Hillary Clinton

It doesn't make the picture you shared 'spot on' though.

 

Hatred? or honest critique? or perhaps a bit of both going on.

 

Pretty sure people hate Hillary because she's a liar, a war-profiteer, and a puppet for the billionaire class.

Stop changing the narrative with the stuff that can't be proven, i.e. Vince Foster. The fact is that she was a driving force to remove Ghadafi from power, destabilizing Libya, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people and the rise of Isis in the region. The fact is that she laughed like a psychopath at the brutal death of Ghadafi. The fact is that she sold out Honduras. The fact is that she wants to increase tensions with Russia with a no-fly zone over Syria. The fact is that she sold arms to Saudi Arabia in exchange for donations to her foundation. The fact is that she supports Israel 100%, regardless of what they do to the people of Palestine. The fact is that she received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wall Street for paid speeches whose transcripts she refuses to release. The fact is that she hasn't had a press conference in over 200 days; there is no transparency when it comes to Clinton. The fact is that mere hours after her friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz stepped down from the DNC, after it was proven that she engaged in electioneering against Bernie Sanders, Hillary hired her as chairman of her campaign. The fact is that she plans to carry on with Obama's legacy, which means more trade deals that hurt the workers and the freedoms of this country, which means more drone strikes that kill little brown children. The fact is that Hillary just hired corporatist Ken Salazar to head up her transition team. There is a long list of facts about this woman that make it very difficult to respect her.

Do I hate her? I don't really hate anybody. It's not like I'm gritting my teeth over her. But she is very corrupt, very shady, and very dangerous. I guess I'm radical, because I really don't believe in destabilizing the middle east. I really don't believe in bombing them. I don't even believe in blaming them for the state their region is in. In fact, I think the blame rests primarily on the United States. I'm radical, because I really am just stupidly against the unfortunate consequences of our wars, like the deaths of innocent men, women, children, and even little babies. It must be nice to be an American who doesn't have to give a shit about the fact that brown families are being ripped apart across the sea. It's just business as usual, right? Maybe the oligarchy will let us have a few good economic years so we can feel positive about our choice of who we're voting for. And just never mind the dead. We don't give a shit.

 

On the basis of false information about WMDs.

 

I'm still confused about this "false information." They said there probably are WMDs, looked for them, said whoops didn't find any but they're there so let's go to war wooo rebel yell.

I was a senior in high school when this happened, and even I could grasp the fact that there was no solid proof of WMDs. How long are we going to keep excusing Congress for ignoring the lack of definite proof? Oh, well the "information" said they're there so that's OK then.

 

The reports on WMDs were considered credible by the highest American intelligence, and corroborated by none other than Colin Powell. The fact that Sadaam didn't deny them was widely taken as confirmation. It seems to have been false information.No, they didn't say "whoops didn't find any but they're there so let's go to war wooo rebel yell." At least not until after the invasion.

 

But if you remember in the weeks leading up to the war they had weapons inspectors looking for weapons. Didn't find any. Went to war anyways.

I never understood the point of the weapons inspectors either if we were going to go to war no matter the outcome.

Anyways, off topic a little because I don't hold Clinton any more responsible than anyone else who voted to invade Iraq. Just some 13 year old angst coming back to me.

 

Yes. the weapons inspectors were there and found nothing. The line put out by the Bush Administration was that Saddam must have hidden them somewhere. Do you remember Colin Powell's UN speech?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction In any event, the Bush Administration and the Neo-cons running it wanted to go to war with Iraq very badly. The WMDs were a convenient pretext. But the U.S. public and members of Congress had reason to believe that the weapons were real. And they may have been.
In 2015 it was learned that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had not been fully accounted for by UN inspections. There were "stockpiles of warheads and rockets containing degraded chemical agents similar to those used in the Iran-Iraq War. From 2005 through 2006 military intelligence discovered that the weapons—many in poor condition, some empty or containing nonlethal liquid, but others containing sarin with unexpectedly high purity—were in the possession of one Iraqi individual who remained anonymous." Chivers, C.J.; Schmitt, Eric (February 15, 2015). "C.I.A. Is Said to Have Bought and Destroyed Iraqi Chemical Weapons". New York Times

 

The American people also are culpable in regards to the Iraq war, maybe more than anyone else. I still can't believe how easily and quickly our concern went from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. I can remember, leading up to the war, thinking to myself "people won't fall for this, they aren't that stupid". Wow was I wrong. I lost a lot of respect for my country over that and, sadly, have never regained it. I am a veteran and watching our military being misused just drove me up the wall. So the argument can be made that Hillary was just following the will of her constituents; they (we) are the ones ultimately at fault. And here we are getting ready to chose another damn president.

 

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier I was only 18 at the time and I was astounded so many people 1) fell for the illogical jump from Bin Laden to Saddam 2) that so many people believed there were WMDs despite the fact that the weapons inspectors didn't even finish their inspection and didn't find anything.

And Congress failed us on this too, not just Hillary Clinton. Although I do like what Bernie Sanders mentioned in a debate once, how he had the foresight to vote against the Iraq War and she didn't. . Hillary often seems to regret her decisions in hindsight but I do prefer a good leader with foresight

 

The 2016 election will be essentially a binary choice. You don't like Hillary; neither do I. It's her or the Donald. Or you can waste your vote on a third party candidate. You didn't like her stand on Libya. As I recall, the anti-Ghadafi movement in Libya began with a popular uprising--part of the so-called "Arab spring" that so many Arab countries encountered at the time. Gaddafi didn't help matters by pledging to "cleanse Libya house-by-house". It was not the United States that first took action to support the rebels--it was France and other NATO allies. France was stirred to action by the philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, and then by President Sarkozy, seeing an opportunity to boost his popularity before the 2012 election. Hillary's reaction to the death of Ghaddafi was chilling, I admit (She said "We came, we saw, he died"), but there would have been humanitarian problems of greater scope if Ghadafi had stayed in power to implement his "cleansing" strategy.Ghadafi was a demented monster. Being torn to pieces by a mob is a horrible way to go, but I'm not sure shedding crocodile tears over the demise of a ruthless dictator makes sense. On the other side, we have Donald, the birther, the American counterpart to European white nationalists Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, who seems to admire strong men like Saddam and Putin, sides with Russia on virtually every major foreign policy stance, surrounds himself with many peoplewho either have Russian ties or ties to Breitbart and the Alt-right (an exception being Kellyanne Conway, who was against him until he hired her on to put lipstick on the pig), seems personally volatile and vindictive, and has little knowledge of foreign policy. I'll take my chances with Hillary, the more traditional candidate, with all the real negatives that implies.

 

I strongly suspect that a big part of why we had the Iraq war and why we helped to overthrow Gaddafi is because their governments were making the change from selling oil in US dollars to selling oil in either the euro or the dinar in Libya's case. I'm sure Hillary was aware of this and what this would do the US dollar. I think it's more likely that she voted the way she did on these grounds than the idea that she actually believed what the Bush administration was saying. I knew the Bush administration was full of it from the very beginning. They were obviously a pack of wolves, and anyone who couldn't see that would have to have been very, very naive.

A wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don't truly believe in. That's the only time you're wasting your vote. It just happens to be the case that most Americans throw away their vote in such a fashion. I'm voting for Jill Stein. At the very least Green will gain more traction in he next four years. Donald's got his Johnson problem (no pun intended) and Hillary's got her Jill problem. It all evens out, probably for the worst for Donald as Johnson is quite popular.

 

Indeed, the fire and destruction over the former Yugoslavia is missing from the map in that picture.

 

Fair's fair.

 

Well there is a trump thread for that kind of shit.

 

Voting for Jill may make you feel good, but she doesn't have a chance of winning. As the Donald tells us, the system is rigged--against third parties. As a result, we have to decide which of these flawed candidates will do the least damage. You don't seem to be an admirer of G.W.,, nor am I. It's hard to imagine how any President could have done more damage without trying--two wars, major recession, torture, etc. The purists who voted for Nader are responsible for that!

I strongly suspect that your suspicions about why we invaded Iraq and joined the fight against Gadafi are oversimplified. At the time, Iraq was under a UN embargo and wasn't selling much oil to anybody--openly at least. It wasn't likely that it could influence OPEC to go Euro. Economic determinists favor such explanations because they seem sensible, but the Neo-cons were governed by much more grandiose geopolitical considerations--establishing an U.S. bastion of influence in the Middle East and making the region safe for Israe. As for Gadaphi, his scheme to $7billion of precious metal reserves to prop up a new African currency was an immdeiate threat to France and the CFA Franc. We know from one of the released emails to Hillary from her buddy Sidney Blumenthal that he speculated this was one of the considerations leading Sarkozy to attack Libya--along with the nuisance Gadafi was making of himself in Chad and other Fracophone West African countries.,not to mention the perceived extortion scheme Gadafi seemed to be proposing in asking for a large sum of money to help keep Libyan immigrants from flooding France. facing Marine Le Pen as his major opposition on immigration, Sarkozy saw an opportunity in the Arab Spring and the anti-Gadafi uprising. The U.S. didn't take the lead in getting into Libya. France dragged us in. How big an influence any of this was on Hillary's decision is entirely speculative.She may have been convinced, as were many of her colleagues, that both dictators spelled trouble for U.S. interests, and have given her support on that basis,

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PYcdTvDjBA

 

Nader was not responsible for that. Fact is that more Democrats voted for George Bush than voted for Nader. You're also assuming that all Green voters are potential Democrats, which isn't the case. It doesn't matter if the system is rigged against third parties. If enough people vote third party we'll have a good idea of what's going on.

 

I know. I started it.

 

Everyone have your bomb shelter ready?

Okay Dokey.....lolz

 

70 days til the biggest baby temper tantrum ever.. the meltdown is going to be hysterical.

 

why, what's going to change in the next 4 years?

 

Remembering the Charlie Sheen roast on Comedy Central.

One of the roasters came in costume of Lybia's; Mohmar Khadifi.

Khadifi was overthrown a few months later.

 

Your memory may be clouded by Green Party propaganda. Remember the Florida squeeze that gave Bush the 25 electoral votes that put him in office? According to the official Florida tally, Nader won 97.488 votes in that state--enough to have made the difference. Political scientist Professor Gerald Pomper's analysis of the exit poll results of who the voters said they would have chosen in a two-person race concluded that Even without Florida, adding Nader’s 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore’s 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college. The 2006 study by professors Herron and Lewis using ballot images confirmed that without Ralph, Al would have won. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/31/nader_elected_bush_why_we_shouldnt_forget_130715.html
Even without Florida, Gore would have won if the 4% that Nader won in New Hampshire had gone to Gore. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-nader-cost-gore-an-election/2015/02/05/3261cc22-abd2-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html?utm_term=.a0fe957b8858
The system was rigged against Gore, who, remember, won a majority of the popular vote in the nation, and we certainly got a good idea of what was going on. A lot of good it did.