Ready For Hillary?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1


I thought I’d start a thread for news and op-eds about Hillary and hopefully start some discussion. She’s obviously a very sick woman with a long history of pathological lying and egregiously unethical behaviour. It’s also clear that she suffers from brain damage and this makes her all the more dangerous. A detailed history of her scandals would fill a small library and is beyond the scope of my first post, but a few thoughts on why she could potentially be the most dangerous woman in history:

After viewing the lynching torture murder of Gaddafi she giggled with glee like the maniac she is. Clearly a sign of a profoundly deranged individual.

During the House Judiciary’s Watergate investigation she was fired by Democrat Jerry Zeifman who explained, “she was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

She claimed that Lewinsky’s accusations were lies and part of a right-wing conspiracy when her own book later attested to the fact that she knew they were true all along.

She ignored Ambassador Stevens’ pleas for increased security then ignored his cries for help as he was attacked. She then tried to blame it all on a spontaneous demonstration against a YouTube video.

Her involvement in the Whitewater scandal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

America is standing on the precipice. Can it survive a Clinton presidency?

2

Yeah another partisan thread straight from the CJS national organization . It is what Benghazi is all about

3

Can it survive a Clinton Presidency? Shit, if this potential one goes the way the last one did, we sure as shit can survive another one.

4

I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro

5

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]

A fucking MAYOR? That’s about as stupid as nominating someone who is the governor of a state with 600,000 people in it, or a senator with exactly one term under his belt. Oh, wait…

6

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Yeah another partisan thread straight from the CJS national organization . It is what Benghazi is all about[/quote]

It’s not partisan. In fact I think John McCain is probably as dangerous as Hillary or Obama if not moreso. Obama is a leftist and an incompetent. Whereas McCain is a dangerous lunatic who could very well inflame a hot war with Russia.

7

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]

A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.

8

At least she wont get blowjobs under the table.

9

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]

A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.[/quote]

This La Raza ? the nerve of that woman :slight_smile:

10

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]

A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.[/quote]

This La Raza ? the nerve of that woman :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Yes that La Raza(The Race). You know, the one that openly calls for “reconquista”, ethnic cleansing of the South West and the establishment of a sovereign all Latino state where whites, blacks, Asians and anyone else who isn’t Hispanic can’t live. That one.

11

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would bet against a Clinton run , I am thinking Julian Castro[/quote]

A hardcore radical whose mother was one of the founders of La Raza.[/quote]

This La Raza ? the nerve of that woman :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Yes that La Raza(The Race). You know, the one that openly calls for “reconquista”, ethnic cleansing of the South West and the establishment of a sovereign all Latino state where whites, blacks, Asians and anyone else who isn’t Hispanic can’t live. That one.
[/quote]

Replace the ethnicities with “gays” and it sounds like the type of organization you might join.

12

[quote]espenl wrote:
At least she wont get blowjobs under the table.[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Vince Foster was found with blond hair and semen on his clothes. Hint: it wasn’t Bill’s. I can only imagine what that poor bastard had to endure in his final hours.

13

She will position herself as a victim when the attacks come, and there is not a fucking chance in hell that Castro even runs, let alone wins.

If disagreeing with a black man makes you racist, trust and believe that disagreeing with a woman makes you sexist. The picket signs are already being thought up as we speak.

14

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
She will position herself as a victim when the attacks come, and there is not a fucking chance in hell that Castro even runs, let alone wins.

If disagreeing with a black man makes you racist, trust and believe that disagreeing with a woman makes you sexist. The picket signs are already being thought up as we speak.

[/quote]

Ehh, she’ll still be a better choice than anyone the GOP puts up against her, assuming that Rand Paul continues to earn the wrath of the old-guard wizards in the Party.

15

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
She will position herself as a victim when the attacks come, and there is not a fucking chance in hell that Castro even runs, let alone wins.

If disagreeing with a black man makes you racist, trust and believe that disagreeing with a woman makes you sexist. The picket signs are already being thought up as we speak.

[/quote]

Ehh, she’ll still be a better choice than anyone the GOP puts up against her, assuming that Rand Paul continues to earn the wrath of the old-guard wizards in the Party.[/quote]

Yes didn’t she do a wonderful job as Secretary of State? Let’s see, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya handed over to Islamic fundamentalists; lynching Gaddafi; civil war in Syria; giving weapons to Islamic fundamentalists in Libya; giving weapons to al Qaeda linked militants in Syria; allowing a US ambassador to be lynched; presenting Putin with a reset button.

Clinton praised Morsi as a lover of peace and a great statesman, sent him billions of dollars then sat by and did nothing when 30 million Egyptians took to the streets to oppose his Islamist regime. She implemented a strategically idiotic pivot to the Pacific. She presided over the removal of all tanks from the EU literally weeks before Putin deployed his tanks on the Ukraine border. She presided over the decommissioning of the A10 tank killer. She tried to appease the Iranians and tried to force Israel to negotiate with the Hamas. That’s the sum total of her political experience. A monumental clusterfuck of foreign policy blunders. And as a hard leftist she supports all the same radical moonbat shit that Obama promotes.

16

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
She will position herself as a victim when the attacks come, and there is not a fucking chance in hell that Castro even runs, let alone wins.

If disagreeing with a black man makes you racist, trust and believe that disagreeing with a woman makes you sexist. The picket signs are already being thought up as we speak.

[/quote]

Ehh, she’ll still be a better choice than anyone the GOP puts up against her, assuming that Rand Paul continues to earn the wrath of the old-guard wizards in the Party.[/quote]

Yes didn’t she do a wonderful job as Secretary of State? Let’s see, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya handed over to Islamic fundamentalists; lynching Gaddafi; civil war in Syria; giving weapons to Islamic fundamentalists in Libya; giving weapons to al Qaeda linked militants in Syria; allowing a US ambassador to be lynched; presenting Putin with a reset button.

Clinton praised Morsi as a lover of peace and a great statesman, sent him billions of dollars then sat by and did nothing when 30 million Egyptians took to the streets to oppose his Islamist regime. She implemented a strategically idiotic pivot to the Pacific. She presided over the removal of all tanks from the EU literally weeks before Putin deployed his tanks on the Ukraine border. She presided over the decommissioning of the A10 tank killer. She tried to appease the Iranians and tried to force Israel to negotiate with the Hamas. That’s the sum total of her political experience. A monumental clusterfuck of foreign policy blunders. And as a hard leftist she supports all the same radical moonbat shit that Obama promotes.[/quote]

Hey, none of this is any different than anything Reagan did as President, yet he is hilariously canonized by the right. Funding the wrong people at the wrong time is a mistake that knows no political boundaries, or maybe you forgot that we were selling arms to the Iranians, or that we propped up Saddam Hussein prior to that.

She has nothing to do with the A10 tank killer decision. She was the Secretary of State, not of Defense/Offense.

I’d say that she does NOT support the moonbat shit that Obama does, hence her abbreviated tenure as Sec’y of State. She wanted as little of his shit stink on her as possible when she runs in 2016. She’s far more moderate than Obama, which isn’t saying much, I admit.

However, she also has prior political experience. She wasn’t the Jackie Kennedy/Pat Nixon type of First Lady who just organized Easter Egg hunts and whose greatest accomplishment was bringing a sense of style to the White House. She was also a Senator for multiple terms, and she has extensive experience as an attorney for various political organizations. Quite frankly, she has more political experience than George W. Bush or Obama had when they ran.

I don’t think she’ll make a great President, but quite frankly, I don’t think she would be nearly as bad as you make it out to be. And she’s certainly a better candidate than anyone on the right, outside of Rand Paul.

17

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Hey, none of this is any different than anything Reagan did as President, yet he is hilariously canonized by the right. Funding the wrong people at the wrong time is a mistake that knows no political boundaries, or maybe you forgot that we were selling arms to the Iranians, or that we propped up Saddam Hussein prior to that.

[/quote]

A nonsense comparison. Iran held hundreds of US hostages and a rescue attempt by Delta Force had failed. Reagan was under enormous pressure to bring them home and had no feasible military option. He traded arms for their lives. He supported Saddam because Saddam was fighting the Iranians. And instead of appeasing the Russians he brought down the fucking Soviet Union. He also didn’t leave the ME in a civil war or help Islamic fundamentalists come to power. He also didn’t stab Israel in the back.

The decision would’ve come from the executive branch and been passed on the the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s possible that it was Obama’s decision alone but unlikely.

On foreign and domestic policy she’s on the hard left. Although she is more favourably disposed to big business.

[quote]

However, she also has prior political experience. She wasn’t the Jackie Kennedy/Pat Nixon type of First Lady who just organized Easter Egg hunts and whose greatest accomplishment was bringing a sense of style to the White House. She was also a Senator for multiple terms, and she has extensive experience as an attorney for various political organizations. Quite frankly, she has more political experience than George W. Bush or Obama had when they ran.

I don’t think she’ll make a great President, but quite frankly, I don’t think she would be nearly as bad as you make it out to be. And she’s certainly a better candidate than anyone on the right, outside of Rand Paul. [/quote]

Rand Paul is not on the right. He’s in that strange nether region where the hard left and the hard right bend around and meet each other.

18

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Hey, none of this is any different than anything Reagan did as President, yet he is hilariously canonized by the right. Funding the wrong people at the wrong time is a mistake that knows no political boundaries, or maybe you forgot that we were selling arms to the Iranians, or that we propped up Saddam Hussein prior to that.

[/quote]

A nonsense comparison. Iran held hundreds of US hostages and a rescue attempt by Delta Force had failed. Reagan was under enormous pressure to bring them home and had no feasible military option. He traded arms for their lives. He supported Saddam because Saddam was fighting the Iranians. And instead of appeasing the Russians he brought down the fucking Soviet Union. He also didn’t leave the ME in a civil war or help Islamic fundamentalists come to power. He also didn’t stab Israel in the back.

The decision would’ve come from the executive branch and been passed on the the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s possible that it was Obama’s decision alone but unlikely.

On foreign and domestic policy she’s on the hard left. Although she is more favourably disposed to big business.

Your justification for selling arms to a terrorist state is pitiful. He negotiated with terrorists, he was a cut-and-runner (see: Lebanon), and his foreign policies were disastrous for everybody but the juntas he was propping up. And don’t even start in with the revisionist bullshit about how he brought the Soviet Union to its knees. COMMUNISM brought the Soviets to their knees, because it is an inherently flawed ideology that would have collapsed even if Raoul Duke was in the White House.

But that’s neither here nor there. I love how you assume that Hillary Clinton was the one behind closed doors guiding Pentagon spending policies. Get paranoid much?

What is the hard left in terms of foreign policy? NOT pushing the Big Red Button? It seems to me that the hard left in terms of foreign policy is only definable by the GOP bobblehead dolls who rant and rave about how they would have handled things differently. The fact is that if hard left foreign policies are tantamount to the way Clinton and Obama have handled their foreign policy, what is the difference between them and the right? What has Obama done all that differently from what previous administrations have done, not what they say they would do? I don’t see a whole lot of fundamental differences at all between the way Bush handled Georgia/Russia and the way Obama is handling this Ukraine thing.

The way the left and the right have conducted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much identical.

As far as Rand Paul goes, yes, he occupies some sort of mysterious nether region. It’s also known as the taint, the space between your balls and your asshole. Not the greatest place to be, but it sure beats being all the way to one side or the other. The problem is that big-time American politics is a place only fit for cocksuckers and ass-kissers, so the people who matter the most don’t trust anyone who doesn’t have either a cock jammed in his mouth or their tongue hilt-deep in some swarthy asshole.

19

I can assure you I don’t view Reagan through rose coloured glasses like many conservatives do. And I agree with you about Lebanon. However in relation to the Soviet Union, Reagan dropped the containment policy that had existed since WWII and launched all out war against them. That’s why he propped up anti-Communist regimes in Central and South America. He also funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Polish insurgents.

realised that the Soviet economy was only the size of California’s so he waged economic warfare against them on several fronts. He realised that their economy relied on oil and gas exports so convinced the Saudis to triple their production. This drove down the price in the west and destroyed the Soviet’s markets. He also began an arms race with the Soviets making their weapons systems obsolete and forcing them to upgrade. The Soviet’s defence spending rose 45%. All of these things combined led to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union. It would not have occurred otherwise - certainly not for some considerable time anyway.

20

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I can assure you I don’t view Reagan through rose coloured glasses like many conservatives do. And I agree with you about Lebanon. However in relation to the Soviet Union, Reagan dropped the containment policy that had existed since WWII and launched all out war against them. That’s why he propped up anti-Communist regimes in Central and South America. He also funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Polish insurgents.

He realised that the Soviet economy was only the size of California’s so he waged economic warfare against them on several fronts. He realised that their economy relied on oil and gas exports so convinced the Saudis to triple their production. This drove down the price in the west and destroyed the Soviet’s markets. He also began an arms race with the Soviets making their weapons systems obsolete and forcing them to upgrade. The Soviet’s defence spending rose 45%. All of these things combined led to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union. It would not have occurred otherwise - certainly not for some considerable time anyway.[/quote]

You say that he launched all-out war against the Soviets, then you list a bunch of shit the U.S. had been doing for more than 20 years already. Ever heard of Guatemala in the early 50’s? What about Cuba between 1960-63?

The Russian economy was ONLY the size of California’s? California’s economy was and is still bigger than most economies in the world.

I don’t think that Saudi oil production increases had that much of an effect on global prices. The market is simply too big for one country to affect it to the point where another country’s economy will be crippled.

Also, the arms race actually prolonged the Soviet collapse, not hastened it. The sale of arms was a very significant source of economic strength for the Soviets, and by upgrading their own systems, they were also selling off much more of their older shit than they would have otherwise. I also refer you to the 1975 NIE, which stated that the best course of action against the Soviets would be to simply let them wither away and die, rather than continue to oppose them and therefore continue to provide the Soviet leadership with exactly the propaganda opportunity that they needed in order to distract people from looking at the Soviet leadership itself as the source of the country’s ills.

No, your take on Reagan’s influence in this matter is overly simplistic and inaccurate.