Who Is Running In 2020?
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 01:47
VIEWED: 46005
PAGE 4 of 8
link to Rap's thread
Buh bye Beta. Robert Francis O’Rourke bids farewell.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=63348
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
re-posting link to RCP average of polls: 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I haven't kept track. Is the count now down to 11 running? Not including Hilliary.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, there are MANY people running for the democratic nomination! For example, Marianne Williamson is still in it even though she didn't make the fourth debate.
These were the people in the fourth debate: Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard.
'Beto' O'Rourke dropped out, Michael Bloomberg appears to be ready to step in.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ultimately, this is commentary on Bernie Sanders and his familiarity with economic policy. It turns out Sanders knows economics people who know economics things.
I was reading an economics book review, the book was authored by a Nomi Prins. Who IS this Nomi Prins, I wondered?
Nomi Prins is an American author, journalist, and public speaker who writes about Wall Street and the American economy.
Prins worked as a managing director at Goldman Sachs for 2 years and as a Senior Managing Director at Bear Stearns for 7 years, and was a senior strategist at Lehman Brothers and an analyst at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Prins is known for her book All the Presidents' Bankers in which she explores over a century of close relationships between the 19 Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt through Barack Obama and the key bankers of their day based on original archival documents. Prins also received recognition for her whistleblower book, It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bonuses, Bailouts, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street, for her views on the U.S. economy,[1][2][3] for her published spending figures on federal programs and initiatives related to the 2008 bailout,[4] and for her advocacy for the reinstatement of the Glass–Steagall Act and regulatory reform of the financial industry. She was also a member of Senator Bernie Sanders panel of top economic experts to advise on Federal Reserve reform.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomi_Prins
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics/iowa-monmouth-poll-novembe
r/index.html
Pete Buttigieg joins top tier of candidates in new Iowa poll
Buttigieg garnered 22% support, in the top tier with former Vice President Joe Biden (19%) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (18%). Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also made gains from Monmouth's August poll, but with 13%, fell outside of the top three status in Iowa.
Because their support falls within the margin of error, there is no clear leader in the Iowa poll, with Buttigieg, Warren, and Biden making up the top tier of candidates.
I guess all the big-money democratic donors who were pouring money into him paid off.
In the meantime, overall poll-averaged ratings are here:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Michael Bloomberg flew to Arkansas to file paperwork to become a presidential candidate in the state’s Democratic primary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/bloomberg-deval-patrick
-2020.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/just-weeks-decide-hillary-clinton-
claims-enormous-pressure-run-president
With Just Weeks To Decide, Hillary Clinton Claims 'Enormous Pressure' To Run For President
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My chances of voting for 'not the democrat' are rising every day.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Michael Bloomberg flew to Arkansas to file paperwork to become a presidential candidate in the state’s Democratic primary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/politics/bloomberg-deval-patrick
-2020.html
Yeah. I mentioned a few days back when I found out in one of the other threads.
My nickname for Bloomberg is "Trump's Rich White Male Reflection With a Soft (D)"
His campaign was sunk before it even left the harbor.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not that I was in danger of voting D from POTUS, but I feel for ya.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
My chances of voting for 'not the democrat' are rising every day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/former-mass-governor-deval-patrick
-launches-2020-bid-be-dems-new-centrist-champion
Ending days of media speculation, former Mass Governor Deval Patrick said Thursday that he will run for president, the first of what could become a wave of new candidates now that the departures of Beto O'Rourke and several bottom-tier candidates have freed up some space in what is still an extremely crowded primary.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lol Deval.
His parents named him "God-like".
That is priceless.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's like they're in search of a Babe Ruth, someone who for SURE can hit a home run, and their confidence in the existing candidates is very low.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We need to start adding back to the list again? I thought we should just be whittling it down. Guess somebody should list whatever the current roster is, periodically.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nah... It's going to be a complete do-over. Like Terminator.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are a lot of people who're running! So, I did a rough scrub of everyone else (there's probably a few mistakes) but good grief! Who ISN'T running?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
We need to start adding back to the list again? I thought we should just be whittling it down. Guess somebody should list whatever the current roster is, periodically.
I saw JO there as an independent, btw, as I was going thru the list for D's. And did you know there's an 'Ace Party'? - whatever that is. anyway. I'm not sure how I'd curate the 'D' list.
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2020_presidential_candidate
s
Aaron Fraser Democratic Party
Adrian J. Cox Democratic Party
Adrienne Howard Democratic Party
Akiva Leffert Democratic Party
Alan Howe Democratic Party
Alvin Harrison Democratic Party
Ami Horowitz Democratic Party
Amy Klobuchar Democratic Party
Andre Phillip Green Democratic Party
Andrew Yang Democratic Party
Anita Belle Democratic Party
Anthony DeWayne Hill Democratic Party
Anthony M. Piazza Democratic Party
Arnold Matthew Jones Democratic Party
Ben Gleiberman Democratic Party
Benjamin Peter Kozlowski Democratic Party
Bernard Korn Democratic Party
Bernie Sanders Democratic Party
Beto O'Rourke Democratic Party
Bill de Blasio Democratic Party
Bill Haas Democratic Party
Blaine Russell Lechko Democratic Party
Brandon W. Acker Democratic Party
Brian Moore Democratic Party
Brian Newnan Democratic Party
Burak Agun Democratic Party
Caleb Ganzer Democratic Party
Caleb Gaul Democratic Party
Carrie Bittay-D'intino Democratic Party
Carroll Montague Price Jr. Democratic Party
Catherine Anne Forsman Democratic Party
Caylend Anthony Edward Childs Democratic Party
Cecilia Okugo Democratic Party
Charles Landon Hodges Democratic Party
Charleta McInnis Democratic Party
Christian Alexander Arzu Democratic Party
Christina Gerasimos Billings-Elias Democratic Party
Christopher Calderon Democratic Party
Christopher Lee Langston Democratic Party
Christopher Paul Rella Democratic Party
Christopher Randall Dolin Democratic Party
Clara Miller Democratic Party
Claude Reed Democratic Party
Cline Russell Democratic Party
Cohen Eden Solutionator Democratic Party
Contessa Courtney Anderson Democratic Party
Cory Booker Democratic Party
Damien Garrett Chiodo Democratic Party
Daniel Baker Democratic Party
Daniel Blain Democratic Party
Daniel M. Holloway Democratic Party
Daniel Segal Democratic Party
Daphne Denise Bradford Democratic Party
Darryl P. Hendricks Democratic Party
David John Thistle Democratic Party
De'Sean Raynard Hawthorne Democratic Party
De'Sean Sunlight M. Hawthorne Democratic Party
Deandre Lamont Solomon Democratic Party
DeJawon Joseph Democratic Party
Dennis Jeffrey Nusbaum Democratic Party
Deon Jenkins Democratic Party
Deval Patrick Democratic Party
Donald Eugene Lowe Democratic Party
Donald Gillen Democratic Party
Donna Jean Alston Democratic Party
Doris Brown Democratic Party
Doug Shreffler Democratic Party
Douglas Walter Sabbag Democratic Party
Dustin Ryan Shewbert Sr. Democratic Party
Dwayne Varnado Democratic Party
Edie Bukewihge Democratic Party
Elizabeth Black Democratic Party
Elizabeth Warren Democratic Party
Emily Rosas Democratic Party
Eric Swalwell Democratic Party
Erik Leckner Democratic Party
Erlyndon Joseph "Joey" Lo Democratic Party
Esther Caroline Aebi Democratic Party
Evan Bernard Boroch Democratic Party
Evan Eggerud-Bozorth Democratic Party
Frank Walter Dworak Democratic Party
Franz Aliquo Democratic Party
Fred Wiand Democratic Party
Frederic Schultz Democratic Party
Frederick Nettleton Democratic Party
Gary C. Turner Democratic Party
Gary James Schwigen Democratic Party
Gary Smith Democratic Party
George Clinton Brown Democratic Party
George Wayne Dietrich II Democratic Party
Gerasimos Manolatod Democratic Party
Gidget Groendyk Democr
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
William Hope?
All we need is Theodore Change for VP and we got ourselves a winning ticket.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I didn't think you were a fan of the Bill & Ted franchise.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
William Hope?
All we need is Theodore Change for VP and we got ourselves a winning ticket.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Bill & Ted's Hope and Change.
Nadia Smalley running twice?
2 different Joe Holts running?
2 different De'Sean Hawthornes running?
That list also includes Beto, who already dropped out. I had meant a list of current runners.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry, JSF. This was the most complete list I could find.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I didn't think you were a fan of the Bill & Ted franchise.
Bill & Ted's Hope and Change.
Nadia Smalley running twice?
2 different Joe Holts running?
2 different De'Sean Hawthornes running?
That list also includes Beto, who already dropped out. I had meant a list of current runners.
There are so many stories going around - Hillary thinks ... Bloomberg intends to file ... Patrick will run ... Williamson still is ... but these people may never make it even as far as the debate stage. So it puts them in an undefined status as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, there are a LOT of people running, so imo it's a matter of picking and choosing who one thinks is a serious candidate worth mentioning.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I didn't think you were a fan of the Bill & Ted franchise.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
William Hope?
All we need is Theodore Change for VP and we got ourselves a winning ticket.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Bill & Ted's Hope and Change.
Nice. Wasn't sure if anybody was going to pick that up.
Come on man. I was a kid back then. I loved the first one. Wasn't annoyed by the second one. Not holding out hope that the third one isn't changed too much to be a regrettable watch, but I'm sure I'll see it at some point.
I haven't heard anything about it that turns me off yet, but than again I haven't heard much about it at all. Prolly better that way. Kind of interested to see Alex on camera again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway - there were some ringers in the list that I noticed as I was cutting it down. Biggus Dickus was running for the Communist Party. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I will not have my fwiends widiculed by the common soldiewy!
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/deval-patri
ck-2020-election-democrat-candidate-912661/
Deval Patrick’s Candidacy Is Another Chapter in the Democrats’ 2020 Clown Car Disaster
The entrance of the former Massachusetts governor into the presidential race is more proof the party has no clue where the votes are
Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts and newly-resigned executive of Mitt Romney’s private equity firm Bain Capital, has entered the Democratic primary race, which is shaping up to be the biggest ensemble-disaster comedy since Cannonball Run.
Patrick’s entry comes after news that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg put himself on the ballot in Alabama and Arkansas. It also comes amid word from Hillary Clinton that “many, many, many” people are urging her to run in 2020, and whispers in the press that an “anxious Democratic establishment” has been praying for alternate candidacies in a year that had already seen an astonishing 26 different people jump in the race.
A piece in the New York Times a few weeks ago suggested Democratic insiders, going through a “Maalox moment” as they contemplated possible failure in next year’s general election season, were fantasizing about “white knight” campaigns by Clinton, Patrick, John Kerry, Michelle Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder (!), or Ohio’s Sherrod Brown.
The story described “concern” that “party elites” have about the existing field:
With doubts rising about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s ability to finance a multistate primary campaign, persistent questions about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s viability in the general election and skepticism that Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, Ind., can broaden his appeal beyond white voters, Democratic leaders are engaging in a familiar rite: fretting about who is in the race…
LOL at the non-mention of Bernie Sanders in that passage. If Bernie wins the nomination, “Buttigieg Finishes Encouraging Fourth” is going to be your A1 Times headline.
Patrick in announcing voiced a similar set of “concerns,” basically saying he’s proud to enter this deep, richly experienced field that sucks just enough to force his emergency entrance: “I admire and respect the candidates in the Democratic field. They bring a richness of ideas and experience and a depth of character that makes me proud to be a Democrat. But if the character of the candidates is an issue in every election, this time is about the character of the country.”
The Times said Patrick’s policy prescriptions place him “closer to the ideological center than to the left.” In another story about Patrick and Bloomberg, the Times explained that both men “believe there is room in the race for a more dynamic candidate who is closer to the political middle than Mr. Biden’s two most prominent challengers, Ms. Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders.”
People like Bloomberg and Patrick seem to believe in the existence of a massive electoral “middle” that wants 15-point plans and meritocratic slogans instead of action. As befits brilliant political strategists, they also seem hyper-concerned about the feelings of the country’s least numerous demographic, the extremely rich. A consistent theme is fear (often described in papers like the Times as “concern”) that the rhetoric of Warren and Sanders might unduly upset wealthy folk.
“I don’t think that wealth is the problem. I think greed is the problem,” Patrick told CBS This Morning. He added that “taxes should go up on the most prosperous and the most fortunate,” but “not as a penalty.”
What does that mean? Should we impose higher taxes on the rich but include a note from the IRS saying, “It’s not because we don’t love you”?
Along with an alarmingly high number of press figures, politicians like Patrick seem to be trapped in an “electability” concept that hasn’t made sense since the Reagan-Bush years. Outside of a few spots on the Upper East Side and in Georgetown and L.A., the “center” has been gone a long time.
From Donald Trump to Sanders to Warren, th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What was the 3rd post in this thread?
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I've only heard Hilliary as a joke.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've heard Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Have you not heard that too?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
But I'll take your word.
What will be Hilliary's slogan? Impeach Trump!
What will be Trump's slogan? Impeach Hilliary!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How'd I miss your post??!!!
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I will not have my fwiends widiculed by the common soldiewy!
Do Right, Be Right. :)
HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ... !
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These are interesting graphics ...
Though I suspect the shift in topics has a lot to do with the questions asked. 'He who asks the questions gets to determine the answers.'
I was GOING to do a time-analysis of the third debate but it would have taken too much .. well ... time. But Bloomberg did do a time analysis of yesterday's fourth debate.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bidens-black-vote-blunder-and-tuls
i-vs-kamala-20-key-highlights-last-nights-democratic
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oooh. Did you watch it? How did Tulsi do?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
These are interesting graphics ...
Though I suspect the shift in topics has a lot to do with the questions asked. 'He who asks the questions gets to determine the answers.'
I was GOING to do a time-analysis of the third debate but it would have taken too much .. well ... time. But Bloomberg did do a time analysis of yesterday's fourth debate.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bidens-black-vote-blunder-and-tuls
i-vs-kamala-20-key-highlights-last-nights-democratic
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruh Roh...
Latest Emerson Poll shows turning tide?
Trump vs. Biden - +2 Trump
Trump vs. Warren - Tie
Trump vs. Sanders - +1 Sanders
Trump vs. Buttigieg - +4 Trump
Previous Emerson poll from 10/18 - 10/21
Trump vs. Biden - +2 Biden
Trump vs. Warren - +2 Warren
Trump vs. Sanders - +2 Sanders
Trump vs. Buttigieg - +2 Trump
Emerson hasn't had a single poll where it showed Biden losing to Trump and it has had Biden winning by as much as +10.
It's always been pretty wishy-washy on Warren, bouncing around from +4 Trump to +5 Warren.
The only time it had Trump beating Bernie ever was right after his heart attack with Trump at +2. It has shown Biden winning by as much as +10.
There hasn't been much polling history for a match-up against Buttigieg until recently, but Emerson did have more than anybody else. More often than not it shows a Trump win or a tie, but has had Buttigieg up as much as +4 as well.
These general election polls are as laughable as they come and don't even come close to reality, but Emerson seems to be one that at least tries to pretend to operate this side of Narnia.
But it is funny to watch them start toning down their lies in light of a completely failed impeachment sham farce that everybody knew was a failed sham farce the second it was announced.
Yup. Better start hedging those bets a year out from the real deal. You can't possibly expect to lie to the people this big during another major election cycle and expect that at least some of you don't end up having your doors shuttered. I'd recommend watching videos of how you destroyed the will of millions of people and systematically broke their brains down with your relentless doubling down on more lies the three years following and ask yourself if you believe that this is seriously a good plan for your futures.
Thank you Nancy. :)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I recorded it and am listening to it in pieces.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Oooh. Did you watch it? How did Tulsi do?
MSNBC did a crap job with their scheduling ... they had a pre-debate listing and a post-debate listing so I had to record everything since there was no debate-debate listing. So I had to watch beginnings and ends of the recordings to figure out which to keep. Anyway - it's how I got to see a Tulsi-Pete interchange where Pete interrupted with a really cheap shot. Some of the opinions I've read is that he came across in the debate as small-minded and mean. In that interchange, he sure did. Tulsi did a subtle eye-roll but otherwise kept her composure, continued on, and made her points ... which was that, to avoid endless wars, one must sit down and talk with one's adversaries.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
... to avoid endless wars, one must sit down and talk with one's adversaries.
That's boldly naive. We should have talked with Bin Laden... um... Poroshenko should have talked to Putin... wait, he did. Yemen should have talked with SA... Chamberlin should have talked with Hitler... yep, that works so well. Simple people think the world is simple - whaddya gonna do?
At least Newt Gingrich thinks Gabbard has the most important quality to become the next president: "She has a great smile," said Gingrich.
https://nws.mx/34bz5r3
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Captain prefers silencing and censoring any dissenting speech.
There are plenty of examples in history where that worked out well in the end.
/sarcasm
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I recorded it and am listening to it in pieces.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Oooh. Did you watch it? How did Tulsi do?
MSNBC did a crap job with their scheduling ... they had a pre-debate listing and a post-debate listing so I had to record everything since there was no debate-debate listing. So I had to watch beginnings and ends of the recordings to figure out which to keep. Anyway - it's how I got to see a Tulsi-Pete interchange where Pete interrupted with a really cheap shot. Some of the opinions I've read is that he came across in the debate as small-minded and mean. In that interchange, he sure did. Tulsi did a subtle eye-roll but otherwise kept her composure, continued on, and made her points ...
She should know better. But maybe this is why she is a Democrat.
which was that, to avoid endless wars, one must
carry a big stick when they
Quote:
sit down and talk with one's adversaries.
FIFY
Whittling our Stick down to a twig in the Teens did well to bring on The War To End All Wars.
Doing the same in the 30's convinced Imperial Japan that they needed to attack Pearl Harbor (yes, we were talking with them, while carrying our twig).
Otherwise, your view is that Tulsi came out well?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Both we and Russia have big sticks - nuclear arsenals that individually can destroy the entire planet multiple times over.
I'm not sure why either MUSHY or JSF feels so nervous about negotiating with Russia. Do you think that big stick is too limp?
And historically - should Reagan not have negotiated with Gorbachev? Should Nixon not have met with Mao? Should Roosevelt not have met with Stalin?
I think the reason you forget these examples is specifically because they did NOT lead to war. Instead, they deescalated tensions. And that's a good thing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
Kamala Harris. What a joke. Even brain damaged Biden was able to play 4D Chess on her virtue signalling, fake-black ass...
Quote:
Joe Biden Makes a Gaffe that Isn’t
If you took a break from the impeachment circus, you might have tuned into the Democratic debates on Wednesday. The following morning, Lawrence O’Donnell jumped on former Vice President Joe Biden’s “gaffe” in claiming he had the endorsement of America’s only African American woman senator. Senator Kamala Harris retorted, “That’s not true . . . the other one is here.”
Harris does have dark skin, as O’Donnell noted. But her claim to being “African American,” the term Biden actually used, is controversial. Harris’s parents were born in Jamaica and India. You don’t voluntarily immigrate into a community that is supposedly segregated, and then claim the struggles of people who have been here chained to chattel slavery for multiple generations. Biden’s “gaffe” may have been a subtle reminder of that to his base of support within the African American community.
Warren should choose her as her running mate. They've got a lot in common, and have spent their entire professional lives lying about their heritage to move up in the world. I'm sure that will go over really well when Trump rips them a new asshole on the issue in the general debate.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Fake Blacks.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol
Kamala Harris. What a joke. Even brain damaged Biden was able to play 4D Chess on her virtue signalling, fake-black ass...Quote:
Joe Biden Makes a Gaffe that Isn’t
If you took a break from the impeachment circus, you might have tuned into the Democratic debates on Wednesday. The following morning, Lawrence O’Donnell jumped on former Vice President Joe Biden’s “gaffe” in claiming he had the endorsement of America’s only African American woman senator. Senator Kamala Harris retorted, “That’s not true . . . the other one is here.”
Harris does have dark skin, as O’Donnell noted. But her claim to being “African American,” the term Biden actually used, is controversial. Harris’s parents were born in Jamaica and India. You don’t voluntarily immigrate into a community that is supposedly segregated, and then claim the struggles of people who have been here chained to chattel slavery for multiple generations. Biden’s “gaffe” may have been a subtle reminder of that to his base of support within the African American community.
Warren should choose her as her running mate. They've got a lot in common, and have spent their entire professional lives lying about their heritage to move up in the world. I'm sure that will go over really well when Trump rips them a new asshole on the issue in the general debate.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Who was that Fake Black girl from, like, Seattle? Rachel Dolezal? When is she running for Congress? (Of course, as a Democrat, the Party of Fake).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What are you talking about? Democraps have whined that Russia is our friend for like 70 years now. What negotiating are you chattering about?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Both we and Russia have big sticks - nuclear arsenals that individually can destroy the entire planet multiple times over.
I'm not sure why either MUSHY or JSF feels so nervous about negotiating with Russia. Do you think that big stick is too limp?
Quote:In the late 80's? When Reagan had the biggest stick since WWII? This sounds like you are arguing my point, but your words are reversed.
And historically - should Reagan not have negotiated with Gorbachev?
Quote:In the early 70's? When Nixon had the biggest stick since WWII, mucking around in Mao's backyard? This sounds like you are arguing my point, but your words are reversed.
Should Nixon not have met with Mao?
Quote:In the 40's, like Yalta? When Roosevelt had the biggest stick in the world? This sounds like you are arguing my point, but your words are reversed.
Should Roosevelt not have met with Stalin?
Quote:This sounds like you are arguing my point, but your words are reversed.
I think the reason you forget these examples is specifically because they did NOT lead to war. Instead, they deescalated tensions. And that's a good thing.
Ar you forgetting your words? Or forgetting history?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Overall, I think I misunderstood your post JSF. "Whittling our Stick down to a twig in the Teens did well to bring on The War To End All Wars.
Doing the same in the 30's convinced Imperial Japan that they needed to attack Pearl Harbor (yes, we were talking with them, while carrying our twig)." I thought it meant you were NOT for negotiating. But now I think your point was that you are for negotiating, as long as you can back it up, so the opposing party takes you seriously.
Do I have it right?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bombshell-admission-obama-would-sp
eak-stop-bernie-sanders-if-he-gets-close-nomination
“Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him.”
requires verification
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ONE PERSON'S OPINION ON OBAMA'S INFLUENCE ON THE DNC PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Quote:Did you know tht Ukraaine was Hillary's biggest single foreign donor?
Obama Takes the Field and Hillary May be Around the Corner
Stephen J. Sniegoski
In November, Barack Obama, who had avoided commenting on the Democratic presidential primary, came out forcefully in opposition to the extreme positions taken by some leading progressive contenders, positions that could cause the Democrats to be beaten by Trump in the 2020 election. Obama was a very popular president among Democrats, and what he has to say carries considerable weight with them. While this may not be his intent, Obama’s position could open the field for Hillary Clinton to enter the fray and quite possibly become the Democrats’ nominee, given the lackluster performance of leading “moderate” Joe Biden, whose weaknesses have been brought out by the mainstream media, despite their animosity toward Trump.
Now many in the Democratic Party leadership, as well as wealthy Democratic donors
Quote:A President does not control domestic policy, that's up to Congress. A President's metier is (a) the military, as Commander in Chief (b) foreign policy such as trade policy and (c) regulations, as Executive. I think the discussion - and most DNC Presidential candidates - are focused in the wrong direction.
, have been concerned for some time about the radical nature of some of the economic policies advocated by the leading progressive Democratic contenders. They fear that instead of the 2020 election revolving around Trump with his low approval ratings, and very likely his impeachment, which would seem to be a slam-dunk victory for Democrats, it would focus on those radical economic proposals. Many voters are skeptical about how free college for all, free health care for all, high-paying jobs in “green energy”—after greatly reducing the use of fossil fuels, free childcare for all, just to name some of the “free” things that have been promised, would really work. Instead of raising taxes on the middle class, most of these free things would purportedly be paid for by the super-wealthy, which would exclude mere millionaires such as Bernie Sanders (estimated wealth $2 million) and Elizabeth Warren (estimated wealth $12 million) who are the leading progressive contenders.
Quote:Then Obama would not support either Warren or Sanders, even if they managed to win the primary?
Obama began stressing his concern about the danger of radicalism in an October speech at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. And he did this not by dealing with presidential candidates but with youth who think they can immediately change society. “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised, and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly,” Obama lectured. “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.”
It was at a gathering of Democratic donors in Washington, D.C., in November that Obama cautioned Democratic candidates not to go too far to the left since that would antagonize many voters who would otherwise support the Democratic candidate. “Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality,” Obama asserted. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.” Although Obama did not specify particular Democratic candidates, his warning was widely interpreted as being directed at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Quote:
Currently, the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, according to national polls, is Joe Biden, who is considered a moderate. But Biden has a number of problems. He continues to make gaffes while speaking, and during his long career in the Senate took positions that are antithetical to the Democratic Party of today. Moreover, he lacks the charisma to attract large crowds to his events. Thus, it is questionable that he has thNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you might have it closer now. I thought you were on your soapbox again, but you misunderstanding me makes more sense.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Overall, I think I misunderstood your post JSF. "Whittling our Stick down to a twig in the Teens did well to bring on The War To End All Wars.
Doing the same in the 30's convinced Imperial Japan that they needed to attack Pearl Harbor (yes, we were talking with them, while carrying our twig)." I thought it meant you were NOT for negotiating. But now I think your point was that you are for negotiating, as long as you can back it up, so the opposing party takes you seriously.
Do I have it right?
Liberal negotiating creates wars, ala Neville Chamberlain. Cutting our Defense budget tells others who are not like us that we are vulnerable to attack. Not every other nation or leader is as peace-loving as America. When Marines stormed the shores of France in WWI and WWII, we did not do so with the intent of capturing the land and enslaving it, we did so with the clear and express intent of liberating it from occupation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Biden is dropping, but that appears to be a normal part of the up/down cycle between 26-30% as two wildly disparate polls post their results over time. Warren peaked early October at around 27%, but has been dropping pretty steadily since them, and is now at about 16%. Sanders has been slowly climbing since his low point early July at about 14%, and is now about 18%. Buttigieg peaked early May at about 8%, but then he hit 'the troubles' with AA's in his home town. Apparently that has since washed away over time - and factoring in his mega-donor support and extreme media campaign - appears to have pushed him from a low of about 4.5% in early September to a high now of 11%.
Biden's core support hasn't yet dropped below about 25%; Sanders' core support hasn't dropped below about 14%; Warren's core support is being tested; and Buttigieg's core support appears to be roughly 4.5%.
Should Buttigieg be the nominee, I wonder what Conservative Christians will have to say about that. I don't remember the Apocalypse very well, but I wonder if he would be painted as the anti-Christ - because, yanno, gay.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of the current field of anybody with any level of national overall support - Joe 'gaffe master' Biden, and Pete 'Mayor' Buttigieg.
]Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think the questions are: who does Wall Street and the globalists support? Who does the Deep State support? If Warren and Sanders are serious about their proposed reforms, Wall Street would be absolutely against them. Anyone running an antiwar campaign, like Tulsi Gabbard, will be smeared to the utmost by the deep state and its compliant media as a Russian asset, as is currently happening with Gabbard, so nobody else will set foot in that arena. So who does that leave?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are two polls of a Bloomberg v Trump matchup (one referenced by RealClear Politics, and the other a Morning Consult/Politico poll not linked in the CNBC article) that puts Bloomberg ahead 6 points. But according to the article "Bloomberg has the highest unfavorability rating, 25%, of any Democratic candidate among primary voters." Granted, his unfavorability ratings aren't quite as bad as Hillary's were.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_ele
ction_trump_vs_bloomberg-6797.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/10/bloomberg-leads-trump-by-6-points-in-2
020-election-matchup-poll.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The DNC is doing everything it can to squash Gabbard. Yes, the party of peace, justice, and human unity, hates anyone who's anti-war.
Gabbard Accuses ‘Arbitrary’ DNC of Rejecting Poll From Accepted Pollster
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is refusing to accept a poll that shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) at 6 percent, according to the Democratic presidential contender.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/gabbard-accuses-arbitrary-dnc-of-rejecti
ng-poll-from-accepted-pollster_3161373.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LATimes: California voters wanted Kamala Harris to drop out of presidential race, poll found
More Coverage
Harris suspends 2020 bid, marking a lackluster end to an initially soaring run
Salon: Kamala Didn't Deserve This
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://summit.news/2019/12/03/hillary-clinton-still-refuses-to-rule-o
ut-running-for-president/
Hillary Clinton Still Refuses to Rule Out Running For President
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Posted just because I thought the headline and strapline were funny ...
Democrats Spin Kamala Harris Tap-Out Into Racial Injustice Story
'Black women are held to a different standard...' (by Democrats?)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh yeah, "people" (Democrats?) just aren't ready for a black woman President?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Posted just because I thought the headline and strapline were funny ...
Democrats Spin Kamala Harris Tap-Out Into Racial Injustice Story
'Black women are held to a different standard...' (by Democrats?)
Don't flatter yourself, Kamala baby. I don't like you because you're a spineless establishment droid!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
I'd nuke a BILLION PEOPLE if it would save the other 7 billion from living under Putin. Hell, I might go all the way to the last 100 people on Earth to keep this planet from being under fascist rule.- WISHIMAY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL, yeah.
Black women ARE held to a different standard.
If she'd been in office the last three years, the Legacy Media would have blowing her every day and twice on Sunday.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-06/pete-buttigieg-has-a
-nondisclosure-agreement
A secretive corporation won’t let Pete Buttigieg talk about three years of his life
By Matt PearceStaff Writer
Dec. 6, 2019
4 AM
By presidential campaign standards, Pete Buttigieg has been pretty much an open book — but with one chapter missing.
The Democratic South Bend, Ind., mayor has let reporters sit on his campaign bus and pelt him with questions until they get tired; he’s spoken at length about his personal experience coming out as a gay man; he’s shown a willingness to face some of his most withering critics.
But Buttigieg won’t talk about his three years of work for McKinsey & Co., the famous, secretive — and lately, notorious — management consulting firm.
Almost a decade after leaving McKinsey in 2010, Buttigieg is still bound by a nondisclosure agreement that his campaign says McKinsey is refusing to lift, leaving a large hole in the 37-year-old’s otherwise closely examined life story.
“We have asked McKinsey to be released from the NDA in full, and we have asked McKinsey if we can release a list of clients,” campaign spokesman Sean Savett said. “To date, they have not agreed. We will continue to ask and are eager to share more about his work as soon as we are able.”
Buttigieg told NBC News on Thursday: “Look, I keep my word and I signed a legal document. When you serve a client … you’re going to respect their confidentiality. But I do think it would be a good thing for that to be released.”
Buttigieg’s legal vow of secrecy — coupled with McKinsey’s silence when asked for comment — is an increasingly common collision of the growing use of nondisclosure agreements in the private sector with the public’s expectation of transparency from candidates seeking higher office.
“We’re seeing it become an issue, and it’s likely going to become more of an issue over time,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a liberal advocacy group that pushes to limit corporate influence in politics. “Buttigieg’s professional career doesn’t go back that far, and this is an important part of it, and absolutely American people have a right to know what he was doing and what was going on if he’s going to be a serious contender for the presidency.”
In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was bound by a confidentiality agreement from disclosing the underlying investors of Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded that was notorious for cutting costs.
Bain’s work has come up again in this election after fellow Bain alumnus and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick announced his entry into the Democratic race. His campaign did not respond to inquiries about whether he had signed a similar agreement.
The most notorious use of a confidentiality agreement came in the closing days of the 2016 presidential election. Then-candidate Donald Trump allegedly directed his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay off porn performer Stormy Daniels in return for a nondisclosure agreement over her allegations of an affair with Trump in 2006.
The payoff was later deemed an illegal unreported campaign contribution.
In Buttigieg’s case, corporate secrecy is likely to win out, legal experts say.
“There is a legitimate business motive for enforcing an NDA here,” said Wilson Huhn, a professor of law at Duquesne University who has been critical of these secret contracts. “But yeah, when the person’s running for president, I would certainly stand with the journalists and with the citizenry and say we really have to have all of the relevant information about somebody.”
Nondisclosure agreements have come under growing criticism in recent years for their use in concealing sexual-abuse settlements. But imposing them to conceal proprietary information from competitors, as McKinsey does, has largely avoided criticism.
A politician running for president who cannot speak about three years of his life is an exception.
“That’s the problem with nondisclosure agreements,” said Ma
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A presidential rival, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, challenged Buttigieg on Thursday night to release the names of his McKinsey clients...
Because, of course she did.
Quote:
, telling reporters, “I think voters want to know about possible conflicts of interest.”
And so the twitter mob can dox and harass them.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder if this will get any airplay?
Biden Blames Staff For Not Flagging Burisma Concerns; Says We Should Just Trust Hunter And Not Investigate
Joe Biden has thrown his former staff under the bus for not informing him of the multiple ( https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/burisma-consultant-contacted-st
ate-department-over-hunter-biden-concerns-emails-93981) red flags raised ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/diplomat-tells-investigators-h
e-raised-alarms-in-2015-about-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-but-was-rebuffed/2019/10/18/81e35be9-4f5a-4048-8520-0baabb18ab63_story.html) over his son Hunter's employment with Ukraine's Burisma. He also claims he had no idea Hunter was hired to sit on the gas company's board of directors until after the fact.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's not a new lie. He was lying that he wasn't aware of his son's position when the news first broke.
Yup. Sure thing. Some random dude that has no credentials to qualify him for the position gets a job out of the country, in a country that the US has had secret dealings with for what appears to be at least a decade. Some random dude who has a kid with a crack whore. Some random dude who happens to be the Ex Vice President's son. Some random dude who's father happened to be VP while he got the job. Some random dude who's father happened to be giving away a billion US taxpayer dollars to the country where his son just happened to be working at without his father's knowledge.
To anybody who believes any of that, I've got another little dose of reality for you.
Epstein didn't kill himself either.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
From today's LATimes: Pelosi, Democratic leaders see revised NAFTA as model for future trade deals
Of course they do. The Dims are pro-big business. Their pretext to care about the little person is extremely transparent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've watched some parts of the debates but listened to them all - sometimes twice.
My conclusion about debates in general are that they're a good place to lose votes, but not a good place to gain them. For example, while I don't like her policies, Klobuchar has always done extremely well, imo. She sticks to her points, and she presents them clearly, in a very 'down to earth' kind of way. She does to some extent what I thought Inslee did extraordinarily, which is to get out of the way of the message. But it doesn't win her points in the polls. OTOH Gabbard's take-down of Harris was the beginning of the end for Harris. (Well, that and Harris was an obvious opportunistic hypocrite whose motto seemed to be 'black AND female? - I got it all! How can I lose?'.)
But how Biden is still running at the top of the RealClear average of polls is still a mystery to me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With Quid Pro Quo Joe fumbling, I saw Doomberg entered.
What Party is Doomberg with this week? Is he still a Republican? Is he a Democrap again? A Socialist again? Communist? Interdependant? He-man Woman-haters Social Club?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
Hillary Clinton at every campaign debat
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On CNN and PBS 8PM Eastern or 5PM Pacific (no time delay)
Seven candidates qualified for the debate:
Joe Biden
Pete Buttigieg
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Tom Steyer
Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang
Former presidential candidate Kamala Harris also qualified for the debate before ending her presidential campaign.
This page provides an overview of the hosts, venue, moderators, qualifications, and participants.
HIGHLIGHTS
Date: December 19, 2019
Location: Los Angeles, California
Venue: Loyola Marymount University
Partners: PBS NewsHour and Politico
Moderators: Judy Woodruff, Tim Alberta, Amna Nawaz, and Yamiche Alcindor
Booker, Harris, and Gabbard didn't qualify.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just read this and it's a hoot:
By the way, the drinking game for tonight’s Democratic debate: Joe Biden says “fact of the matter” or Elizabeth Warren says “I have a plan” or Bernie Sanders says “billionaires.” Take a sip. Not a full shot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to go on the record as saying that I proudly don't know who any of those moderators are.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know Tim Alberta, but the rest are on the PBSNewsHour, which is one of the m$m news shows I watch. I watch ABC to get a sense over what's the hype of the moment, NBC after a couple of weeks to track how the coverage is changing over time (it refreshes my memory as to what's been said in the past, so I can compare that to what's being said now), and the PBSNewsHour after a couple of months because it's EXTREMELY narrative heavy, and I want to get a look at the narrative after the 'news' value has worn off.
I've actually written emails to Woodruff where I called her names because she's a smarmy, smirking, propagandist, but I didn't send them. I suppose one day I will click on 'send' when I can't take it any more. Imagine Salon as an hour long 'news' cast, with a bunch of people pretending that they're some kind of highbrow intellectuals. It really is that bad.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
It'll be interesting to see of tonight's debate moves any numbers.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the residents there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey JSF -
I tried to make sure the takeaway information is in gold. Maybe just read the gold font parts, and let me know if you have enough information from it. (But if for some reason you're having a hard time distinguishing the gold font, let me know, and I'll try doing something else.)
And - I don't know if you celebrate the season - but Merry Merry !!! (carried over from the 'Merry Christmas everyone!' http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63418 thread)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is just too large.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Hey JSF -
I tried to make sure the takeaway information is in gold. Maybe just read the gold font parts, and let me know if you have enough information from it. (But if for some reason you're having a hard time distinguishing the gold font, let me know, and I'll try doing something else.)
And - I don't know if you celebrate the season - but Merry Merry !!! (carried over from the 'Merry Christmas everyone!' http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63418 thread)
So that nothing else can be found on this page of posts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, it sounds like Joe Bite Me can join this club.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:I've only heard Hilliary as a joke.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've heard Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Have you not heard that too?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
But I'll take your word.
What will be Hilliary's slogan? Impeach Trump!
What will be Trump's slogan? Impeach Hilliary!
Impeach Biden!! The actions of Bribery that Trump is being Impeached for although he never did them, Biden has already actually perpetrated them, and bragged about it on tape even!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
June 26-27, 2019
July 30-31, 2019
September 12, 2019
October 15, 2019
November 20, 2019
December 19, 2019
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democr
atic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Nobody seems to be gaining ground due to the debates, with Harris (out of the race) being one exception. She jumped after the first debate, but Gabbard took her down in the second and that started a long, fatal slide.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Buttigieg did, but he was derailed by Bloomberg.
You guys want a conspiracy theory about Trump?
I think he called up his rich NY buddy to enter the race and put Buttigieg on the sidelines since he realized that Buttigieg was the only one who stood a chance against him in the General.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=63440
Quote:
The Meta
I’m sorry, but despite the crypto-Gnostic wish by many Thinking Class-niks to make the marginal seem normal, I doubt the voters want to see Mayor Pete in the White House with a “First Husband.”
Quote:Speaking of Buttigieg - he's EXTREMELY tactical. Who he takes money from, how much and when, and what he puts it to, and when - very tactical. Every answer in the debates, calibrated to *sound* moral and righteous - but very tactically designed to not offend TPTB. Who he tries to take down in the debates - for example, he went after Gabbard as the only other person who threatened his moral certitude vis-a-vis the military - very tactical.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Mayor Pete has the backing of the deep state. Don't count him out.
He's getting a lot of money and putting into Iowa which is showing in the Iowa polls.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democr
atic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
Why? - you might ask. I believe he's calculated that if he wins Iowa, it will help springboard the balance of his campaign through the rest of the states.
Very tactical.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup.
You might remember, Kiki, but I said more than 6 months ago that he is the only person up there that Trump should be worried about.
He's the only one who is well spoken enough to debate Trump that hasn't gone so far left that he can't walk back to the center for the General.
He's also young and charismatic, and even though he's a white male he is a gay man. And he's the only person that doesn't ever mention that he's a gay man, which is a complete 180 from Hillary's sloganeering on "I'm With Her". He's very good at playing both sides.
People in fly-over states are also much more likely to vote for somebody from Indiana than the coasts as well. Taxes here are low and they still come around and pick up all your leaves on the curbs like they used to in Illinois when I was a kid... long before the state went completely bankrupt.
He's the Anti-Hillary. He might still rise up and surprise everybody, but if you look at the polling history, his stall comes exactly at the time that Bloomberg joined the race and started spending insane amounts of cash on advertising.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was very surprised - I chat with the people at the restaurant that I've been going to for decades to get coffee. A couple of the young folk (as I think of them - in reality they're between 25 and 35) truly, viscerally dislike Buttigieg, the same way I do. Not because he's gay - this is SoCal after all. But because they just don't trust him. Well, this is SoCal after all. If you're going to try to con some people here, you have to bring your A game. This is the Land of Hollywood, where everybody's got something to sell you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Makes me wonder why they don't viscerally dislike everyone else too.
I don't trust anybody up on that stage.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They only like Bernie. They dislike everyone else. But they have a laser-focused revulsion against Buttigieg.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I'm certain I shared this before but I have a joke about SoCal, told to me shortly after I arrived here. An oldie but I think a goodie.
How do they say 'fuck off' in SoCal?
Let's do lunch.
How do they say 'fuck you' in SoCal?
Trust me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
They only like Bernie. They dislike everyone else. But they have a laser-focused revulsion against Buttigieg.
I think that says more about them than it does about Buttigieg.
You're probably not going to find many 20 to 35 year olds in California that don't support either Bernie or Warren, I'd guess.
The fact that they specifically support Bernie over Warren means that they're at least in the more intelligent of the two groups.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Julián Castro, the only Latino in the Democratic presidential field, ends his campaign
headline from the LATimes
More Coverage
Bernie Sanders raised nearly $35 million last quarter; Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden report strong numbers
Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bennet pledges $6-trillion ‘Real Deal’
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
from the NYTimes
Julián Castro Ends Presidential Run: ‘It Simply Isn’t Our Time’
Mr. Castro dropped out of the presidential race. The only Latino candidate in the field, he championed progressive policies but struggled in polls.
Speaking of tone-deaf - did Castro mean to imply he was excluding everyone but Hispanics from his concerns?
BTW, his narrow focus on Hispanics was something I found very off-putting in the debates, and I'm not surprised his campaign failed. I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way I did.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Can you break the post into smaller pieces?
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Hey JSF -
I tried to make sure the takeaway information is in gold. Maybe just read the gold font parts, and let me know if you have enough information from it. (But if for some reason you're having a hard time distinguishing the gold font, let me know, and I'll try doing something else.)
And - I don't know if you celebrate the season - but Merry Merry !!! (carried over from the 'Merry Christmas everyone!' http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63418 thread)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have a number of other things to do at the moment, but I'll try to remember for later ... however - part of the cogency of the article comes from the overwhelming accumulation of facts that are detailed in it. I could break it down to bullet points, but it would lose a lot of its credibility. If you DID have questions about my new version, I would probably refer you to the original. Does that sound like it would satisfy what you're looking for?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is Doomberg in the debates? I heard he is 3rd in the polls.
Only 6 months remaining for Hilliary to announce her campaign. I hear Chelsea is raking in $1M per year for being on some Fake Board position. Maybe Hilliary is trying to wait out the Hunter Biden issue.
Kinda funny if Doomberg gets the nomination. It will be a repeat of 2016: New York Liberal #1 vs. New York Liberal #2. Going 11 years without anybody but New York Liberals on the ballots.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. It is too large. Nothing else on this page can be found.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I have a number of other things to do at the moment, but I'll try to remember for later ... however - part of the cogency of the article comes from the overwhelming accumulation of facts that are detailed in it. I could break it down to bullet points, but it would lose a lot of its credibility. If you DID have questions about my new version, I would probably refer you to the original. Does that sound like it would satisfy what you're looking for?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
quote]Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
quote]Originally posted by 1KIKI:
This article details the Obama / Clinton foreign policy failures - as it notes, their foreign policy ACTION failures, as representative of their actual policies, rather than their words. It applies this record of actual policy to the current slate of democratic candidates, minus Sanders and Gabbard. And it notes that democrats are, and will be, JUST AS RESISTANT TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS ARE TO HEARING BAD THINGS ABOUT REPUBLICANS.
Hillary Clinton’s Six Foreign-Policy Catastrophes
by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog
INTRODUCTION TO THIS UPDATED REPUBLICATION
Though Hillary Clinton will, of course, be the direct topic here, we are now in the primaries-season for the 2020 elections, and almost all of the contenders for the Democratic Party nomination — and especially Biden, Buttigieg, and all of the others, except for Sanders and Gabbard — are foreign-policy clones of Ms. Clinton and of her former boss Mr. Obama. Therefore, Democrats should know what type of foreign policies they would be voting for, if they will be voting for such a candidate, as she and Obama both were. The foreign policies, that are documented here, were, after all, their foreign policies — not their campaign-rhetoric, but the actual, delivered, reality. This article describes that reality, up through the end of Obama’s first term. All of these policies were continued into Obama’s second term, which began in 2013.
This article was, in a shorter version, first published at Huffington Post on 16 August 2013, which had been copied to the Wayback Machine 198 times before being taken down by HuffPo sometime after 4 November 2019, the last copy that was made of it to the Wayback Machine. That article was, however, updated and expanded on 21 February 2016 at RINF.com and a few other sites. Between 2016 and now, around half of the links in that updated version became no longer functional; and, so, the 21 February 2016 version is now being restored again, here, as having 100% currently functioning links to the sources.
These were Hillary Clinton’s actual foreign policies, and are the foreign policies of Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and most other Democratic Presidential candidates. Republicans might be even worse, but this article represents today’s Democratic Party foreign policies — the ugly truths, not the pretty promises. As you will see, there is unfortunately method in their madness. However, Democratic Party voters are just as closed-minded about the Democratic Party as Republican Party voters are about the Republican Party: for example, the reader-comments to this article, when it was excerpted on 22 February 2016 at the Democratic Party website Daily Kos, blamed some of the article’s named functionaries, underlings, but not the principals (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and not the Democratic Party, whose policies these were — the policies of their own Party. It’s always only “the other Party” that’s rotten, not also “my Party” — not both halves of ‘our’ Government. It’s always only “the other guy” that needs to be replaced, not the rotten and corrupt, actually dictatorial, system. And this is how the rot continues on, instead of being replaced. It’s that self-deceit, which enables this rot to continue.
Here’s the article:
—
HILLARY CLINTON’S SIX FOREIGN-POLICY CATASTROPHES
Eric Zuesse
Many commentators have noted here and here and here and here) that Hillary Clinton left behind no major achievement as the U.S. Secretary of State; but, actually, she did. Unfortunately, all of her major achievements were bad, and some were catastrophic. Six countries were especially involved: Honduras, Haiti, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine. The harm she did to each country was not in the interest of the American people, and it was disastrous for the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME