Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[Johnny Canuck3]

They oversaw a genocidal sanctions regime that killed around one million Iraqi civilians ..

Looking at this article, it seems as if Britain also played a part in the Iraqi sanctions:

Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed - most enthusiastically by Britain and the US.

Squeezed to death

It's unclear to me just how Hillary Clinton was responsible for what Britain did.

It's also unclear to me how she 'oversaw' US policy before George Bush took office.

Your post is basically cookie-cutter with ones I've read on other sites from rabid right-wing Americans. Like you, they want to call Hillary on the carpet for things done while her husband was President. IMO,this is an argument influenced by sexist thought. It's a 'real power behind the throne' argument. Maybe a Mata Hari kind of argument.

Without saying as much, it implies that males are weak characters easily manipulated by women. In this paradigm, women are wily, scheming creatures, controlling the men in their lives.

As for your Huffington Post article, it's an op-ed piece that happens to agree with you.

As for Libya Obama , Kerry et al opposed bombing . Clinton made sure it happened.

Not sure how she managed to make a President opposed to bombing - carry out the bombing.

Maybe she used her 'feminine wiles'?


Come on: you're better than this sexist drivel.

 

[Casually Red]

Read the fucking articles. They explain how. It was in her emails . She also boasts that HER Libya policy was a success. You didn't even fucking read it . New York times article, 2 parts .

And again the clintons were a political team. Bills policies were her policies too .

Your also deliberately unaware of Britains track record as the USAs poodle.

Actually your not. Your just pretending you didn't know that and ignoring any evidence that proves you wrong. A waste of space .

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Come on: you're better than this sexist drivel.

He's pissed off because deep down he knows Hillary could knock his mate Putin out with one punch.

 

[elbows]

This is a good example of Trump saying something that is actually fairly reasonable that will outrage people who the average American hates, they will then attack Trump which will further coalesce his support. Then the cycle will begin again..

I dunno. The Clinton camp is going for the 'national security' angle by saying that Trump was inviting foreign states to hack the USA.

US election: Trump 'encouraged foreign hack of Clinton emails' - BBC News

I suppose there are a number of different directions this story could go. I won't try to predict which one, but this combination of Clinton & Trump has already caused Casually Red to treat us to a veritable bounty of his thoughts on this thread, so with the addition of this Russian angle I will predict an additional frenzy, we will be treated to his greatest shits, oh what a medley we are in for.

 

[Casually Red]

Nope . I'm not even going to dignify fantasies like that with a response. Instead I'm going to treat it like a social experiment and judge anyone who takes it seriously accordingly .

 

[Treacle Toes]

I dunno. The Clinton camp is going for the 'national security' angle by saying that Trump was inviting foreign states to hack the USA.

US election: Trump 'encouraged foreign hack of Clinton emails' - BBC News

I suppose there are a number of different directions this story could go. I won't try to predict which one, but this combination of Clinton & Trump has already caused Casually Red to treat us to a veritable bounty of his thoughts on this thread, so with the addition of this Russian angle I will predict an additional frenzy, we will be treated to his greatest shits, oh what a medley we are in for.

If Hilary called for a foreign state, especially Russia to do something like this to Trump there would be calls of TREASON and BURN THE WITCH... Perhaps they can publish his tax returns also? Even things up.

 

[Casually Red]

I'm loving every minute of this . The guys a fucking legend .

 

[elbows]

Oh yeah, what a legend. Here are the remarks.

 

[Casually Red]

Right..you've said that like there's a bad bit somewhere. I'm not really seeing it.

Guys a legend .

 

[DotCommunist]

a ledge, earlier

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And again the clintons were a political team. .

There's that sexism again.

I asked once before - I'll ask it again:

How culpable is Laura Bush for the Iraq war?

How culpable is Michelle Obama for drone strikes?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

judge anyone who takes it seriously accordingly .

So then it is ok to judge you - and your support for Trump - by the fact that white supremacists also support Trump?

 

[J Ed]

There's that sexism again.

I asked once before - I'll ask it again:

How culpable is Laura Bush for the Iraq war?

How culpable is Michelle Obama for drone strikes?

Clinton's involvement in her husband's administration far surpassed that of either Obama or Bush. During the admin she led a healthcare reform act and participated in other programmes. Prior to that, when her husband was governor of Arkansas she led a union-busting 'education reform' effort. They have always been a joint enterprise.

 

[J Ed]

Oh yeah, what a legend. Here are the remarks.

It's smart because the entire media has decided to cover this totally evidence-free 'Russia wot done it' angle while ignoring the contents of the e-mails which make clear the endemic corruption of the political process. He is saying to the people who are rightly angry about that, 'look, it doesn't matter who hacked what given the gravity of what the leaks reveal' and he's right.

 

[brogdale]

Full marks for effort from his senior communications advisor, though.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

During the admin she led a healthcare reform act

Words are slippery things. Did she 'lead', or did she try to persuade?

The Washington Post The Fact Checker examined her claim in an ad that she worked with Democrats and Republicans to get the law passed and concluded that was questionable. While she worked behind the scenes on the legislation, the Fact Checker wrote that there was no evidence she worked with members of both parties and instead worked with White House staff and Kennedy’s office -- not Hatch.

"The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up" in trying to get it approved over the Clinton administration's objections, Hatch told the Boston Globe in 2008. "She may have done some advocacy (privately) over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it.

Hatch added "I do like her," referring to Hillary Clinton. "We all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No -- Teddy does, but she doesn't."

http://politifact.com/florida/state...linton-says-hillary-clinton-helped-get-done-/

I don't recall much about this; but the indications seem to be that she played some role, but not in any legislative capacity.

Also, it's unclear that participation in a chidren's health care program leads to the conclusion that she is culpable for the Iraq sanctions.

 

[J Ed]

Words are slippery things. Did she 'lead', or did she try to persuade?



http://politifact.com/florida/state...linton-says-hillary-clinton-helped-get-done-/

I don't recall much about this; but the indications seem to be that she played some role, but not in any legislative capacity.

Also, it's unclear that participation in a chidren's health care program leads to the conclusion that she is culpable for the Iraq sanctions.

If you think that Hillary Clinton did not lead the 1993 effort then you should have a word with Clinton herself because she says she did.



The answer to that question of course, is he was literally behind her.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's like I was saying: people call her Crooked Hillary - so which of the things she says are we supposed to take at face value?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'll be honest: my heart really isn't in defending Hillary. It's a mug's game.

Like I said, I'm just more afraid of Trump.

What a situation for the US to be in.

 

[J Ed]

BTW if people are interested in the overall left criticisms of Clinton then Doug Henwood is great, this essay in Harpers is well worth a read as is his book My Turn. Good interview here with Henwood about the book.

 

[Treacle Toes]

What a situation for the US to be in.

This is the important point. It is psychologically taxing and must be scary as fuck to say the least.

 

[8den]

Hillary Clinton in the Civil Rights Era

 

[Treacle Toes]

This thread is about Trump ...am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that most posts are about Hilary and that there isn't a Hilary thread?

 

[weltweit]

This thread is about Trump ...am I the only one who is bothered by the fact that most posts are about Hilary and that there isn't a Hilary thread?

President Hillary Clinton 2016-2020

 

[Treacle Toes]

President Hillary Clinton 2016-2020

Going so well that I haven't even noticed it before. 3 pages? This thread actually reminds me of Trump's speeches, pretty much spends the whole time talking about other people.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

This is the important point. It is psychologically taxing and must be scary as fuck to say the least.

True. The unfortunate thing is that the US, still the world's superpower, with 800 military bases on foreign soil, is critical in the state of world peace.

This election is scary as fuck for the whole world.

 

[Treacle Toes]

I am just having a look at Trump's website... 7 positions listed...the 1st one entitled 'pay for the wall'

Top of his list, no greater threat or concern to America and Americans?

Interesting conclusion to how they imagine they can force Mexico to pay for a wall.

Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again.

How they imagine it playing out can be read here:

Pay for the Wall

 

[two sheds]

I presume what Chomsky said in 1994 is still fairly relevant:

Take a look at NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement], where the analyses have already been done. The day after NAFTA passed, the New York Times had its first article on its expected impact in the New York region. (Its conclusions apply to GATT too.) It was a very upbeat article. They talked about how wonderful NAFTA was going to be. They said that finance and services will be particularly big winners. Banks, investment firms, PR firms, corporate law firms will do just great. Some manufacturers will also benefit-for example, publishing and the chemical industry, which is highly capital-intensive with not many workers to worry about

Then they said, Well, there’ll be some losers too: women, Hispanics, other minorities, and semi-skilled workers-in other words, about two-thirds of the work force. But everyone else will do fine. Just as anyone who was paying attention knew, the purpose of NAFTA was to create an even smaller sector of highly privileged people-investors, professionals, managerial classes. (Bear in mind that this is a rich country, so this privileged sector, although smaller, still isn’t tiny.) It will work fine for them, and the general population will suffer.

The prediction for Mexico is exactly the same. The leading financial journal in Mexico, which is very pro-NAFTA, estimated that Mexico would lose about 25% of its manufacturing capacity in the first few years and about 15% of its manufacturing labor force. In addition, cheap US agricultural exports are expected to drive several million people off the land. That’s going to mean a substantial increase in the unemployed workforce in Mexico, which of course will drive down wages.

Free Trade, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Secrets, Lies, and Democracy)

 

[8den]

The Trump campaign have resorted to attacking Clinton in virtue to the fact that Trump has virtually no program or policies of his own. He has ideas. Ideas so crudely sketched out that they could barely be described as "crude". Build a wall to keep mexico out? Destroy ISIS? Make amercia safe? This can barely be described as coherent.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

e Democrats this week have been hammering Donald Trump over his past praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his campaign manager Paul Manafort’s connections to the Kremlin.

Now that security experts say it’s likely that Russian intelligence agencies were behind the hack of the Democratic National Committee, Democrats have once again called on Trump to release his tax returns to prove that he doesn’t have ties to Russia.

In an interview with Florida news station CBS4 Miami, Trump denied he had any business dealings with Russia and even went so far as to say that he’d never met Putin.

“I have nothing to do with Russia, nothing to do, I never met Putin, I have nothing to do with Russia whatsoever,” he told the station.

This is interesting because during a debate last year, Trump explicitly said that he’d met Putin while the two of them were set to appear on 60 Minutes.

WATCH: Trump says he ‘never met Putin’ — despite bragging about meeting him just last year

Trump: the man is an idiot; and a liar to boot.