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

Julian vs. Hillary

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,008
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Everything isn't about Clinton and loyalty to her.

Was the US seriously in danger from her entitled thinking to private emails? If so, she should get in trouble, if it was also illegal.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,008
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Everything isn't about Clinton and loyalty to her.

Was the US seriously in danger from her entitled thinking to private emails? If so, she should get in trouble, if it was also illegal.

You don't think that that Julian leaking the Clinton e-mails now, just as there's a tiny lull of e-mail gate is a coincidence??! I guaranty you that anytime there is a lull, or when Trump is having a bad day, there will be another e-mail story. You'd better get used to it. And it won't stop until after she is elected.
 

dismal

Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
10,329
Location
texas
Basic Beliefs
none
Everything isn't about Clinton and loyalty to her.

Was the US seriously in danger from her entitled thinking to private emails? If so, she should get in trouble, if it was also illegal.

You don't think that that Julian leaking the Clinton e-mails now, just as there's a tiny lull of e-mail gate is a coincidence??! I guaranty you that anytime there is a lull, or when Trump is having a bad day, there will be another e-mail story. You'd better get used to it. And it won't stop until after she is elected.

So Assange is part of the great right wing conspiracy too? It seemed a tad delusional when you were ranting that the FBI and the State department and intelligence inspectors general were in on it, but Assange is in on it too?

That's one helluva vast conspiracy.

Why do you imagine they'll stop when she's elected? Or are you in on it too?
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,008
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You don't think that that Julian leaking the Clinton e-mails now, just as there's a tiny lull of e-mail gate is a coincidence??! I guaranty you that anytime there is a lull, or when Trump is having a bad day, there will be another e-mail story. You'd better get used to it. And it won't stop until after she is elected.

So Assange is part of the great right wing conspiracy too? It seemed a tad delusional when you were ranting that the FBI and the State department and intelligence inspectors general were in on it, but Assange is in on it too?

That's one helluva vast conspiracy.

Why do you imagine they'll stop when she's elected? Or are you in on it too?

Goddammit, you caught me! How in the hell did you know? Yes, I'm in on it. My code sign is "hot hunk". What is yours? BTW: I just follow orders.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Why do you imagine they'll stop when she's elected?

Don't you remember the history of Bill Clinton's Presidency? Everyone from everywhere was attacking him while he ran for President, then afterward everything stopped.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?
Not to mention progressives.

I would say the fact that he has traded on being "from the House of Clinton" her whole political life (i.e. 2000-present) but everybody pretends she is the "most qualified candidate ever" even though she would be somewhere in the midfield. Also the fact that she has shown terrible judgment (emails), is a compulsive liar even about trivial things (Tuzla, origin of her name etc.) and triangulates her positions (Keystone XL and many other issues) so much that the question is if there is any core there at all.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?
Not to mention progressives.

I would say the fact that he has traded on being "from the House of Clinton" her whole political life (i.e. 2000-present) but everybody pretends she is the "most qualified candidate ever" even though she would be somewhere in the midfield. Also the fact that she has shown terrible judgment (emails), is a compulsive liar even about trivial things (Tuzla, origin of her name etc.) and triangulates her positions (Keystone XL and many other issues) so much that the question is if there is any core there at all.
Sounds like most politicians, which does not explain the massive butthurt for this specific politician.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?
Not to mention progressives.

I would say the fact that he has traded on being "from the House of Clinton" her whole political life (i.e. 2000-present) but everybody pretends she is the "most qualified candidate ever" even though she would be somewhere in the midfield. Also the fact that she has shown terrible judgment (emails), is a compulsive liar even about trivial things (Tuzla, origin of her name etc.) and triangulates her positions (Keystone XL and many other issues) so much that the question is if there is any core there at all.

I think the triangulations and lying are only part of a larger theme that the Average Joe American has accepted. The theme is elitism. Hillary and other corporate Democrats abandoned thinking they are on the same level as everyone else. She thinks she can just tell lies and that she is so far above everyone else in intellect, they can't see it. It's very insulting to average Americans. I'd still rather vote for her than Trump if my vote counted.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?


The real neat trick is that the right wingers have managed to make the left wingers hate her perhaps even more than they do.


According to conservatives and professional internet misogynists (not naming names) Hillary is slightly to the left of Chairman Mao, but now they've managed to create a narrative that she's somehow more right wing than her former boss Barry Goldwater.


She's at once the furthest left and furthest right candidate in American history!
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Sounds like most politicians, which does not explain the massive butthurt for this specific politician.
I guess you could say she is a politician with these unfavorable attriutes turned up to 11.
giphy.gif

Also, when she is trying to be "a regular person" she might land in the uncanny valley. Kind of like Romney.
uncanny-valley-1.jpg

bernie-or-hillary-robot-uprising.jpg
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Sounds like most politicians, which does not explain the massive butthurt for this specific politician.
I guess you could say she is a politician with these unfavorable attriutes turned up to 11.
giphy.gif

Also, when she is trying to be "a regular person" she might land in the uncanny valley.
uncanny-valley-1.jpg
Come on, is she really worse than Ted Cruz, or Mitt Romney or Donald Trump - none of whom come close to this massive butthurt. Hell, even Nixon did not generate such massive butthurt. No, it has to be something else. I wonder what is different about Hillary Clinton and all those others. Hmmmm.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,283
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
I would say the fact that he has traded on being "from the House of Clinton" her whole political life (i.e. 2000-present) but everybody pretends she is the "most qualified candidate ever" even though she would be somewhere in the midfield.

She's a former US Senator, was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, was the First Lady of the United States of America from 1993 to 2001, and First Lady of Arkansas from 1983 to 1992. She has served on the Board of Directors of WalMart, TCBY, and a few legal funds and advocacy groups. Her first job in Washington D.C. was as a congressional legal counsel during the Watergate years. She has excelled in both the public sector and the private sector.

If all ^this^ puts her somewhere in the midfield, I'd love to see you list the qualifications of someone you think was top tier when he was his party's nominee.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?


The real neat trick is that the right wingers have managed to make the left wingers hate her perhaps even more than they do.


According to conservatives and professional internet misogynists (not naming names) Hillary is slightly to the left of Chairman Mao, but now they've managed to create a narrative that she's somehow more right wing than her former boss Barry Goldwater.


She's at once the furthest left and furthest right candidate in American history!

It is emerging that she was highly in favor of using violence in Libya.

She is a hawk. So is Obama.

In terms of this constant need for more and more US violence, she is neither right nor left.

She is insane.
 

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,692
Location
Mincogan
Basic Beliefs
naturalist
Everything isn't about Clinton and loyalty to her.

Was the US seriously in danger from her entitled thinking to private emails? If so, she should get in trouble, if it was also illegal.

People who give their lives in the cause of American security just dont matter. Whether they be the poor kids you send into war or CIA agents. Who else would get away with this?

Did Clinton’s Emails Expose CIA Agents?


These are facts. You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary Clinton transmitted the names of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.
 

bleubird

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
1,343
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
none
Obama did not know what he was getting into,and he did pretty good.Clinton knows what she is getting in to.She will do just fine.2008 was caused,in part,by testicles.Men take risks more than woman.Look at Iceland's recovery:woman.My big sister could run anything,if family did not come first.But,she still is active city politics.For all her baggage,I will still vote for the Hilldabeast. Cause I ant' a scard of no smart woman.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Obama did not know what he was getting into,and he did pretty good.Clinton knows what she is getting in to.She will do just fine.2008 was caused,in part,by testicles.Men take risks more than woman.Look at Iceland's recovery:woman.My big sister could run anything,if family did not come first.But,she still is active city politics.For all her baggage,I will still vote for the Hilldabeast. Cause I ant' a scard of no smart woman.

The Falklands was because a woman was trying to prove she had balls.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Come on, is she really worse than Ted Cruz, or Mitt Romney or Donald Trump - none of whom come close to this massive butthurt.
I did edit to add Mitt Romney as a comparison even before seeing your post. But Cruz and certainly Trump are very different. Cruz is an ideologue whose campaign nobody would accuse of being "Camp Weathervane". And while Trump turns things up to 11 (or perhaps even 12) they are different things than what people especially dislike about politicians.
Hell, even Nixon did not generate such massive butthurt.
In 1968, why would anybody be butthurt about Nixon?
No, it has to be something else. I wonder what is different about Hillary Clinton and all those others. Hmmmm.
I know what you think is different. I just don't agree that that plays a role. I think her gender actually helps her. If she was born Hildebrand Rodham instead of Hillary he'd never be even a US senator.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
The Falklands was because a woman was trying to prove she had balls.
No, it was because Argentina decided to invade a UK territory. If China were to invade Guam during a Hillary presidency, would US response be only because "a woman decided to prove she had balls"?

- - - Updated - - -

Cause I ant' a scard of no smart woman.
What does that have to do with voting for Hillary?
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
She's a former US Senator,
As were 99 other people during that time.
was Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013,
Which has been a terminal political position since the 19th century
was the First Lady of the United States of America from 1993 to 2001, and First Lady of Arkansas from 1983 to 1992.
Being married to a politician is not a qualification.
She has served on the Board of Directors of WalMart, TCBY, and a few legal funds and advocacy groups. Her first job in Washington D.C. was as a congressional legal counsel during the Watergate years. She has excelled in both the public sector and the private sector.
In other words she is a lawyer. Which are a dime a dozen in Washington.
If all ^this^ puts her somewhere in the midfield, I'd love to see you list the qualifications of someone you think was top tier when he was his party's nominee.
How about George HW Bush?
House of Representatives, UN Ambassador, RNC chairman, de facto ambassador to China, Director or Central Intelligence, and finally vice president. Note that none of these are 'he was married to Barbara'.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I did edit to add Mitt Romney as a comparison even before seeing your post. But Cruz and certainly Trump are very different. Cruz is an ideologue whose campaign nobody would accuse of being "Camp Weathervane". And while Trump turns things up to 11 (or perhaps even 12) they are different things than what people especially dislike about politicians.
So why not the massive butthurt?
In 1968, why would anybody be butthurt about Nixon?
Why would anyone by so butthurt about Hillary Clinton 5 years ago or now?
I know what you think is different. I just don't agree that that plays a role. I think her gender actually helps her. If she was born Hildebrand Rodham instead of Hillary he'd never be even a US senator.
Of course you feel that is true. But it doesn't explain your massive butthurt about her. Your OP (which has legitimate core) is filled with irrelevant snipes at her character, something which does not happen when you deal with other politicians.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
No, it was because Argentina decided to invade a UK territory. If China were to invade Guam during a Hillary presidency, would US response be only because "a woman decided to prove she had balls"?

- - - Updated - - -

Cause I ant' a scard of no smart woman.
What does that have to do with voting for Hillary?

It was a defense of a colonial possession. Half way across the planet.

It was not a legitimate defense. England did not legitimately own it.

And of course peaceful means were available and compensation was available.

But some insane woman trying to prove she was tough wanted war.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,283
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
People who give their lives in the cause of American security just dont matter. Whether they be the poor kids you send into war or CIA agents. Who else would get away with this?

Did Clinton’s Emails Expose CIA Agents?


These are facts. You can look at the source documents yourself. This is not opinion, conjecture, or rumor. Hillary Clinton transmitted the names of American intelligence officials via her unclassified email.

Let me know when possible security breach that could have happened as a result of Clinton's decision to store her e-mails on a private server approaches the level of deliberately outing Valerie Plame.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,614
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
People who give their lives in the cause of American security just dont matter. Whether they be the poor kids you send into war or CIA agents. Who else would get away with this?

Did Clinton’s Emails Expose CIA Agents?

Let me know when possible security breach that could have happened as a result of Clinton's decision to store her e-mails on a private server approaches the level of deliberately outing Valerie Plame.

Wait, so the crimes of another person being worse suddenly absolve Hillary of her crimes and indiscretions?
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
6,008
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Let me know when possible security breach that could have happened as a result of Clinton's decision to store her e-mails on a private server approaches the level of deliberately outing Valerie Plame.

Wait, so the crimes of another person being worse suddenly absolve Hillary of her crimes and indiscretions?

Where did Arctish say that? HRC is held to a higher standard. Trump is a crooked and gets away with far more than HRC.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It was a defense of a colonial possession. Half way across the planet.
It's an overseas territory. Like Guam. That doesn't give Argentina any more right to invade it than China has the right to invade Guam. Even if mainland China is closer to it than mainland US.
It was not a legitimate defense.
Of course it was a legitimate defense.
England did not legitimately own it.
Not England per se. It's a British overseas territory. The population overwhemingly voted to maintain that status.
And of course peaceful means were available and compensation was available.
Argentina initiated hostilities, the responsibility for military escalation is on them.
But some insane woman trying to prove she was tough wanted war.
- Argentine Junta wanted the war to detract from domestic issues.
- Is the butthurt leftists have for Thatcher because she is a woman? I mean I do not see that much hostility toward other Tory PMs.
 

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,106
Location
Eugene, OR
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
No, it was because Argentina decided to invade a UK territory. If China were to invade Guam during a Hillary presidency, would US response be only because "a woman decided to prove she had balls"?

- - - Updated - - -


What does that have to do with voting for Hillary?

It was a defense of a colonial possession. Half way across the planet.

It was not a legitimate defense. England did not legitimately own it.

And of course peaceful means were available and compensation was available.

But some insane woman trying to prove she was tough wanted war.

So now you disavow democracy? The residents in the Falklands voted overwhelmingly to remain with the UK.

What you seem to support is dictatorship, a dictatorship of your own opinions.
 

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,283
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
Let me know when possible security breach that could have happened as a result of Clinton's decision to store her e-mails on a private server approaches the level of deliberately outing Valerie Plame.

Wait, so the crimes of another person being worse suddenly absolve Hillary of her crimes and indiscretions?

No. But the author of that article was really stretching things trying to gin up a charge against Hillary Clinton, claiming her decision to store her e-mails on a private server was the same as violating "National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917". I think he's just scaremongering. He's certainly blowing things way out of proportion when he compares Clinton's handling of her e-mails to John Kiriakou handing over classified information on a specific covert operative on a specific covert mission to a reporter.

I'm going to use the outing of Valerie Plame as a benchmark. Let me know when Clinton's alleged failure to properly secure her e-mails nears that level of violation the Espionage Act.
 
Last edited:

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
That Falklands vote is only if you count anchor babies
NWMROn5.gif
Falklands have been British 150 years before Argentine Junta decided to invade them.

The only reason people like untermensche side with Argentina on this one is because Spanish-speaking countries rank higher than English speaking countries on the progressive value scale.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
No, it was because Argentina decided to invade a UK territory. If China were to invade Guam during a Hillary presidency, would US response be only because "a woman decided to prove she had balls"?

- - - Updated - - -


What does that have to do with voting for Hillary?

It was a defense of a colonial possession. Half way across the planet.

It was not a legitimate defense. England did not legitimately own it.

And of course peaceful means were available and compensation was available.

But some insane woman trying to prove she was tough wanted war.

What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.
I already explained it. Spanish-speaking country >> English-speaking country. Everything else is irrelevant.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.
I already explained it. Spanish-speaking country >> English-speaking country. Everything else is irrelevant.


So white colonialists > brown people who were subjects.


Gotcha.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
The islands were uninhabited before Europeans got there.


North America was similarly uninhabited, according to Manifest Destiny.


Oh, a few "savages" at the fringes of white settlements, but otherwise just land for the taking.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
North America was similarly uninhabited, according to Manifest Destiny.
Look, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. Regardless of what you would like to be true, the islands were uninhabited when Europeans got there.

Oh, a few "savages" at the fringes of white settlements, but otherwise just land for the taking.
Not even that.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,672
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Wiki:
Both the British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774, when Britain's new economic and strategic considerations led it to voluntarily withdraw from the islands, leaving a plaque claiming the Falklands for King George III.[26]

Yup, plaques determine everything.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Yup, plaques determine everything.
Apparently so. :) After all, British had control of the islands since 1833 and vast majority of the inhabitants want to continue being a British overseas territory.

Note however, contra Ford, that both Britain and Spain are in Europe.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
the islands were uninhabited when Europeans got there.


That's right...I forgot the Manifest Destiny Playbook Page 1: If you don't see any native people on a piece of land, it belongs to Europeans by default.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
That's right...I forgot the Manifest Destiny Playbook Page 1: If you don't see any native people on a piece of land, it belongs to Europeans by default.
And I forgot the Progressive Bullshitter Playbook Page 1: If reality does not fit your preconceptions, reject it and substitute your own.

In any case, this question is irrelevant to whether Argentina or UK had proper claim to the islands in 1982. Especially since Argentina is a European settler state.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,821
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
Especially since Argentina is a European settler state.


That's right. I forgot. The entire continent of South America was completely uninhabited until white people showed up.


Much like Africa.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
That's right. I forgot. The entire continent of South America was completely uninhabited until white people showed up.
South America was inhabited (unlike the Falklands). Nobody is denying that. That doesn't change the fact that Argentina is a (mostly) European settler state. Mestizos and Amerindians are only about 3% of the population. In that regard Argentina is not very different from the US.

Falklands war was not between UK and some pre-Columbian inhabitants of the island, even though I am sure the progressives that reflexively side with Argentina think that.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
South America was inhabited (unlike the Falklands). Nobody is denying that.

But you're saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

Where the hell are you pulling this out of? The issue of contention regards Argentina and the UK's claims to the Falkand Islands. Argentina is the quintessence of white Europeans ruling over South America, for fuck's sake!

:picardfacepalm:
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,425
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.
I already explained it. Spanish-speaking country >> English-speaking country. Everything else is irrelevant.
So white colonialists > brown people who were subjects.
There were no "brown people" there. The islands were uninhabited before Europeans got there.
Um, are you not following his reasoning? Look, it's very simple. Spanish-speaking country > English-speaking country. Brown people > white colonialists. English-speaking country = white colonialists. Therefore Spanish-speaking country = brown people. What's wrong with you, can't you do elementary algebra?
 
Top Bottom