Im voting for Hillary
- Thread starter teamquestnorth
- Start date
No need to make it personal brother. We are all friends here. Even if we disagree.
Ah yes. Hillary..
"Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal."
U.S. Rejected Offers by Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to Surrender … and Proceeded to Wage War Washington's Blog
"Hillary is largely responsible for the bombing of Yugoslavia … another wholly unnecessary war. Diana Johnstone writes:
In her star-struck biography of the First Lady, Hillary’s Choice, Gail Sheehy reported Hillary’s plea in favor of bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 as a major point in her favor. According to Sheehy’s book, Hillary convinced her reluctant husband to unleash the 78-day NATO bombing campaign against the Serbs with the argument that: “You can’t let this ethnic cleansing go on at the end of the century that has seen the Holocaust.”
This line is theatrical and totally irrelevant to the conflict in the Balkans. As a matter of fact, there was no “ethnic cleansing” going on in Kosovo at that time. It was the NATO bombing that soon led people to flee in all directions – a reaction that NATO leaders interpreted as the very “ethnic cleansing” they claimed to prevent by bombing."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-a-bigger-warmonger-than-bushcheney/5511432
"Hillary Clinton perhaps represents the worst choice among an array of aspirants looking more like a police lineup. Previous articles explained her warmongering lust for endless conflicts. She’s unabashedly hawkish.
As first lady, she urged husband Bill to bomb Belgrade. Yugoslavia’s rape and pillage followed. As a New York senator, she supported Bush’s war on Afghanistan. As Secretary of State, she urged escalating it.
She backed lawless aggression on Iraq based entirely on Big Lies. Her supportive Senate remarks included baseless fabrications about Saddam “continu(ing) to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and (efforts) to keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” She got the war she wanted.
She backed military intervention to topple Libya’s Gaddafi. She urged more extensive drone bombings. She promoted war to oust Syria’s Assad.
She favors nuclear weapons use. She calls them peacekeeping deterrents. She wants US-dominated NATO used more aggressively.
Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk contributed at least $8.6 million to the Clinton Global Initiative – involved in “moderniz(ing) Ukraine” to harden fascist rule.
She’s hostile to Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and other independent countries.
She urges more heavily arming Kiev fascists than already for continued war on Donbass freedom fighters wanting democratic governance everyone deserves.
As first lady, New York senator and Secretary of State, she’s been ideologically hardline – pro-war, pro-business, anti-populist, anti-labor.
As presidential aspirant, she’s selling a different image. Whether enough people buy it to get her nominated and elected remains to be seen. It’s a long time to November 2016. A lot can happen between now and then to derail her outsized ambitions"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-war-goddess-corporate-shill-anti-populist/5463042
"Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi’s son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal."
U.S. Rejected Offers by Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to Surrender … and Proceeded to Wage War Washington's Blog
"Hillary is largely responsible for the bombing of Yugoslavia … another wholly unnecessary war. Diana Johnstone writes:
In her star-struck biography of the First Lady, Hillary’s Choice, Gail Sheehy reported Hillary’s plea in favor of bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 as a major point in her favor. According to Sheehy’s book, Hillary convinced her reluctant husband to unleash the 78-day NATO bombing campaign against the Serbs with the argument that: “You can’t let this ethnic cleansing go on at the end of the century that has seen the Holocaust.”
This line is theatrical and totally irrelevant to the conflict in the Balkans. As a matter of fact, there was no “ethnic cleansing” going on in Kosovo at that time. It was the NATO bombing that soon led people to flee in all directions – a reaction that NATO leaders interpreted as the very “ethnic cleansing” they claimed to prevent by bombing."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-a-bigger-warmonger-than-bushcheney/5511432
"Hillary Clinton perhaps represents the worst choice among an array of aspirants looking more like a police lineup. Previous articles explained her warmongering lust for endless conflicts. She’s unabashedly hawkish.
As first lady, she urged husband Bill to bomb Belgrade. Yugoslavia’s rape and pillage followed. As a New York senator, she supported Bush’s war on Afghanistan. As Secretary of State, she urged escalating it.
She backed lawless aggression on Iraq based entirely on Big Lies. Her supportive Senate remarks included baseless fabrications about Saddam “continu(ing) to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and (efforts) to keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” She got the war she wanted.
She backed military intervention to topple Libya’s Gaddafi. She urged more extensive drone bombings. She promoted war to oust Syria’s Assad.
She favors nuclear weapons use. She calls them peacekeeping deterrents. She wants US-dominated NATO used more aggressively.
Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk contributed at least $8.6 million to the Clinton Global Initiative – involved in “moderniz(ing) Ukraine” to harden fascist rule.
She’s hostile to Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and other independent countries.
She urges more heavily arming Kiev fascists than already for continued war on Donbass freedom fighters wanting democratic governance everyone deserves.
As first lady, New York senator and Secretary of State, she’s been ideologically hardline – pro-war, pro-business, anti-populist, anti-labor.
As presidential aspirant, she’s selling a different image. Whether enough people buy it to get her nominated and elected remains to be seen. It’s a long time to November 2016. A lot can happen between now and then to derail her outsized ambitions"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-war-goddess-corporate-shill-anti-populist/5463042
@teamquestnorth I know you're a joker, that being said; Killary becoming president will cost many Americans their lives.
I see that Hillary's thread pales (in length and in girth) to the generously endowed tributes here to Mr Sanders and Mr Trump.
Seems the height of sexism to me - but leave it to me to rectify the imbalance as best I can!.
“Hillary Works for Goldman Sachs and Likes War” – Former Bill Clinton Aide
Hillary-The-Hawk Flies Again
Global Research, August 17, 2014
Dissident Voice 16 August 2014
By Ralph Nader
"Hillary works for Goldman Sachs and likes war, otherwise I like Hillary,” a former Bill Clinton aide told me sardonically. First, he was referring to her cushy relationships with top Wall Street barons and her $200,000 speeches with the criminal enterprise known as Goldman Sachs, which played a part in crashing the U.S. economy in 2008 and burdening taxpayers with costly bailouts. Second, he was calling attention to her war hawkish foreign policy.
Last week, Hillary-The-Hawk emerged, once again, with comments to The Atlantic attacking Obama for being weak and not having an organized foreign policy. She was calling Obama weak despite his heavy hand in droning, bombing and intervening during his Presidency. While Obama is often wrong, he is hardly a pacifist commander. It’s a small wonder that since 2008, Hillary-The-Hawk has been generally described as, in the words of the New York Times journalist Mark Landler, “more hawkish than Mr. Obama.”
In The Atlantic interview, she chided Obama for not more deeply involving the U.S. with the rebels in Syria, who themselves are riven into factions and deprived of strong leaders and, with few exceptions, trained fighters. As Mrs. Clinton well knows, from her time as Secretary of State, the White House was being cautious because of growing Congressional opposition to intervention in Syria as Congress sought to determine the best rebel groups to arm and how to prevent this weaponry from falling into the hands of the enemy insurgents.
She grandly told her interviewer, “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” Nonsense. Not plunging into unconstitutional wars could have been a fine “organizing principle.” Instead, she voted for the criminal invasion of Iraq, which boomeranged back into costly chaos and tragedy for the Iraqi people and the American taxpayers.
Moreover, the former Secretary of State ended her undistinguished tenure in 2013 with an unremitting record of militarizing a Department that was originally chartered over 200 years ago to be the expression of American diplomacy. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made far more bellicose statements than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did. Some career Foreign Service Officers found her aggressive language unhelpful, if not downright hazardous to their diplomatic missions.
Such belligerency translated into her pushing both opposed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and reluctant President Obama to topple the Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. The Libyan dictator had given up his dangerous weapons and was re-establishing relations with Western countries and Western oil companies. Mrs. Clinton had no “organizing principle” for the deadly aftermath with warring militias carving up Libya and spilling over into Mali and the resultant, violent disruption in Central Africa. The Libyan assault was Hillary Clinton’s undeclared war – a continuing disaster that shows her touted foreign policy experience as just doing more “stupid stuff.” She displays much ignorance about the quicksand perils for the United States of post-dictatorial vacuums in tribal, sectarian societies.
After criticizing Obama, Mrs. Clinton then issued a statement saying she had called the president to say that she did not intend to attack him and anticipated “hugging it out” with him at a Martha’s Vineyard party. Embracing opportunistically after attacking is less than admirable.
Considering Hillary Clinton’s origins as an anti-Vietnam War youth, how did she end up such a war hawk? Perhaps it is a result of her overweening political ambition and her determination to prevent accusations of being soft on militarism and its imperial Empire because she is a woman.
After her celebrity election as New York’s Senator in 2000, she was given a requested seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There, unlike her war-like friend, Republican Senator John McCain, she rarely challenged a boondoggle Pentagon contract; never took on the defense industry’s waste, fraud and abuse; and never saw a redundant or unneeded weapons system (often criticized by retired Generals and Admirals) that she did not like.
The vaunted military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned about, got the message. Hillary Clinton was one of them.
Energetically waging peace was not on Secretary of State Clinton’s agenda. She would rather talk about military might and deployment in one geographic area after another. At the U.S. Naval Academy in 2012, Generalissma Clinton gave a speech about pivoting to East Asia with “force posture” otherwise known as “force projection” (one of her favorite phrases) of U.S. naval ships, planes and positioned troops in countries neighboring China.
Of course, China’s response was to increase its military budget and project its own military might. The world’s super-power should not be addicted to continuous provocations that produce unintended consequences.
As she goes around the country, with an expanded publicly-funded Secret Service corps to promote the private sales of her book, Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton needs to ponder what, if anything, she as a Presidential candidate has to offer a war-weary, corporate-dominated American people. As a former member of the board of directors of Walmart, Hillary Clinton waited several years before coming out this April in support for a restored minimum wage for thirty million American workers (a majority of whom are women).
This delay is not surprising considering Hillary Clinton spends her time in the splendors of the wealthy classes and the Wall Street crowd, when she isn’t pulling down huge speech fees pandering to giant trade association conventions. This creates distance between her and the hard-pressed experiences of the masses, doesn’t it?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillar...nd-likes-war-former-bill-clinton-aide/5396307
Seems the height of sexism to me - but leave it to me to rectify the imbalance as best I can!.
“Hillary Works for Goldman Sachs and Likes War” – Former Bill Clinton Aide
Hillary-The-Hawk Flies Again
Global Research, August 17, 2014
Dissident Voice 16 August 2014
By Ralph Nader
"Hillary works for Goldman Sachs and likes war, otherwise I like Hillary,” a former Bill Clinton aide told me sardonically. First, he was referring to her cushy relationships with top Wall Street barons and her $200,000 speeches with the criminal enterprise known as Goldman Sachs, which played a part in crashing the U.S. economy in 2008 and burdening taxpayers with costly bailouts. Second, he was calling attention to her war hawkish foreign policy.
Last week, Hillary-The-Hawk emerged, once again, with comments to The Atlantic attacking Obama for being weak and not having an organized foreign policy. She was calling Obama weak despite his heavy hand in droning, bombing and intervening during his Presidency. While Obama is often wrong, he is hardly a pacifist commander. It’s a small wonder that since 2008, Hillary-The-Hawk has been generally described as, in the words of the New York Times journalist Mark Landler, “more hawkish than Mr. Obama.”
In The Atlantic interview, she chided Obama for not more deeply involving the U.S. with the rebels in Syria, who themselves are riven into factions and deprived of strong leaders and, with few exceptions, trained fighters. As Mrs. Clinton well knows, from her time as Secretary of State, the White House was being cautious because of growing Congressional opposition to intervention in Syria as Congress sought to determine the best rebel groups to arm and how to prevent this weaponry from falling into the hands of the enemy insurgents.
She grandly told her interviewer, “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” Nonsense. Not plunging into unconstitutional wars could have been a fine “organizing principle.” Instead, she voted for the criminal invasion of Iraq, which boomeranged back into costly chaos and tragedy for the Iraqi people and the American taxpayers.
Moreover, the former Secretary of State ended her undistinguished tenure in 2013 with an unremitting record of militarizing a Department that was originally chartered over 200 years ago to be the expression of American diplomacy. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton made far more bellicose statements than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did. Some career Foreign Service Officers found her aggressive language unhelpful, if not downright hazardous to their diplomatic missions.
Such belligerency translated into her pushing both opposed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and reluctant President Obama to topple the Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. The Libyan dictator had given up his dangerous weapons and was re-establishing relations with Western countries and Western oil companies. Mrs. Clinton had no “organizing principle” for the deadly aftermath with warring militias carving up Libya and spilling over into Mali and the resultant, violent disruption in Central Africa. The Libyan assault was Hillary Clinton’s undeclared war – a continuing disaster that shows her touted foreign policy experience as just doing more “stupid stuff.” She displays much ignorance about the quicksand perils for the United States of post-dictatorial vacuums in tribal, sectarian societies.
After criticizing Obama, Mrs. Clinton then issued a statement saying she had called the president to say that she did not intend to attack him and anticipated “hugging it out” with him at a Martha’s Vineyard party. Embracing opportunistically after attacking is less than admirable.
Considering Hillary Clinton’s origins as an anti-Vietnam War youth, how did she end up such a war hawk? Perhaps it is a result of her overweening political ambition and her determination to prevent accusations of being soft on militarism and its imperial Empire because she is a woman.
After her celebrity election as New York’s Senator in 2000, she was given a requested seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There, unlike her war-like friend, Republican Senator John McCain, she rarely challenged a boondoggle Pentagon contract; never took on the defense industry’s waste, fraud and abuse; and never saw a redundant or unneeded weapons system (often criticized by retired Generals and Admirals) that she did not like.
The vaunted military-industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned about, got the message. Hillary Clinton was one of them.
Energetically waging peace was not on Secretary of State Clinton’s agenda. She would rather talk about military might and deployment in one geographic area after another. At the U.S. Naval Academy in 2012, Generalissma Clinton gave a speech about pivoting to East Asia with “force posture” otherwise known as “force projection” (one of her favorite phrases) of U.S. naval ships, planes and positioned troops in countries neighboring China.
Of course, China’s response was to increase its military budget and project its own military might. The world’s super-power should not be addicted to continuous provocations that produce unintended consequences.
As she goes around the country, with an expanded publicly-funded Secret Service corps to promote the private sales of her book, Hard Choices, Hillary Clinton needs to ponder what, if anything, she as a Presidential candidate has to offer a war-weary, corporate-dominated American people. As a former member of the board of directors of Walmart, Hillary Clinton waited several years before coming out this April in support for a restored minimum wage for thirty million American workers (a majority of whom are women).
This delay is not surprising considering Hillary Clinton spends her time in the splendors of the wealthy classes and the Wall Street crowd, when she isn’t pulling down huge speech fees pandering to giant trade association conventions. This creates distance between her and the hard-pressed experiences of the masses, doesn’t it?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillar...nd-likes-war-former-bill-clinton-aide/5396307
post more. lurk less.
@teamquestnorth needs to be more worried that Duke is going to knock Oregon out of the tourny tonight and, in turn, have to pay me $25.
1
1372
Guest
Hey hey hey....Slow down there big fella.
Lots of us don't care...I mean...I'm in Australia...But be a nice guy...Don't be bad brother...All friends here...And a few enemies but I'll tell you through DM who to hate.
2 hours 55 minutes until tipoff
Bernie wants your vote
@teamquestnorth !!
don't let the man down!
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/345335767
@teamquestnorth !!don't let the man down!
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/345335767
M
member 3289
Guest
View: https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y
Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention | Foreign Policy Journal
New Year’s Eve release of over 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails from the State Department has CNN abuzzover gossipy text messages, the “who gets to ride with Hillary” selection process set up by her staff, and how a “cute” Hillary photo fared on Facebook.
But historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in thenew emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.
View: https://youtu.be/ny3bOmey-BE
Libya, ISIS, and the Flow of Foreign Fighters
4-8 more years of this type of bangup foreign policy job.
All while 2017 and 2018 is a predicted economic slow down or possible contraction.
Why El-Erian sees 30% US recession risk by 2017
A foundation for which Clinton says she admires Obama.
Also US budget spending goes up next year under Obama's proposed budget, despite half of the entire US debt being added in the last 8 years.
Will Clinton continue to add debt at even close to the same rate given her praise of these policies?
Her tax plan says yes.
"CBO expects that federal debt held by the public will amount to 74 percent of GDP at the end of this fiscal year — more than twice what it was at the end of 2007 and higher than in any year since 1950. ... By 2025, in CBO's baseline projections, federal debt rises to nearly 79 percent of GDP."
We had extenuating circumstances in 2008. I get if. None of that excuses the lat 4 years of building a house of cards.
ACA fixed nothing and only costs money...
The aging of the population, the rising costs of health care, and the expansion in federal subsidies for health insurance that is now under way will substantially boost federal spending on Social Security and the government's major health care programs relative to GDP over the next 10 years
Failure to use this time to truly revamp entitlements is going to bite us in the ass in 10 years. Clinton has no stated plans to redirect this course
4-8 more years of this type of bangup foreign policy job.
All while 2017 and 2018 is a predicted economic slow down or possible contraction.
Why El-Erian sees 30% US recession risk by 2017
A foundation for which Clinton says she admires Obama.
Also US budget spending goes up next year under Obama's proposed budget, despite half of the entire US debt being added in the last 8 years.
Will Clinton continue to add debt at even close to the same rate given her praise of these policies?
Her tax plan says yes.
"CBO expects that federal debt held by the public will amount to 74 percent of GDP at the end of this fiscal year — more than twice what it was at the end of 2007 and higher than in any year since 1950. ... By 2025, in CBO's baseline projections, federal debt rises to nearly 79 percent of GDP."
We had extenuating circumstances in 2008. I get if. None of that excuses the lat 4 years of building a house of cards.
ACA fixed nothing and only costs money...
The aging of the population, the rising costs of health care, and the expansion in federal subsidies for health insurance that is now under way will substantially boost federal spending on Social Security and the government's major health care programs relative to GDP over the next 10 years
Failure to use this time to truly revamp entitlements is going to bite us in the ass in 10 years. Clinton has no stated plans to redirect this course
Clinton is such a fucking terrible person. it will always blow my mind that anyone thinks she is anything special.
So. Eliminating one of our contitutional rights is what America should aim to accomplish? Got it.Easily the smartest and most experienced out of all the candidates.
Ive never voted Republican before and Im certainly not going to this time. The thought of one of those people in the white house is frightening.
Cant vote for Bernie because hes too old and from Vermont.
Hillary will make America great again. We can start by eliminating guns and other dangerous weapons.
M
member 3289
Guest
All politicians lie. She's no Obama but she's the best option.
You yank fucks will be the next to start WW3,
M
member 3289
Guest
Are we gonna have to save Europe in that one, too?
Yeah nikkuah, please save Europe from White Christians. It benefits me.