Hillary is now blaming the married women

[Arctish]

Okay, let me break this down even simpler.

If you're successful at doing bad things, that isn't a success you want to use to prove you are good. She's very successful at doing bad things. Just like Kissinger.

She was successful at carrying out the foreign policy of the Administration under which she served. Just like Kissinger. That is a reason to vote for her or against her, depending on your views. It is not a reason to question her success as Secretary of State.

 

[Emily Lake]

It was very much a choice between a giant douche and a shit sandwich. I really wish South Park had been less clairvoyant with that one.

Clinton cannot possibly be considered to be in the same category as Trump . Fan or not, she has a long track record of public service. She’s a lot too hawkish for me but she’s competent and knowlegable. Trump is neither.

Giant douches and shit sandwiches aren't in the same category either

- - - Updated - - -

A long record of public service isn't exactly a glowing recommendation.

She was a successful lawyer at a successful law firm.

She was a successful member of Wal Mart's Board of Directors.

She was a successful US Senator.

She was a successful Secretary of State.

But that's not good enough. She wasn't sweet and nice and friendly. She didn't wear a ball gown like Nancy Reagan or a smile like Laura Bush. She made some guys feel uncomfortable. That makes her a total bitch, and who wants that in a President?

Now, if she'd run a campaign like Trump did people would have liked her better. Too bad she didn't offer to pay the legal bills of supporters who punched out critics, or called federal judges biased because their parents were immigrants from Mexico, or promised stupid shit like a giant wall on the border that someone else was going to pay for. She could be President right now if only someone had found a tape of her bragging about grabbing guys by the balls.

Nothing like a little ball grabbing to make a woman likable, amirite?

That should have disqualified her right out of the gate.

ETA: Actually, I think that should have disqualified her from being called a Democrat in the first place.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let me put it to you this way: the country of Libya.

I used the word "country" because there are idiots out there who think Bengazi is Libya and Libya is Bengazi and if you're talking about Libya you're talking about Bengazi. I'm not talking about Bengazi at all.

She has lots of experience destabilizing countries and killing people. Since the military is supposedly used when diplomacy fails, and her job as diplomat saw her using the military as a first response, she was already very experienced at doing things the wrong way. But when she did use the military, she didn't use it intelligently. In the name and under the umbrella of the War on Terror she destabilized a secular dictatorship, one that actually thought he was working with us instead of against us, had it collapse and get taken over by religious radicals who are the same people the US is fighting in Syria, and brought back the slave trade of African slaves by Arab slave traders.

That is what she has experience at. That is her "successful term" as Secretary of State.

And that is just the surface layer. That's the part I think people here might understand. Personally I have no respect for public service, and I speak as a veteran when I say this.

I'm pretty sure you're the real life version of Ron Swanson

 

[Mumbles]

Let me put it to you this way: the country of Libya.

I used the word "country" because there are idiots out there who think Bengazi is Libya and Libya is Bengazi and if you're talking about Libya you're talking about Bengazi. I'm not talking about Bengazi at all.

She has lots of experience destabilizing countries and killing people. Since the military is supposedly used when diplomacy fails, and her job as diplomat saw her using the military as a first response, she was already very experienced at doing things the wrong way. But when she did use the military, she didn't use it intelligently. In the name and under the umbrella of the War on Terror she destabilized a secular dictatorship, one that actually thought he was working with us instead of against us, had it collapse and get taken over by religious radicals who are the same people the US is fighting in Syria, and brought back the slave trade of African slaves by Arab slave traders.

That is what she has experience at. That is her "successful term" as Secretary of State.

And that is just the surface layer. That's the part I think people here might understand. Personally I have no respect for public service, and I speak as a veteran when I say this.

I understand that Hillary did not initiate that war, it was a coalition led attack on Gaddafi. I believe she was involved in co-ordination, but it wasn't her call. I think the French got the ball rolling on that.

Not to say she wasn't a hawk.

Sorry you've had trouble with public service. I'm not in the public sector myself (I work for a multinational corporation), by I believe there are good people out there who really do want to help others.

Actually, the Libyan war was started shortly after the Arab Spring, and was a civil war in which both rebels and Gaddafi broke all sorts of international law - including the Libyan army's slaughter of hundreds of civilians in (yep) Benghazi. The NATO enforced UN no-fly zone was in large part a reaction to this, although neither side was particularly good in any moral sense.Actual training and supplying of the rebels came from France, Qatar, and the UAE.

As far as the slave trade, this is primarily caused by intervention from European countries, particularly Italy, and is due to disastrous conditions of African refugees bottled up in Libya. However, note that Dolt 45 mimics a lot of the European far right's opposition to nonwhite refugees - and bigotry towards nonwhite people in general. Gaddafi also aided this crisis, feeding into the "white genocide" white nationalist garbage in order to receive lavish payments from various European countries, and also holding African refugees in disgusting desert camps, so the idea that he was somehow the force preventing such things is questionable at best.

OR, to put it another way, putting all, or even most, of this on Hillary Clinton is risible.

 

[Elixir]

Let me put it to you this way: the country of Libya.

I used the word "country" because there are idiots out there who think Bengazi is Libya and Libya is Bengazi and if you're talking about Libya you're talking about Bengazi. I'm not talking about Bengazi at all.

She has lots of experience destabilizing countries and killing people. Since the military is supposedly used when diplomacy fails, and her job as diplomat saw her using the military as a first response, she was already very experienced at doing things the wrong way. But when she did use the military, she didn't use it intelligently. In the name and under the umbrella of the War on Terror she destabilized a secular dictatorship, one that actually thought he was working with us instead of against us, had it collapse and get taken over by religious radicals who are the same people the US is fighting in Syria, and brought back the slave trade of African slaves by Arab slave traders.

That is what she has experience at. That is her "successful term" as Secretary of State.

And that is just the surface layer. That's the part I think people here might understand. Personally I have no respect for public service, and I speak as a veteran when I say this.

I understand that Hillary did not initiate that war, it was a coalition led attack on Gaddafi. I believe she was involved in co-ordination, but it wasn't her call. I think the French got the ball rolling on that.

Not to say she wasn't a hawk.

Sorry you've had trouble with public service. I'm not in the public sector myself (I work for a multinational corporation), by I believe there are good people out there who really do want to help others.

Actually, the Libyan war was started shortly after the Arab Spring, and was a civil war in which both rebels and Gaddafi broke all sorts of international law - including the Libyan army's slaughter of hundreds of civilians in (yep) Benghazi. The NATO enforced UN no-fly zone was in large part a reaction to this, although neither side was particularly good in any moral sense.Actual training and supplying of the rebels came from France, Qatar, and the UAE.

As far as the slave trade, this is primarily caused by intervention from European countries, particularly Italy, and is due to disastrous conditions of African refugees bottled up in Libya. However, note that Dolt 45 mimics a lot of the European far right's opposition to nonwhite refugees - and bigotry towards nonwhite people in general. Gaddafi also aided this crisis, feeding into the "white genocide" white nationalist garbage in order to receive lavish payments from various European countries, and also holding African refugees in disgusting desert camps, so the idea that he was somehow the force preventing such things is questionable at best.

OR, to put it another way, putting all, or even most, of this on Hillary Clinton is risible.

It's not a question of whether or not her actions or intent caused bad outcomes, it's a matter of getting maximum return out of a 30-year vilification campaign. That campaign consumed vast resources - both financial and political - and now its subject no longer needs to be suppressed or prevented from attaining high office. So what are conservatives supposed to do? Might as well get something out of the whole effort - why not use her as a dumping ground for all evil? After all, there is still a plurality of Chump voters whose blood pressure rises and falls at the mention of her name...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Let me put it to you this way: the country of Libya.

I used the word "country" because there are idiots out there who think Bengazi is Libya and Libya is Bengazi and if you're talking about Libya you're talking about Bengazi. I'm not talking about Bengazi at all.

She has lots of experience destabilizing countries and killing people. Since the military is supposedly used when diplomacy fails, and her job as diplomat saw her using the military as a first response, she was already very experienced at doing things the wrong way. But when she did use the military, she didn't use it intelligently. In the name and under the umbrella of the War on Terror she destabilized a secular dictatorship, one that actually thought he was working with us instead of against us, had it collapse and get taken over by religious radicals who are the same people the US is fighting in Syria, and brought back the slave trade of African slaves by Arab slave traders.

That is what she has experience at. That is her "successful term" as Secretary of State.

And that is just the surface layer. That's the part I think people here might understand. Personally I have no respect for public service, and I speak as a veteran when I say this.

I'm pretty sure you're the real life version of Ron Swanson

That's one of the nicest things I've had anyone say to me on this board.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let me put it to you this way: the country of Libya.

I used the word "country" because there are idiots out there who think Bengazi is Libya and Libya is Bengazi and if you're talking about Libya you're talking about Bengazi. I'm not talking about Bengazi at all.

She has lots of experience destabilizing countries and killing people. Since the military is supposedly used when diplomacy fails, and her job as diplomat saw her using the military as a first response, she was already very experienced at doing things the wrong way. But when she did use the military, she didn't use it intelligently. In the name and under the umbrella of the War on Terror she destabilized a secular dictatorship, one that actually thought he was working with us instead of against us, had it collapse and get taken over by religious radicals who are the same people the US is fighting in Syria, and brought back the slave trade of African slaves by Arab slave traders.

That is what she has experience at. That is her "successful term" as Secretary of State.

And that is just the surface layer. That's the part I think people here might understand. Personally I have no respect for public service, and I speak as a veteran when I say this.

I'm pretty sure you're the real life version of Ron Swanson

That's one of the nicest things I've had anyone say to me on this board.

It was intended as a compliment, so I'm glad it was taken as such.

ETA: Plus, it's really easy to hear Ron's voice when reading your posts, which is extra fun! The real question is whether you like good scotch...

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

and red meat, and for the last few months have been growing out a beard.