Hillary won more votes for President

dignin

She is extremely intelligent and tough as nails.

Free

dignin said:

She is extremely intelligent and tough as nails.

And a liar.

Boxes&Books

josevolution said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

You know what's missing on this Hillary thread? A positive post.

I got one:
Donald Trump is worse!

Clever. It's because we spend our time to reacting to negative and misleading posts that are rooted in the right wing echo chamber.

And there lies the problem. You're too busy reacting and not pro acting. You can't talk about any of her pros, you can only talk about the opposition. Even when many of us have asked over and over and over again why you support Hillary Clinton and you can't come up with anything other than Trump.

Yep that's me I don't give a fuck about what she has done , I'll be voting for her over asshole of the century... now go ahead and tell me how you and the Free movement are so righteous and everyone else is so blind ....

Just look at some of the leaked emails. You don't need to be blind. You can be informed like the rest of us.
Why don't you share a story of how you came here from another country. Those are more uplifting. These comments you just made aren't very positive.

Saludos!

CM189191

Free said:

dignin said:

She is extremely intelligent and tough as nails.

And a liar.

This narrative is getting boring. What's your point?

mrussel1

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

You know what's missing on this Hillary thread? A positive post.

I got one:
Donald Trump is worse!

Clever. It's because we spend our time to reacting to negative and misleading posts that are rooted in the right wing echo chamber.

And there lies the problem. You're too busy reacting and not pro acting. You can't talk about any of her pros, you can only talk about the opposition. Even when many of us have asked over and over and over again why you support Hillary Clinton and you can't come up with anything other than Trump.

You really don't know why I'm supporting Clinton? After all of these months? Or are you asking others..

josevolution

tonifig8 said:

josevolution said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

You know what's missing on this Hillary thread? A positive post.

I got one:
Donald Trump is worse!

Clever. It's because we spend our time to reacting to negative and misleading posts that are rooted in the right wing echo chamber.

And there lies the problem. You're too busy reacting and not pro acting. You can't talk about any of her pros, you can only talk about the opposition. Even when many of us have asked over and over and over again why you support Hillary Clinton and you can't come up with anything other than Trump.

Yep that's me I don't give a fuck about what she has done , I'll be voting for her over asshole of the century... now go ahead and tell me how you and the Free movement are so righteous and everyone else is so blind ....

Just look at some of the leaked emails. You don't need to be blind. You can be informed like the rest of us.
Why don't you share a story of how you came here from another country. Those are more uplifting. These comments you just made aren't very positive.

Saludos!

That's exactly why I'm voting for her because I am an immigrant that's it ! Emails won't change my position and I'm not wasting my vote on 3rd party not when you have asshole on the other side , let's talk again in 2020 maybe the choices will be better ..

Gern Blansten

Free said:

dignin said:

She is extremely intelligent and tough as nails.

And a liar.

Let's just assume that I list my reasons and you post some sophomoric response.

Now...on to other things

dignin

Free said:

dignin said:

She is extremely intelligent and tough as nails.

And a liar.

You asked, and then that was your response? Why did I bother....

Boxes&Books

josevolution said:

tonifig8 said:

josevolution said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

You know what's missing on this Hillary thread? A positive post.

I got one:
Donald Trump is worse!

Clever. It's because we spend our time to reacting to negative and misleading posts that are rooted in the right wing echo chamber.

And there lies the problem. You're too busy reacting and not pro acting. You can't talk about any of her pros, you can only talk about the opposition. Even when many of us have asked over and over and over again why you support Hillary Clinton and you can't come up with anything other than Trump.

Yep that's me I don't give a fuck about what she has done , I'll be voting for her over asshole of the century... now go ahead and tell me how you and the Free movement are so righteous and everyone else is so blind ....

Just look at some of the leaked emails. You don't need to be blind. You can be informed like the rest of us.
Why don't you share a story of how you came here from another country. Those are more uplifting. These comments you just made aren't very positive.

Saludos!

That's exactly why I'm voting for her because I am an immigrant that's it ! Emails won't change my position and I'm not wasting my vote on 3rd party not when you have asshole on the other side , let's talk again in 2020 maybe the choices will be better ..

I can relate to you're immigrant stories man... Without a doubt... Every time you posted comments regarding your past I'd always give you an imaginary fist bump, Michelle Obama style. Let me just say, that by supporting Clinton you aren't protecting that institution that gave us this amazing opportunity/life. You aren't protecting that image of freedom, I think an expression used by many is " that shinny house on the hill"(some shit like that. There is so much more to this. I would encourage you to stay open minded about things and look at the broader image. Trust me I hate trump too and I share a similar history to yours.

Saludos!!

josevolution

tonifig8 said:

josevolution said:

tonifig8 said:

josevolution said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

You know what's missing on this Hillary thread? A positive post.

I got one:
Donald Trump is worse!

Clever. It's because we spend our time to reacting to negative and misleading posts that are rooted in the right wing echo chamber.

And there lies the problem. You're too busy reacting and not pro acting. You can't talk about any of her pros, you can only talk about the opposition. Even when many of us have asked over and over and over again why you support Hillary Clinton and you can't come up with anything other than Trump.

Yep that's me I don't give a fuck about what she has done , I'll be voting for her over asshole of the century... now go ahead and tell me how you and the Free movement are so righteous and everyone else is so blind ....

Just look at some of the leaked emails. You don't need to be blind. You can be informed like the rest of us.
Why don't you share a story of how you came here from another country. Those are more uplifting. These comments you just made aren't very positive.

Saludos!

That's exactly why I'm voting for her because I am an immigrant that's it ! Emails won't change my position and I'm not wasting my vote on 3rd party not when you have asshole on the other side , let's talk again in 2020 maybe the choices will be better ..

I can relate to you're immigrant stories man... Without a doubt... Every time you posted comments regarding your past I'd always give you an imaginary fist bump, Michelle Obama style. Let me just say, that by supporting Clinton you aren't protecting that institution that gave us this amazing opportunity/life. You aren't protecting that image of freedom, I think an expression used by many is " that shinny house on the hill"(some shit like that. There is so much more to this. I would encourage you to stay open minded about things and look at the broader image. Trust me I hate trump too and I share a similar history to yours.

Saludos!!

Thanks I like your post too but on this we will have to agree to disagree..I would vote 3rd party but none of them have a chance at the WH so let's just wait till she is in office and maybe the Sanders movement can get behind a 3rd Party and will get someone who we can all agree on but this election I'm not voting for asshole !

HughFreakingDillon

I wonder, if Hillary gives more of what we're used to from the white house, if that will give rise to a political alternative: the centre!

rssesq

did anyone get the needy latinos memo?

rssesq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWb8hqvqqhk

Kat

Funny or Die
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/danny-elfman-scores-creepy-trump-stalks-hillary-clip-w445037

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Don't forget the guns they were running through benghazi.

Were they using the same planes they used to fly cocaine into Arkansas in the '70s and '80s?

It's amazing how you blow this off. You are clearly a non-interventionist and the war in Libya followed by the gun-running was exactly that. Nobody is claiming these actions were illegal but it certainly was a decision that did not work out in the administrations favour. What people aren't happy with is the failure to account for the policy, to discuss why it took place and where it went wrong. There should be some transparency on this and for someone who is as mad about Iraq as you appear to be it is quite surprising how you simply don't care. Libya was a war of choice that might have even had some merit and there should be a real discussion of the policy. Your inability to be consistent on the issue shows a real lean towards partisanship over any real dispute with an interventionist foreign policy.

What would you have done in that situation? The rebels were pinned in Benghazi by the advancing Qhaddafi forces. France and England are pushing for intervention. The rebel's charismatic, pro democracy, western educated leader is in your office telling you about the plans for democracy... finally a western democracy not being forced down a Muslim throat, rather one being instituted by the people. What do you do? Let Qhaddafi slaughter the rebels or provide support?
The outcome in Libya was terrible. There are many reasons to second guess it. But I don't think you can draw a correlation between Iraq and this engagement. One was completely our undertaking with our troops. The other was not.

I am not actually arguing that I would have done anything different but let's not kid ourselves that their charismatic leader was any different from the Ahmad Chalabi's of this world. These guys are all corrupt for the most part and without a permanent presence (US/NATO etc) there is zero chance that regime change would result in anything other then collapse. That is the unfortunate lesson of Iraq. It took 4000+ US soldier's live, billions of dollars and 6 plus year presence including tactical changes like the surge to even develop something remotely close to a pacified country which then completely collapsed within a few years of withdrawal. For people who argue that Iraq was better with Saddam Hussein in charge yet Libya would be worse with Gaddafi are just not being consistent and may in fact be generally wrong. Gaddafi was also a brutal dictator and historical sponsor of terror but at a bare minimum he began to ally with the US following the overthrow of Saddam (he turned in his weapons of mass destruction according to all reports). Once he was taken out (without any UN resolution which people once used to think was necessary) by a coalition smaller then the one that invaded Iraq there was no chance that the light footprint of the Clinton state department would have any success. Islamists easily overran that country just like they did throughout Iraq and Syria and there is now a possibility they did this with weapons that were meant for rebel forces in Syria. This is a failed policy equivalent to the failed policy of Iraq as in the end they both ended up as hotbeds for Radical Islam and ISIS. The world needs to get this right but will be unable to without full transparency on the subject and we will never have transparency because people's political futures are being judged as more important then a full accounting of the policy.

brianlux

Last night we went to gathering of investment type people. I hate that whole business but my wife is into it for practical reasons. On the other hand because I'm sixty five I have to start figuring out how I will live when I can no longer work enough to fill the need so I tried to get with it a bit (yawn). Anyway, these are fairly politically conservative people and although the meeting was not about politics, the election came up (is there any place where it DOESN'T any more?) and the general consensus there was that HRC will handily win.

So now we can all go and post somewhere on a more cheery subject. For me anyway, the idea of Clinton or Trump as president is rather depressing.

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

tonifig8 said:

You know what's missing on this Hillary thread? A positive post.

I got one:
Donald Trump is worse!

Clever. It's because we spend our time to reacting to negative and misleading posts that are rooted in the right wing echo chamber.

And there lies the problem. You're too busy reacting and not pro acting. You can't talk about any of her pros, you can only talk about the opposition. Even when many of us have asked over and over and over again why you support Hillary Clinton and you can't come up with anything other than Trump.

That doesn't make any sense. Her pros can be found pretty easily

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/seven-hillary-clintons-biggest-accomplishments/

Bandwagons and granpa home runs

mrussel1

^ You bring up a few excellent points. Remember the original UN resolution of which Russia and 4 others abstained, only called for bombing and a no fly zone. so you're right. And England and France already had planes in the air. But what happened is what always happens... scope creep. It takes tremendous, icy cold discipline to stop and the security council did not have that discipline. The point you bring up which is accurate, is having a UN force or some occupying force would have been necessary to stop the country from falling into chaos. I think the belief (hope) by the western powers was that since there was no sectarian divide (Sunni Shia), it wouldn't devolve the same way. Sadly, ISIS filled that gap.

It's interesting because one of the lessons Clinton carries with her from the 90's is the success of the Balkan wars, conducted by UN forces and contrast that with the failure in Rwanda. I believe that Obama and Clinton's instincts would have been to use a force to stabilize, but the political reality and distaste made that untenable.

This shit is hard, it's complex and prone to second guessing. There is no doubt. It's particularly difficult today compared to WWII, for example, because we are so focused on the humanitarian piece of war. Winning is so much more difficult than it used to be. Think about the fire bombing campaigns of Dresden, Nuremberg, Hamburg, etc. Those are all war crimes, and were war crimes back then.

pjalive21

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

pjalive21 said:

Emails show '08 Clinton camp probed Obama vulnerability
on Muslim father, cocaine use\

Published October 14, 2016
FoxNews.com
Another day, another batch of WikiLeaks emails – this time, showing the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign’s efforts to test then­Sen.
Barack Obama’s potential vulnerabilities, including on deeply personal matters like his father’s Muslim faith and his own past
cocaine use.
The email exchange, part of the latest release of hacked emails purportedly from Clinton 2016 Campaign Chairman John
Podesta’s account, are from early January 2008 and discuss what is described in the subject line as a “McCain Survey.”
The discussion, however, focuses on apparent polling about potential weak spots for Obama, who had just beaten Clinton in the
Iowa Democratic caucuses at that stage in the race.
The Clinton allies and strategists float a slew of potential topics including:
“Obama (owe­BAHM­uh) was the only candidate at a recent event not to cover his heart during the national anthem and he has
stopped wearing an American flag pin.”
“Obama (owe­BAHM­uh)'s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world's most populous Islamic
country.”
See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →
“Obama (owe­BAHM­uh) described his former use of cocaine as using ‘a little blow.’”
The topics are listed in an email from analyst Kristi Fuksa asking those on the list to cut one:
“We've reworked the Obama message into the survey, as requested. But on the list of negative facts we need to cut ONE since
we separated out gay adoption and his use of cocaine,” she writes.
The cocaine question was separated out, apparently at the request of strategist Paul Begala

Is this really a revelation? All this stuff came out way back then. Who cares?

Wow! This is an election game changer... yet again! A political rival exploring vulnerabilities. Who would have thunk it?

Not a game changer just the fact her campaign people used GOP style tactics and verbiage against Obama

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

^ You bring up a few excellent points. Remember the original UN resolution of which Russia and 4 others abstained, only called for bombing and a no fly zone. so you're right. And England and France already had planes in the air. But what happened is what always happens... scope creep. It takes tremendous, icy cold discipline to stop and the security council did not have that discipline. The point you bring up which is accurate, is having a UN force or some occupying force would have been necessary to stop the country from falling into chaos. I think the belief (hope) by the western powers was that since there was no sectarian divide (Sunni Shia), it wouldn't devolve the same way. Sadly, ISIS filled that gap.

It's interesting because one of the lessons Clinton carries with her from the 90's is the success of the Balkan wars, conducted by UN forces and contrast that with the failure in Rwanda. I believe that Obama and Clinton's instincts would have been to use a force to stabilize, but the political reality and distaste made that untenable.

This shit is hard, it's complex and prone to second guessing. There is no doubt. It's particularly difficult today compared to WWII, for example, because we are so focused on the humanitarian piece of war. Winning is so much more difficult than it used to be. Think about the fire bombing campaigns of Dresden, Nuremberg, Hamburg, etc. Those are all war crimes, and were war crimes back then.

And WWII required a troop presence which still even continues to this day! That's why I keep coming back to my point on the Iraq withdrawal being such a terrible decision. There will never be a way to prove it but I will always believe a continued presence would have prevented so many of the problems we are currently seeing. The craziest part is that I believe if Hillary was elected in 2008 she never would have withdrawn the troops! She would have renegotiated the status of forces agreement and maintained the presence.