Defense Robert York stated that Russia’s foreign policy is moving “towards confrontation”.
A few days ago, Ukraine and Turkey signed a military cooperation plan. Simultaneously, NATO reported that they will continue to defend Georgia, which could be another nuclear base on the border of Russia. Currently the US has over 800 bases worldwide.
Moscow’s response was lightning fast this time, unlike other times. On May 12 in connection with the opening of the base in Deveselu, in a meeting of the military-industrial complex, Putin stated that the United States can not deceive Russia with statements about the “defensive nature of the missile defense, which is actually there for the transfer of a part of US nuclear potential to the periphery, and that Russia will respond appropriately to emergent new threats to its security.” Immediately after this statement, the West became hysterical about the “inadequate reaction of Russia against the completely harmless actions of the pact.” For his part, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement that the NATO military fleet in the Black Sea will undermine regional security and force Russia to respond.
As we know Russia has sufficient resources to respond. That is the cynicism of the US and NATO. They exported their nuclear and missile potential to the periphery, which for us is not at all a periphery, knowing fully well that from a military point of view, all of these systems, missiles and other iron junk, are fiction which will be destroyed in seconds and that in the event of a US attack against Russia, the missile defense in Romania, Poland (possibly in Bulgaria) and Turkey will be transformed into nuclear ash.
In short, these countries will experience the life of countr
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hillary Clinton is lying about the criminal U.S.-backed coup in Honduras. It should be as scandalous as Libya
The U.S., under Clinton's leadership, helped overthrow Honduras' elected government. Today the country is in chaos
Ben Norton
Hillary Clinton may have foreign policy experience, but it is experience comprised of disaster after disaster.
In an interview with the New York Daily News, journalist Juan González dug a skeleton out of Clinton’s closet: He asked the presidential candidate about her role in the coup in Honduras.
In 2009, the Honduran military overthrew the democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya. The populist left-wing leader was woken up in the middle of the night, kidnapped and whisked away from his own country.
The international community immediately condemned the coup. The U.S. response was quite different. The Obama administration, and particularly the State Department under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, defended the coup.
Clinton, a committed hawk and firm believer in U.S. empire, played a uniquely hands-on role in the coup, just as she did in the equally disastrous war in Libya.
Emails released from Clinton’s time as the secretary of state show that some of her top aides urged her to dub the putsch a military coup and to cut off U.S. aid. She refused to do so.
Instead, the U.S. defied the Organization of American States and pushed for the world to recognize the coup government.
Zelaya, a left-wing leader who challenged the interests of Western corporations, was never reinstated. In 2013, current President Juan Orlando Hernández kicked off his reign with the slogan “Honduras is open for business.”
Today, Honduras has a violent, repressive and incredibly corrupt government. Renowned activists like environmentalist Berta Cáceres are murdered in cold blood, and with complete impunity. Just before her assassination, in fact, Cáceres singled out Hillary Clinton for her role the coup.
From the 2009 coup until 2012, the U.S.-backed Honduran regime killed more than 300 people.
Honduras soon earned a dubious honor: From 2012 to 2014, it was the murder capital of the world.
Activists say death squads are back — a chilling ghost from a bloody Cold War past.
Clinton has responded to this tragedy — described in a New York Times op-ed as “a mess made in the U.S.” — with whitewashing and sheer fabrication.
“I didn’t like the way it looked or the way they did it, but they had a very strong argument that they had followed the Constitution and the legal precedents,” Clinton said of the 2009 coup in her interview with the Daily News.
“I think we came out with a solution that did hold new elections, but it did not in any way address the structural, systemic problems in that society,” she added, expressing “concern that it’s not just government actions — drug gangs, traffickers of all kinds are preying on the people of Honduras.”
Experts disagree, and say Clinton is trying to rewrite history.
Clinton’s “emails show that early on in the 2009 coup against Manuel Zalaya, when there was a real chance of restoring the reformist president to his office, she was working with the most retrograde elements in Honduras to consolidate the putsch,” explained historian Greg Grandin, an expert on U.S. policy in Latin America.
“Let’s be clear,” Grandin told journalist Doug Henwood for his book “My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency,” “grassroots Democrats who support Clinton for president would be enormously sympathetic to the coalition that was trying to reverse the Honduras coup, comprised of environmentalists, LGBT activists, people trying to make the morning-after pill available, progressive religious folks, anti-mining and anti-biofuel peasants and legal reformers working to humanize Honduras’ lethal police-prison regime.”
“Clinton betrayed them, serving them up to Honduras’ crime-ridden oligarchy,” Grandin added.
“Hundreds of good people have since been murdered by the people Clinton sided with in late 20
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But enough about Hillary's foreign policy disasters.
Let's hear about something positive.
Anyone?
The floor is yours.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME