swanely:
weatherunderground asked:
You do know even
if she gets the nomination, she’s not going to win right? You’re not
really so naive to think Moody is wrong or that by alienating nearly
have of the democrat fan base and supporters of Sanders that they’re
just going to give Hillary loyalty she doesn’t deserve. Hillary is a
typical, ‘meh’ candidate. No one gets up to vote for ‘meh’. Especially
not after she and the DNC spent so much time denying Bernie Sanders and
all the true liberals. Like, get real buddy.
cheekily answered:
who is moody
and
three-fourths of sanders supporters who voted in the primaries have
stated that they would vote for clinton—which is the same proportion of
clinton voters who stated they would vote for sanders. much as the
Amazing Atheist would like to believe otherwise, bernie or bust is a
myth.
and if “no one gets up to vote” for her why is she leading sanders by almost three million votes lol :-)
weatherunderground:
You’re delusionally naive if you believe that. Clinton has name
recognition in a incredibly dense and uninformed public. Bernie is the
better candidate because he started out at 3 percent last may and is
fastly approaching 50% despite the media black out, the establishment
tactics against him, and the corruption of the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And for someone who doesn’t know who Moody is, we can logically
conclude you have no idea what you’re fucking talking seeing as they’ve
only been wrong on a presidential prediction once in the past 100 years.
Besides, this is my planet. If the DNC doesn’t do what I tell
them to do. They will be stripped of the unearned wealth and sentenced
to life in prison. Hillary Clinton will be arrested and charged with
treason or possibly have her worthless brains blown out, as is her only
purpose in life.
Here’s
part of the reason why you shouldn’t support the hawkish, neo-liberal,
corporate sell-out, right of center moderate republican masquerading as a
democrat:
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-stalwart-friend-of-worlds-worst-despots-attacks-sanders-latin-american-activism/
http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/03/11/dear-hillary-youre-losing-my-vote/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLuqvEZW4wA
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/17/1486245/-12-Examples-of-Hillary-Violating-Progressives
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-fires-back-hillary/
http://theantimedia.org/forget-hillarys-emails-heres-real-scandal-nobody-talking/
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432489/hillary-no-classified-markings-makes-things-worse
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/17/1486245/-12-Examples-of-Hillary-Violating-Progressives
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/14/hillary-clinton-and-syrian-bloodbath
https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/the-baffling-reason-why-so-many-millennials-hate-baby-boomers-92e827a11296#.ldozjozic
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/01/we_have_to_bring_them_to_heel_watch_a_decade_of_hillary_clintons_shameful_hypocrisy_on_racism/
http://www.ibtimes.com/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-pitched-iraq-business-opportunity-us-corporations-2121999
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220153/Christopher-Stevens-Ambassador-pleaded-extra-security-Libya-hours-killed.html
Stevens called for help over 300 times. None came.
-What’s
the point of having the first woman president if she behaves exactly
like the neo-con establishment and promotes the same neo-liberal
policies that are destroying the lower and middle class?
She
campaigned under Goldwater in the Young Republicans in the 1970s who
wanted to end the civil rights movement and segregate the schools.
She admitted on tape of getting a pedophile off free after demonizing
the 12 year old girl on the stand and laughing about it afterwards.
She and her husband supported NAFTA (Similar to the TPP), a
disastrous corporate race-to-the-bottom trade policy that cost countless
American manufacturing jobs (Flint and Detroit included), repealed the
Glass Steagall that allowed for the reckless abuse of Wall Street,
passed the subprime loans that partially led to the 2007 financial
crisis, denied the LGBT community most of her career and stated marriage
is between a woman and man, campaigned on strict crime policy and
passed 3 strikes laws that incarcerated millions of minorities and
poverty stricken children after calling them super-predators and
claiming they need to be brought to heel (An expression used during the
slavery era about putting slaves in their place), manufactured and
puppeteered the crisis in Libya and the coup in Hondorus, receives most
of her money from the private prison
industry/wallstreet/corporations/foreign dictators like Saudi Arabia who
are known for countless human rights violations, voted for every war in
the middle east and is willing to kill and genocide countless of
innocent muslims in the name of corporate profit and imperialism, is
heavily invested in the TPP (another disastrous corporate-lobbyist
trade policy) that will cost thousands more manufacturing jobs, and
engages in some of the most shady and ruthless attacks against Bernie
Sanders after receiving praise on national stage of acting rational.
-Add 600,000 “speaking fees” from the banks.
and worst of all, how Hillary and Bills’ political careers were based into converting the dems to Reagan Clones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… (now called New Democrats with the same agenda and think tank)
Reaganomics loving corporate sellouts who are for: privatization,
deregulation, cutting services for the poor, and being “business
friendly” . Hillary and Bill are a power couple.
-When
then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq
in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect
America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary
of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where
American corporations could make big money.
“It’s time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity,“ she said in a 2011 speech.
The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed
a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid
the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches,
and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation.
Clinton’s comments pitching Iraq as a business opportunity for
American corporations predated her declaration this year that her vote
for the war was a “mistake.” Clinton’s rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination in recent months have signaled
that the Iraq War could become a key way of setting themselves apart
from the former secretary of state – especially because her comments
resurrect longtime concerns from war critics.
In the aftermath of the Iraq War, the Bush administration pushed
to privatize wide swaths of the Iraqi economy. Many prominent political
voices charged that the conflict was not about national security or a
humanitarian mission against a dictator but was instead an attempt to
use military force to open up Iraq’s closed economy to foreign
corporations – including oil giants like Exxon Mobil.
In 2007,
for example, then-Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said: “People say we’re not
fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national
interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not
there for figs.” That same year, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspanwrote:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what
everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Former General
General John Abizaidsaid of the war: ‘‘Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil – and we can’t really deny that.”
In the email that referred to Clinton’s portrayal of Iraq as a
business opportunity, the Clinton-run State Department called Iraq a
“market where your companies can make money,” and said that in meetings
with corporate executives, “U.S. government officials returned to the
theme that the U.S. government stands ready to help U.S. firms operating
in Iraq.”
The dispatch also noted that Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides, hosted an
event “on investing in Iraq with senior executives from 30 U.S.
companies and senior representatives from the U.S. and Iraqi
governments.”
In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:
But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got
around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an
agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a
cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the
parties at stake in Syria together.
This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton
unfit to be President. Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help
instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire
being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence
- Clinton’s intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan’s peace
efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats.
Despite Clinton’s insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of
course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy
responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10
million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.
As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not
mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a
proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided
for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East,
view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and
influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that
controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a
border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all
clamored to remove Iran’s influence in Syria.
This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional
power for a long time–in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is
not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to “defeat” Iran. The
regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes
the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And
Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to
regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view
pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.
Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat,
Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and
Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran’s influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.
When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA
and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an
opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical
victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at
Syrian regime change.
In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests
against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring
of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection
against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: “Assad must go.”
Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord,
the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first
deposed. The US policy–under Clinton and until recently–has been: regime
change first, ceasefire after. After all, it’s only Syrians who are
dying. Annan’s peace efforts were sunk by the United States’ unbending
insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least
accompany a ceasefire. As the Nation editors put it in August 2012:
The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before
negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include
Iran in the process, doomed [Annan’s] mission.
Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis.
Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he
was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” to back the CIA-led insurgency.
The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go,
and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his
support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves
radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for
the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed
by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable
backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple
scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the
foundations of the US establishment.
The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no
bounds. The tactic of CIA-led regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a
“normal” instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly noticed by
the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the
U.N. charter and international law. But what are such niceties among
friends?
This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark
violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated
failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving
a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been,
almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise?
Other societies don’t like their countries to be manipulated by U.S.
covert operations.
Removing a leader, even if done “successfully,” doesn’t solve any
underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or
economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now
wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile
international response, such as Russia’s backing of its Syrian ally in
the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by
covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What
surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and
guide?
And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection,
in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to
make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran
once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the
same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the
Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund
CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or
oversight by the American people).
Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in
deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid
support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US
bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the
Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya’s
Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against
Assad from 2011 until today.
It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures.
Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and
CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political
attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S.
military might, not restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was
assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union,
overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition
in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.
Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of
comprehension, in facing down the CIA. She has been the CIA’s relentless
supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every
one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are
relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She
has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria.
-Former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has much of the establishment
supporting her in the Democratic primary. It has brought heavy airtime,
major political support, and huge corporate donations. Despite these
advantages, she has met Sanders’ clean, issues-based campaign with
deliberate misrepresentation and dirty tactics. These calculated moves
put off general election voters, including people like me. Hillary,
you’re losing my vote.
The Clinton campaign is certainly under pressure. Sanders has won 9
of the 22 states that have voted. Additionally Iowa was a virtual dead
heat and Massachusetts, where President Bill Clinton may have committed a
voter violation felony
(which he denies), came in close. Democrats abroad finished voting on
March 8 and look to deliver a landslide victory to Sanders. What was a
blowout last July increasingly, nationally, is a single-digit race.
Her latest major deception was two days before Michigan’s March 8
primary (where Sanders pulled off a surprisingly win.) At the debate,
Clinton said, “He was against the auto bailout … He voted against the
money that ended up saving the auto industry.” This grossly misrepresented Sanders’ record
as he voted for the auto bailout but against releasing second half of
bailout money, mostly intended for the banks. While Sanders answered,
she interrupted him twice in an attempt to weaken his response and leave
this misconception with voters. It’s eerily reminiscent of what she did
with President Obama in 2008
(see the 4-minute mark, in which Obama similarly calls her out on her
and her family’s deceptive behavior as well as her criticism that he
can’t pay for his plans).
This was less than a week after President Bill Clinton went to Massachusetts polling places. It prompted a petition to investigate his potential third-degree voter violation felony
that has garnered more than 100,000 signatures. Hillary’s win there on
Super Tuesday prevented a fifth victory for Sanders, which would have
undoubtedly brought significant positive press coverage.
Is Hillary alienating voters more quickly than they can be registered?
Before we continue the review, let’s focus on all the unfair
advantages her money and neoliberal record have brought her in terms of
institutional support.
The media establishment has been strongly biased towards Clinton. The
Washington Post, now owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos who is worth
$55 billion, ran 16 negative stories on Sanders in 16 hours starting during the March 6 debate (the Post investigated itself and found no bias?!) Sanders’ wins are downplayed or ignored
in the mainstream media. Delegate counts routinely and deceptively
include unpledged super delegates. The New York Times has run a series
of op-eds that would be expected to praise Sanders given the title,writer’s past or text. Instead, they promote Clinton. (The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton, has done better
recently after extensive criticism.) The bias goes way back. From
January through November of 2015, Clinton received about 23 percent of
evening network airtime devoted to presidential candidates, similar to
Trump. Sanders received 1 percent. Clinton and her supporters (sometimes with undisclosed financial ties) continue to get more coverage by the mainstream media.
The Democratic National Committee has also tilted the playing field.
It scheduled six debates at inconvenient times before the first
primaries – versus 26 in 2008 — using an undemocratic process under
Chair (and former National Co-Chair for Hillary Clinton’s 2008
presidential run) Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The debates have placed a
relatively weak emphasis on wealth inequality, climate change, American
militarism, and the poor – crucial areas where Clinton, despite a past
of global leadership positions, does not shine.
Despite this rigged system, Clinton has employed dishonesty and deception throughout her entire campaign.
During the first debate,
she put in a surprisingly strong performance that allowed the media to
describe it as a “win.” Only later did we find that Clinton misled the
American public on her climate accomplishments, whistleblower Edward
Snowden’s options, her support for the TPP, and her banking plan (a scale of deception similar to Romney’s.) For each, the wording appears to be carefully and deceptively crafted.
Daughter
Chelsea Clinton suggested Sanders’ plan for single payer, universal
health care would leave poor and middle-class Americans without health
insurance, a claim ranked “Mostly False” by Politifact anddescribed as “a mischaracterization at best.”
Hillary
Clinton and her supporters have recently characterized Sanders as a
single-issue candidate focusing on banking. If anything, his major focus
is inequality, which is currently the worse in the developed world, and
in the US since the Great Depression. Her characterization is
especially ironic as she has adapted his positions on the Keystone XL
Pipeline, TPP, college affordability, and fracking. (For the record,
Sanders does also have a strong plan for banks, who have paid $200 billion in fines.)
A
series of patronizing articles and statements from high profile Clinton
supporters imply female Sanders supporters don’t understand loyalty and
institutionalized sexism. This often comes from women who have little
to say about devastating America’s militarism, wealth inequality,
environment, and climate change policies. Feminists, perhaps; humanists,
likely not.
Hillary continues to misrepresent Sanders’ votes
that supported certain policies within a bill, even while he called out
others. For example, before the 1994 Crime Bill vote, Sanders delivered
a powerful critique which included, “Mr. Chairman, how do we talk about
the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning … that we
have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world
by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million kids
hungry today?”
Right now, I feel like I’m one big or four
small whoppers from switching allegiance from her, should she win the
primary, even as a swing state voter – I’d feel far better supporting
Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein.
Both candidates are certainly better than the Republicans, whose
politics and conduct are generally disgraceful and heartless. So it’s
possible I’ll change my mind. But I do expect far greater personal
integrity in my president.
Clinton’s campaign, which exploits institutional bias and deception,
is a diversion from our national challenges. Many of us expect more. She
should honestly focus on the issues at hand. Win or lose, that’s what
one would do who prioritized her country over her career.
-“I’m the only one who can get things done”
Friendly
reminder, the things Hillary has a history of getting done have been
destroying countless of lives and families across the globe and
destroying the working and middle class. The type of things Hillary can
get done are treasonous and destructive.
This is 100% accurate, she explicitly and deliberately smeared that little girl - and funnily enough, pulled a very
similar act a couple decades later, when the girls/women in question
were the victims of her husband’s abuse in the 90s. (So much for
“there’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t support other
women.” Fuck you, Hillary.)
Hillary Clinton isn’t just bad on the environment, bad on social issues, bad onhealthcare, and bad on people in poverty, she is fundamentally a bad person, and the American people deserve to be aware of that.This electionmatters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fUUAoHgQPw
When
anyone thinks voting in this particular election isn’t important,
here’s an example of what is at stake. Hillary Clinton would keep the
U.S. and the larger world at war for profit. (her own), and Bernie Sanders would not. Needless war. Think about it.
This video from progressive Kyle Kulinksi mentions that among
Hillary Clinton’s big money contributors are defense contractors such as
Boeing, General Electric, Hawker Beachcraft (a corporation connected to
Goldman Sachs), Honeywell, Lockheed-Martin and United Technologies.
Saudi Arabia and other governments with histories of repression -
including beheadings and severe restraint of women’s rights - also
donate big money to the Clinton Foundation.
After receiving these “donations,” the Clintons have a history of
promoting the interests of the defense contractors (masters of war) and
repressive nations which give them money. When Hillary was in the State
Department she went to bat for repressive Sharia law states who gave
large sums of money to the Clinton Foundation. As Kulinsky says, “This
is what the establishment does.” In brief, the general philosophy for
establishment politicians such as Hillary Clinton is “anything for
money.”
This is why the country and the world so desperately need Bernie
Sanders. He is the only candidate not in it for the money. He’s the
only decent human being in the race.
Here’s a link to a good reference source supporting this info - a Mother Jonesarticle, Hillary Clinton Oversaw U.S.Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors.
Seriously, FUCK HILLARY. Vote for Bernie, the only viable option.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/5/1480272/-I-Am-A-Feminist-So-I-Will-Not-Be-Voting-for-Hillary
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42965/hillary-questions-bernies-record-on-healthcare/
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/was-clinton-more-conservative-bush
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJshOKWx144
Many people who may vote in the democratic primary election and the
general election in 2016 have no real knowledge of Mrs. Clinton or her
accomplishments. As a public service, I thought I would provide some
input regarding her triumphs for consideration.
When Bill Clinton
was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health
care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a
vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American
taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other
efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over
selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe
Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from
consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her
selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made
the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect
in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband
Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil
Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing
led to the discovered of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to
be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner,
husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She
chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince
Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury
Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster
(presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many
younger voters will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted
to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson –
and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have
them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost
them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one
employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous
crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of
any crime in less than two hours
Still not convinced of her
ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend,
Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security.
When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900
FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs
by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even
knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the
White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House
Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven
presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with
allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was
put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her
more notable decisions in the debacle were:
· She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
·
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the
appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million
dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica
Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his
affairs.
· Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his
license to practice law for lying under oath to a grand jury and then
his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
· Hillary
avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the
Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no
recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
·
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an
estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she
had stolen.
Now we are exposed to: the destruction of possibly
incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay
to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe
will fall next. But to her loyal fans – “what difference does it make?”!
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled
Commentary:
“Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump”
Yes, and getting my hands chopped off is better than getting my head
cut off, but don’t try to tell me I ought to be happy about going
shopping for hooks for hands.
I cannot tell you how pissed I am that the establishment wing of the Democratic Party was sO married to the idea of, “but it’s Hillary’s turn now” that they shoved such an unfavorable, disliked candidate with so much baggage down everyone’s throat.
And now they’re trying to make a shit-milkshake from the candidate
who’s strongest selling point is literally “Hey, at least I’m not Donald
Trump”
caryler
OK I get that people are really passionate about Sanders. He’s a
great candidate with an important message. But why is she considered
unlikable when more people have voted for her than Sanders?
Stop parroting misogynistic Republican propaganda!
odinsblog
Um, @caryler
no shade intended, but do you even know what the word misogyny actually
means? It’s not “misogyny” just because people don’t like Hillary
Clinton. I also dislike Ben Carson and Herman Cain. In your mind does
that somehow make me an anti-black racist?
I’ve said it before, but apparently it bears constant repeating: are
there sexists who don’t like Hillary specifically because she’s a woman?
Yes. But to blindly assume that literally everyone who dislikes
Hillary is somehow a misogynoir is beyond ignorant. I mean, should I
presume that because you apparently aren’t down with Bernie Sanders that
you’re automatically being antisemitic?
No, because that would be very stupid of me.
And people with legitimate grievances against Clinton aren’t
undercover Republicans. That extremely flawed “reasoning” is weak sauce
on top of weak sauce, smothered in bullshit.
Don’t be so basic.
And ICYMI, “Republican talking points” would involve probably involve
me disparaging Hillary’s voice or her appearance or some made up
Benghazi stories or Benghazi related emails. I’m not doing any of that
and anyone who does IS being sexist.
But why would I even bother going there when there is sO very much to legitimately critique Hillary on?
I dislike Clinton for a host of reasons: her racist superpredators
comments; her constant flip flopping on progressive issues like marriage
equality; her refusing to show the damn Goldman Sachs transcripts; her
repeated dismissive behavior when faced with black women who dare to
verbally challenge her; her embrace of conservatism & conservative
icons like Barry Goldwater, Nancy Reagan and Henry Kissinger; her
recently trying to chide Black Chicago activists by insinuating they
should be more docile in the face of constant racism; the fact that she still
has ties to and takes money from big oil and the fracking industry; I
dislike her due to the fact that she is still so friendly with Rahm
Emanuel evenafter his involvement in covering up LaQuan McDonad’s death; I dislike her due to the fact that she claims an abject racist
like Margaret Sanger as one of her personal heroes (and no, the fact
that she helped found Planned Parenthood doesn’t matter)….I could
continue with legit examples for hours…
ALL of my problems with Clinton - every single one - are because of
her policies, polices she’s advocated, or behavior I’ve seen her
display. Literally none of that has anything at all to do with her
gender, anymore than her being a woman automatically qualifies her for
allegedly being a feminist.
HILARY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. Period. She doesn’t care about
people living in poverty, or racial justice, or the environment. If the
way to become POTUS is to capitulate to Republicans, then that’s exactly
what she will do. If it means selling out Black people, Lgbtq people
and immigrants, then that’s precisely what she’s done in the past and
will undoubtedly do again in the future.
Hillary is a terrible Democratic candidate, and if her being better
than someone like Donald Trump is her best selling point, then I feel
really sorry for the future of the Democratic party.
encryptionapple
On September 6, 2006, Senate Amendment No. 4882,
an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned
the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas–presented Senator Clinton
with a timely opportunity to protect the lives of children throughout
the world.
The cluster bomb is one of the most hated and heinous weapons in
modern war, and its primary victims are children. Cluster bombs are
designed to kill people, not to damage buildings or roads. Like land
mines, they continue to kill people long after the battle in which they
were used. It is typical for a large number of these smaller bombs to
remain un-detonated, waiting to explode, after their initial deployment.
The problem with cluster bombs is threefold:
When used, they are distributed in large numbers across terrain;
They have a high failure rate, leaving many un-exploded bombs;
They are small and typically shiny, disproportionately attracting the hands of curious children.
Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons
that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are
fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural
land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive
members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them
for scrap metal.
I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will
attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly
consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally
obliterate them,“ Clinton said. She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic
agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents
that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators
opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems –
first-strike weapons entirely for offense.
1, 2, 3 Photo Credit
Before
Flint (in 2005) while she was running for re-election as New York’s
U.S. Senator, Clinton voted against a measure to ban the manufacturing
of a known carcinogen that had affected drinking water supplies for
millions of Americans. A chemical called methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), which is an additive that makes fuel burn cleaner, had found its
way into 31 states’ drinking water wells by 2000. Three years later,
the Environmental Working Group estimated that some 15 million Americans
were drinking water contaminated with MTBE. Amid this news, seventeen
states filed a class-action lawsuit against the makers of MTBE. Read more here.
Since 1995 over 60,000 factories have left the United States along with millions of jobs. NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent trade relations with China, and now the TPP have put millions of Americans out of work
and allow corporations to exploit workers abroad. Enough with trade
policies that benefit the elite at the expense of working families
around the world! Bernie Sanders 2016!
Hillary Clinton, who is said to have never spoken up
(watch that video) in support of labor unions while on the board of
Wal-Mart, supported NAFTA when it passed and for years afterward. In
1996, she said “I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I
think NAFTA is proving its worth” and in 2004 said, “I think on balance
NAFTA has been good for New York and America.”
But NAFTA has been a disaster
for working people in the U.S. and Mexico, costing a million or more
American jobs, increasing income inequality, and failing live up to the
promises made about it.
Hillary now claims to oppose NAFTA, just as she’s suddenly reversed position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after promoting
it (“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free,
transparent, fair trade”) forty-five times around the world as Secretary
of State.
Unfortunately, we have little basis for believing her on TPP (the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for one, doesn’t believe her), which is another disaster in the making. As Ian Fletcher writes, “She has, in fact, a long record of verbally criticizing free-trade agreements, but then supporting them when in office.” X
Share here
And
finally, I’m not going to vote for someone who“But the bill that
President Clinton signed is not welfare reform. It does not promote work
effectively, and it will hurt millions of poor children by the time it
is fully implemented. What’s more, it bars hundreds of thousands of
legal immigrants—including many who have worked in the United States for
decades and paid a considerable amount in Social Security and income
taxes—from re