Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:19 pm

Shit, next Lord Cheney himself will probably follow suit!

Paul Wolfowitz 'might have to vote' for Hillary Clinton

By Tal Kopan, CNN

Updated 4:55 PM ET, Fri August 26, 2016

Washington (CNN)Former Bush administration official Paul Wolfowitz said he is considering voting for Hillary Clinton in an interview in which he lambasted Donald Trump as dangerous.
Wolfowitz, who was the deputy secretary of defense for President George W. Bush in the lead-up to and start of the Iraq War, said in an interview published Friday that while he isn't enthused about it, he may be forced to vote for Clinton.

"I wish there were somebody I could be comfortable voting for," Wolfowitz told the German publication Der Spiegel. "I might have to vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I have big reservations about her."
In the interview, Wolfowitz repeatedly expressed concerns about Trump, saying he agrees with 50 other former Republican security officials who recently blasted Trump as "dangerous."

"He says he admires Putin, that Saddam Hussein was killing terrorists, that the Chinese were impressive because they were tough on Tiananmen Square. That is pretty disturbing," Wolfowitz said, calling him "unacceptable."
Wolfowitz also called Trump a continuation of President Barack Obama, despite their party differences. Wolfowitz said Obama's apparent "step back" foreign policy would be exaggerated under Trump, calling him "Obama squared."
"The only way you can be comfortable about Trump's foreign policy is to think he doesn't really mean anything he says. That's a pretty uncomfortable place to be in," Wolfowitz said. "Our security depends on having good relationships with our allies. Trump mainly shows contempt for them. And he seems to be unconcerned about the Russian aggression in Ukraine. By doing this he tells them that they can go ahead and do what they are doing. That is dangerous."
Wolfowitz is one of the nation's most prominent neoconservatives and interventionists, and has been widely characterized as the "architect' of the invasion of Iraq. CNN reported back in 2003 that he was the first Bush administration official to push the 43rd president to topple Saddam Hussein -- broaching the subject four days after the September 11 attacks.
Trump has been an ardent critic of the Iraq War on the campaign trail, saying he opposed it from the get-go, although the first evidence of him opposing the invasion of Iraq was after the war had begun. But Clinton voted in favor of the war when she was in the Senate, a fact that her opponents have used against in her both the 2008 and 2016 presidential elections.
The GOP candidate has also criticized Obama and Clinton for pulling troops out of Iraq too quickly and destabilizing the region, though he supported the same policy in CNN interviews during Obama's first term.
Clinton has steadily courted and landed endorsements from Republican elders in foreign policy, arguing that their support shows that Trump's election would endanger the country's security.
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:56 pm

The intersectional wokeness of the PNAC neocons.

Is there any barrier she can't break down?!
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Nordic » Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:19 pm

Image

The great Anthony Freda.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby 8bitagent » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:48 am

What a fun choice Choosing between a globalist neocon goblin in league with Saudi Arabia who has mass murdered millions of Muslims...
or a crazy goofy 80's tv actor turned far right fascist who has the backing of insane extremeists.


Do you want World war 3, or Civil War 2? Either way were fucked
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Nordic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:39 am

8bitagent » Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:48 am wrote:What a fun choice Choosing between a globalist neocon goblin in league with Saudi Arabia who has mass murdered millions of Muslims...
or a crazy goofy 80's tv actor turned far right fascist who has the backing of insane extremeists.


Do you want World war 3, or Civil War 2? Either way were fucked



I'd rather take the civil war. Because that ain't gonna happen. Americans won't actually fight each other or anybody else. Americans won't even fight for their basic human rights. They won't fight for food, health care, nothing.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:56 pm

There can be no "Civil War 2" without "World War X." Listen to Trump's consistent statements about war, you think he's about de-escalation in the Middle East, ha! "Cut the head off ISIS and TAKE THEIR OIL." What do you think all his statements about how run-down the military is are supposed to mean? You think he's going to cut the Pentagon budget?!

At home the state will do most of the fighting. Coppers, border patrol and Homeland Security are ready to be unleashed like never before. Plus you'll have all the openly racist, liberal-hating elements unleashed. Wait when you've got Giuliani as HS secretary. It's not that Giuliani's record is worse than whomever Clinton will appoint, it's what he stands for openly and the supposed majority backing for it that would enable much worse. Nothing Trump does will not be excused in some way; it will be the opposite for Clinton when she betrays everything of her "progressive" agenda. Movements will be much stronger if they know the majority chose the supposedly more liberal option.

It's obvious to me that Clinton and her World War X will be much more resistable than Trump, if enough people are willing to fight for all the good things. His election will have the face value of well, a majority went for the strongman, so you have to lump it and like it, a strongman does what he wants to do, that's what you voted for.

All this should not be understood as an endorsement for Clinton. I'm certainly not voting for her, but on the other hand I have the convenience of living in New York so I'm not faced with that decision.

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:06 pm

And it's "World War 3" that's the far less likelier scenario. If escalations are seriously endeavored, the likeliest outcome will be to bring together China and Russia (and probably Iran and Turkey!) in a solid front. The U.S. will back down and Clinton will be a one-term disaster presidency. You're looking at Trump with both houses Republican and the SC appointments accordingly, or Clinton with opposition in Congress regardless of how the House/Senate elections go. Further prediction, contest it if you will: If Trump wins, unless it's a total landslide, TPP will be passed in the lame duck and he won't challenge it. If Clinton wins, TPP will pass in the lame duck only with an open endorsement on her part and she'll be under pressure to stick to her bogus position against it. She'll be stuck trying to finagle it through after "renegotiations" in 2017.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:09 pm

You make the next four years seem so appealing, Jack.

Proto fascist, big business takeover on steroids.

Or dysfunctional gridlock, mismanaged by #ItsHerTurn
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:29 pm

Rory » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:09 pm wrote:You make the next four years seem so appealing, Jack.

Proto fascist, big business takeover on steroids.

Or dysfunctional gridlock, mismanaged by #ItsHerTurn


Don't blame me, I voted for KodosBernie.

Another thing: Talk is cheap, right, but appointments generally speak truth. Trump's so far should really put an end to this discussion of how different he will supposedly be in certain areas like foreign policy. Pence was just on C-SPAN and help me, I had it on. He repeated that he is "Christian, Conservative, Republican - in that order." The current problems in the Middle East are because Obama took the U.S. boots off the ground in 2009 (in keeping with the Bush-signed SOFA of 2008, and of course trying to reverse it) and negotiated a deal with Iran (which Pence tried falsely to also blame on Clinton, who clearly worked to delay it until she was out of office). He also had choice words on the Russian threat. Any of that sound like it's deviating from the neocons? In Indiana, he's been the perfect neoliberal "right-to-work" hardliner, and a supporter of the trade deals.

Are Clinton's better? Well, if you care about minor things to some people on this board, like racism and theocracy, maybe! But with respect to corporate rule and an aggressive foreign policy, certainly not. The difference is that she can be fought and no one's going to be under the illusion, as with Trump, that a new era (for the worse, of course) has begun.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby RocketMan » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:03 pm

I haven't followed this "hillary health conspiracy" much, mostly because it's being driven by frothing-at-the-mouth right wing blowhards. But this photo is jarring:

Image

And this clip is just... well, see for yourself.



WTF? I'm getting the same weird through the looking glass vibes as when Scratchy-Face, Pretzel-Choking Dubya was in the White House.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby norton ash » Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:27 pm

^^^ Oh, for God's sake. That video is of someone who's tired, let her guard down, had an ice cream head-spike, and acted a bit silly. And I'm speaking as someone who hates her. The health-crisis thing is weak.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Nordic » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:01 pm

JR wrote:

The difference is that she can be fought and no one's going to be under the illusion, as with Trump, that a new era (for the worse, of course) has begun.


See, I would say the opposite is true. Trump will have no support in Washington, his more unsavory crap (and there is plenty of it) will be almost completely ineffective. He will be protested every step of the way, the press, who are already in full conspiracy mode to select Clinton) will be over him like mold. He won't get anything done. He's an amateur.

Hillary, on the other hand, is a true pro, has the backing of all the big players around the world, as well as at home, including the press, and will be devastatingly effective.

And tell me how you think we can fight Hillarys wars? How did we fight Obama's wars again?

Where was the heads up that we had boots on the ground in Syria? In Ukraine? In Yemen? There was never any "hey guys, we're going to war in Yemen. How do y'all feel about that?"

It just happened. They just did it, quietly and invisibly. When Hillary starts WW3 it will be the same way. We'll have no warning. It will be like the worst earthquake mankind has ever seen, and infinitely more devastating.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Elihu » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:35 pm

When Hillary starts WW3 it will be the same way. We'll have no warning. It will be like the worst earthquake mankind has ever seen, and infinitely more devastating.
i sure hope you are wrong about that
Elihu
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby MacCruiskeen » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:39 pm

RocketMan » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:03 pm wrote:I haven't followed this "hillary health conspiracy" much, mostly because it's being driven by frothing-at-the-mouth right wing blowhards. But this photo is jarring:

Image

And this clip is just... well, see for yourself.



WTF? I'm getting the same weird through the looking glass vibes as when Scratchy-Face, Pretzel-Choking Dubya was in the White House.


norton ash » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:27 pm wrote:^^^ Oh, for God's sake. That video is of someone who's tired, let her guard down, had an ice cream head-spike, and acted a bit silly. And I'm speaking as someone who hates her. The health-crisis thing is weak.


norton, that weird little fit was not part of the normal palette of human behaviour. If someone close to you suddenly did that, I bet you'd be worried, and I think you'd be right to be worried.

[edit: on second thoughts ... I dunno. it might just be her idea of a funny joke.]

(First time I saw that video, I presumed it had been doctored. But no.)
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Cordelia » Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:09 pm

I agree with Norton.

She's just hamming; performing a pantomime. I hate her too but gotta hand her a :thumbsup
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests