• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Hillary Clinton

Der Trump has stated that any supreme court justice he would nominate would come from a short list prepared by Jim DeMint's Heritage Foundation. That right there should have you rooting, even if sullenly and without enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. The next president has a good chance of nominating three supreme court justices. If demented Jim DeMint makes the choices for you, you are screwed. So, what are you going to do come voting day in November again?
Clinton, or Trump. You get a choice, half a loaf or a wet juicy cow flop.
 
this is probably wrong, but I wonder if Kasich manages to get the nomination on 2nd or 3rd ballot then would Hillary be indicted? The big money men in Wall Street having Kasich as a clean ringer.
 
Tristan Scott said:
Harry_Bosch said:
BTW: I was incorrect. I'd say that most would rank the Washington Post to the left of moderate (a little to the right of the New York Times). I really like "Fact-checker". FC really is non biased. I did a pretty extensive search regarding Hillary and Benghazi, and didn't find much damning her in FC. To me, mistakes were made. No doubt about it. But to take the republican side and claim that it was a grand conspiracy in order to hide the fact that it was a terrorist attack in order to create the feeling in American that the war with Jihadists was over just seems too incredible to me.

I agree with you that she should not have used her personal server for her official business.
Click to expand...
Sure but that's called an IT infraction, people don't usually even get fired for that-it certainly isn't something that anyone would go to jail over. Same with Benghazi, it was a mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about the email stuff. I'm an Australian, why would I? But to call it a mistake is just plain wrong. Have you looked at the history of all the requests to "secure" her Blackberry, and email server, that preceded this? It was no mistake. But as I said I don't care.

The reason I, as an Australian, don't want her in is that I, and many other Australians don't want our friend and ally to drag us into another war. A war with a nuclear power.
We have Russian planes buzzing US warships and US generals calling for some "tough guy" response. Quite apart from the diarrhea broadcast on Fox News, the Russians have made it extremely clear that they consider the current stance of the neocons to be a threat they take very very seriously.
Hillary Clinton is too shallow to be the President when such things are happening. Seriously
 
Will Wiley said:
Tristan Scott said:
Sure but that's called an IT infraction, people don't usually even get fired for that-it certainly isn't something that anyone would go to jail over. Same with Benghazi, it was a mistake.
Click to expand...

I don't really care about the email stuff. I'm an Australian, why would I? But to call it a mistake is just plain wrong. Have you looked at the history of all the requests to "secure" her Blackberry, and email server, that preceded this? It was no mistake. But as I said I don't care.

The reason I, as an Australian, don't want her in is that I, and many other Australians don't want our friend and ally to drag us into another war. A war with a nuclear power.
We have Russian planes buzzing US warships and US generals calling for some "tough guy" response. Quite apart from the diarrhea broadcast on Fox News, the Russians have made it extremely clear that they consider the current stance of the neocons to be a threat they take very very seriously.
Hillary Clinton is too shallow to be the President when such things are happening. Seriously
Click to expand...
So, of the viable candidates, which do you think has the lowest propensity to get us into another war?
 
Yeah, you didn't ask me....

Playball40 said:
Will Wiley said:
I don't really care about the email stuff. I'm an Australian, why would I? But to call it a mistake is just plain wrong. Have you looked at the history of all the requests to "secure" her Blackberry, and email server, that preceded this? It was no mistake. But as I said I don't care.

The reason I, as an Australian, don't want her in is that I, and many other Australians don't want our friend and ally to drag us into another war. A war with a nuclear power.
We have Russian planes buzzing US warships and US generals calling for some "tough guy" response. Quite apart from the diarrhea broadcast on Fox News, the Russians have made it extremely clear that they consider the current stance of the neocons to be a threat they take very very seriously.
Hillary Clinton is too shallow to be the President when such things are happening. Seriously
Click to expand...
So, of the viable candidates, which do you think has the lowest propensity to get us into another war?
Click to expand...

In order from least propensity to get us into (or expand current) another war:
Sanders
Clinton & Kasich
Cruz

The mad hatter is nearly impossible to categorize, as his statements have been all over the map. He has no record from which one could make assumptions, other than if he thought a war would make him look better, then watch out as he seems to be quite the narcissist...
 
Playball40 said:
Kusa said:
This is a good start. Watch it.

http://youtu.be/wK2K5v5bm0Q
Click to expand...
Can't, I'm working. Can you summarize?
Click to expand...
It is a trail of 25 years of every minor and major Clinton couple event starting with Whitewater and Vince Foster climaxing with of course BENGHAZI, and even some white noise thrown to make an ensemble of right wing Hillary hate.

One trivial gems was this: “The Clinton State Department wasted $80 million on a U.S. Consulate in northern Afghanistan, which will never be completed.”

Can you imagine, Hillary's Dept. of State was involved with some $80 million of waste....what about those fucking trillions thrown down the Afghan/Iraq toilet????

Yeah, and what is lying to get us to invade/occupy Iraq and getting 4,491 soldiers killed in the process, but just a “too bad” event? Or perhaps the billion dollar Baghdad embassy, was just a minor cost overrun. If Kim Jong Un would be better than Hillary Clinton, then the devil himself/herself would have been better than GWB….

Hillary might be a self-serving Democratic corporate toad, but she would still be better than GWB...
 
funinspace said:
Playball40 said:
Can't, I'm working. Can you summarize?
Click to expand...
It is a trail of 25 years of every minor and major Clinton couple event starting with Whitewater and Vince Foster climaxing with of course BENGHAZI, and even some white noise thrown to make an ensemble of right wing Hillary hate.

One trivial gems was this: “The Clinton State Department wasted $80 million on a U.S. Consulate in northern Afghanistan, which will never be completed.”

Can you imagine, Hillary's Dept. of State was involved with some $80 million of waste....what about those fucking trillions thrown down the Afghan/Iraq toilet????

Yeah, and what is lying to get us to invade/occupy Iraq and getting 4,491 soldiers killed in the process, but just a “too bad” event? Or perhaps the billion dollar Baghdad embassy, was just a minor cost overrun. If Kim Jong Un would be better than Hillary Clinton, then the devil himself/herself would have been better than GWB….

Hillary might be a self-serving Democratic corporate toad, but she would still be better than GWB...
Click to expand...
Sigh....so absolutely nothing accurate and verifiable. Just more playing with the facts to suit the Hillary-hate agenda. Thanks FIS - you saved me time. KUSA - Do you have anything real?
 
Playball40 said:
funinspace said:
It is a trail of 25 years of every minor and major Clinton couple event starting with Whitewater and Vince Foster climaxing with of course BENGHAZI, and even some white noise thrown to make an ensemble of right wing Hillary hate.

One trivial gems was this: “The Clinton State Department wasted $80 million on a U.S. Consulate in northern Afghanistan, which will never be completed.”

Can you imagine, Hillary's Dept. of State was involved with some $80 million of waste....what about those fucking trillions thrown down the Afghan/Iraq toilet????

Yeah, and what is lying to get us to invade/occupy Iraq and getting 4,491 soldiers killed in the process, but just a “too bad” event? Or perhaps the billion dollar Baghdad embassy, was just a minor cost overrun. If Kim Jong Un would be better than Hillary Clinton, then the devil himself/herself would have been better than GWB….

Hillary might be a self-serving Democratic corporate toad, but she would still be better than GWB...
Click to expand...
Sigh....so absolutely nothing accurate and verifiable. Just more playing with the facts to suit the Hillary-hate agenda. Thanks FIS - you saved me time. KUSA - Do you have anything real?
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but America long ago decided it wasn't important. One thing from the past that I always thought was quite questionable was Hillary's mysterious cattle trades where she flipped $1000 into $100,000 in less than a year. The only rational explanation for that IMPOV was that friends were funneling money to the Clinton's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

Considering all the foibles of so many of our Presidents, then by such reasoning most of them should be impeached....
 
funinspace said:
Playball40 said:
Can't, I'm working. Can you summarize?
Click to expand...
It is a trail of 25 years of every minor and major Clinton couple event starting with Whitewater and Vince Foster climaxing with of course BENGHAZI, and even some white noise thrown to make an ensemble of right wing Hillary hate.

One trivial gems was this: “The Clinton State Department wasted $80 million on a U.S. Consulate in northern Afghanistan, which will never be completed.”

Can you imagine, Hillary's Dept. of State was involved with some $80 million of waste....what about those fucking trillions thrown down the Afghan/Iraq toilet????

Yeah, and what is lying to get us to invade/occupy Iraq and getting 4,491 soldiers killed in the process, but just a “too bad” event? Or perhaps the billion dollar Baghdad embassy, was just a minor cost overrun. If Kim Jong Un would be better than Hillary Clinton, then the devil himself/herself would have been better than GWB….

Hillary might be a self-serving Democratic corporate toad, but she would still be better than GWB...
Click to expand...

I don't like GWB either. I don't agree with the invasion of country after country. Hillary agrees with it though. She is a war mongering neocon.
 
Kusa said:
funinspace said:
It is a trail of 25 years of every minor and major Clinton couple event starting with Whitewater and Vince Foster climaxing with of course BENGHAZI, and even some white noise thrown to make an ensemble of right wing Hillary hate.

One trivial gems was this: “The Clinton State Department wasted $80 million on a U.S. Consulate in northern Afghanistan, which will never be completed.”

Can you imagine, Hillary's Dept. of State was involved with some $80 million of waste....what about those fucking trillions thrown down the Afghan/Iraq toilet????

Yeah, and what is lying to get us to invade/occupy Iraq and getting 4,491 soldiers killed in the process, but just a “too bad” event? Or perhaps the billion dollar Baghdad embassy, was just a minor cost overrun. If Kim Jong Un would be better than Hillary Clinton, then the devil himself/herself would have been better than GWB….

Hillary might be a self-serving Democratic corporate toad, but she would still be better than GWB...
Click to expand...

I don't like GWB either. I don't agree with the invasion of country after country. Hillary agrees with it though. She is a war mongering neocon.
Click to expand...
Good ole GWB, the President that apparently no one voted for... twice.
 
Kusa said:
funinspace said:
It is a trail of 25 years of every minor and major Clinton couple event starting with Whitewater and Vince Foster climaxing with of course BENGHAZI, and even some white noise thrown to make an ensemble of right wing Hillary hate.

One trivial gems was this: “The Clinton State Department wasted $80 million on a U.S. Consulate in northern Afghanistan, which will never be completed.”

Can you imagine, Hillary's Dept. of State was involved with some $80 million of waste....what about those fucking trillions thrown down the Afghan/Iraq toilet????

Yeah, and what is lying to get us to invade/occupy Iraq and getting 4,491 soldiers killed in the process, but just a “too bad” event? Or perhaps the billion dollar Baghdad embassy, was just a minor cost overrun. If Kim Jong Un would be better than Hillary Clinton, then the devil himself/herself would have been better than GWB….

Hillary might be a self-serving Democratic corporate toad, but she would still be better than GWB...
Click to expand...

I don't like GWB either. I don't agree with the invasion of country after country. Hillary agrees with it though. She is a war mongering neocon.
Click to expand...
I liked how Lindsey Graham put it on the Daily Show with Trevor Noah last month:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/3y9tm...r-picks-his-poison--ted-cruz-vs--donald-trump
Or some excerpts here:
http://deadline.com/2016/03/lindsey-graham-trevor-noah-daily-show-are-you-a-citizen-1201725608/
Asked what else “turned him on” about Cruz, Graham said, “He’s not Trump.” The real estate mogul-turned reality-TV star’s campaign, Graham said, is “opportunistic, race baiting, religious bigotry” –and xenophobic. “Other than that, he’d be a good nominee.”
<snip>
“Donald is like being shot in the head. You might find an antidote to the poisoning – I don’t know, but maybe there’s time,”
Click to expand...
I would consider Hillary to be like a bad flue in comparison to the above. She may have jumped on board the fuck-up-the-ME worse bandwaggon, but I doubt she would have ever been the cowboy whipping the cattle at the front into a blood lust. She stuck her finger in the air to see how the currents were blowing and took her stab at being part of the right crowd, like she often does. She spent the next decade waffling about for a coherent position.

The Neocons and WS may have strong influence within the Dumocrats, but the Neocons and WS own the Rupugnican party. Without the Repugnican near constant banging of the drums for war and domination, today’s Dumocrats would be far less prone to support the massive military-complex as the only jobs program that both parties can agree upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom