Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:08 am

We'd obviously do much better with random selection of Congress and presidents than under the present system. I'd prefer the adoption of the German system, it makes the most sense democratically and pragmatically for large republics under modern conditions. (Fully proportional representation, necessity of multiparty coalitions to form government, relative regional decentralization of federal functions, states with same system but with significant powers and participation in federal system. No one "wastes their vote.")
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 Luther Blissett » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:39 pm

I'm moving this over here from the Trump thread so it doesn't look like I'm supporting Trump in any way.

seemslikeadream » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:08 pm wrote:it is intriguing to live in a world where Jill would have a chance to be president ....she will not ....and that is reality

it is nice to clear conscience by a simple vote....if that does it for you..good

now spend the rest of your life building that green party so they can have a real chance ...do the dirty work of a clear conscience


We both know that we both do the work. There are over 100 greens in office in the United States and beyond that (because I don't really care much about the green party as an institution if I'm being honest, just humanity) I have been working in an organization for five years that has a 40-year plan of building a left coalition for people power. I met Berta Cáceres's daughter, whose mother had been murdered by the coup installed with help by Hillary Clinton, because I marched beside her.

And I think you and I both know that dems do not "do the dirty work" of activism. Out of a list of any given 100 civic activities, voting is probably somewhere around #100 in terms of effectiveness and power. If it were the inverse, George W. Bush would not have been president given that he lost the vote by half a million votes. Greens, feminists, socialists, anarchists, activists, dissidents, progressives, etc are the ones out there building solidarity, running food not bombs, revitalizing vacant lots, pressuring politics at the local level, fighting fascists, setting up free libraries and educational facilities, protesting pipelines, marching for equality and to end rape culture, and confronting reactionaries. Democrats pretty much want the opposite of all that because otherwise it might fuck with their money game!
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby 8bitagent » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:42 pm

It's been bizarre to see the transformation happening with a lot of the Democrats and "left" recently, where all sins of the Bush family seem forgotten. Daily Kos and Huffington Post comment
sections have felt like a Bush love fest recently. George HW Bush's endorsement of Clinton caps off the open secret that the Bush and Clinton family have been extremely close since the 1990's.

In case there was any doubt that Hillary Clinton vastly more hawkish than Obama, perhaps even on a Bush/Cheney level...

Clinton has been been careful and circumscribed lately in discussing foreign policy, and she may not be much more specific as she faces Trump in the first presidential debate Monday night moderated by NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt.

But some of her advisers have made clear that they would be more aggressive than Obama, if they were running the show.
The latest example of that came a few days ago, when Michael Vickers, a longtime intelligence official who has been frequently mentioned as a potential CIA or national intelligence director under Clinton, gave a public talk in which he called for a a more muscular approach to Syria, ISIS, Iran and Russia.


Vickers, a Clinton campaign adviser, has held senior positions throughout much of the Obama administration, including as the top Pentagon official in charge of intelligence and special operations.

But in a discussion last Wednesday in the Georgetown offices of the Cipher Brief, a national security web site, he lamented recent foreign policy "failures" that he said stemmed from restrictions placed on bombing campaigns and misjudgments about the scope of key foreign policy problems.

Vickers, a famous former Green Beret and CIA officer who was portrayed in the film "Charlie Wilson's War" — and who was once tasked with parachuting into the Soviet Union with a small nuclear weapon strapped to his leg, delivered his remarks all in a folksy, understated manner. But his words were stark and unmistakable. And he is not alone.

Clinton's roster of foreign policy advisers includes several people who have urged tougher action in Syria and around the world, including former CIA leaders Leon Panetta and Michael Morell, and former top Pentagon official Michele Flournoy, who is often mentioned as a potential defense secretary.


"You can look at the record and see that Secretary Clinton was on one side of a number of issues and President Obama was on the other side," said Heather Hurlburt, a program manager at New America and a member of Clinton's foreign policy advisory team. At the same time, she cautioned, "there's a lot of stuff you can advocate in public when you don't have folks in the situation room making the other side of the argument. The people around her are going be very well aware of the constraints and limitations, and so I think the differences are magnified in the campaign from what they would actually be in practice."

That may be, but Flournoy, for example, has called for U.S. air strikes against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's military as a way of deterring its attacks against civilians, a step Obama has been unwilling to take.

And Panetta has been deeply critical of what he called Obama's inaction on the Syrian civil war, arguing it paved the way for the rise of the Islamic State.

Vickers, whose previous job gave him detailed insights into U.S.bombing in Iraq and Syria, compared that campaign unfavorably with the one that ousted the Taliban from power in Afghanistan in 2001.

"If you compare this campaign, which has been two years in the making, with our campaign against the Taliban in 2001 — dramatically shorter time frame," he said.

One reason for that, Vickers said, was "bombing intensity — airpower really works well when you are really clobbering them and then when you have a ground force to exploit the effects. …We broke the back of the Taliban when we really started hammering them with bombers ... and then had a force to exploit that. That, I think, has really been missing."

According to Vickers, 60 percent or more of the air strikes against ISIS have been in Iraq, even though the terror group's headquarters is in Syria. That shows the campaign is not as intense as it could be, he said.

Vickers acknowledged that ISIS is far more dug in, and intermingled among civilians in urban areas, than the Taliban was in 2001. But he also suggested that Obama's rules of engagement are overly restrictive.

He made the same complaint about Obama's counter terrorism campaign to target and kill ISIS and al Qaeda leaders around the world, mainly with drone strikes. He believes it is not as robust as it should be.

In 2010 and 2011, the Obama administration was conducting as many as two CIA drone strikes a week in Pakistan, including so-called signature strikes against groups of fighters whose names were not known. That campaign that appears to have decimated core al Qaeda even as it drew international condemnation.

In Yemen, by contrast, the drone campaign has been far more limited, and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the terror group that operates there, has persisted as a threat.

"You compare …what we've done in Pakistan versus what we've done in Yemen, you see the same intense application of air power produces greater effect without the increased downside of greater collateral damage because of the precision of the weapons and the intelligence that goes into the operations," Vickers said.

Translated, he was saying that a more intense drone campaign would be more effective without increasing the risk of civilian casualties, a claim some Obama administration officials would dispute. Obama ramped up the drone war but dialed it down in his second term, imposing a restrictive set of targeting rules. He did that in part over concerns about civilian casualties, officials have said.

Heeding the lessons of the American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the debacle of a U.S.-led intervention in Libya that left the country in chaos, Obama in his second term began emphasizing restraint, a kind of "do no harm approach" that arguably undergirds much of his foreign policy.

Vickers also said he would advise the next president to respond aggressively to Iranian provocations around the world, despite the Iran nuclear deal.

In his view, Vickers said, the administration made another error in Yemen when it failed to prevent President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi from being displaced by the Iranian-backed Houthi insurgency. Saudi Arabia subsequently stepped in, and has been fighting a long-running air war against the Houthis.


"Taking too narrow a view of a conflict has also led to either strategic failure or underperformance," Vickers said. "An example of that was in Yemen. ...We didn't support him as fully as we might have and we lost our good (counter terrorism) partner and big chunks of the country."
Russian hacks 'beyond the pale'

Beyond the Middle East, Vickers made clear he believes the Russian hacks into the U.S. political system merit an immediate and forceful American response.

He called the intrusions "appalling" and "beyond the pale," adding, "there, I think, they've really crossed a threshold. …Pushing back against this, either symmetrically or asymmetrically, I think is really important. Putin is not going to stop until we do."

Clinton has not said what she would do about the Russian hacks, nor has she been very specific about what she would do differently about ISIS, other than an "intelligence surge," and an a stepped up effort to capture or kill its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Trump, who has touted his "secret plan," to destroy ISIS, has not been specific either. Nor has his principle national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who multiple sources say did not get along with Vickers when they worked together while Flynn headed the Defense Intelligence Agency.

But one thing is clear: whichever candidate wins will be advised by people who advocate military force, covert action and tough diplomacy more readily than Obama has been willing to deploy those tools.

"Our next president will inherit a world that in my judgment has a multitude of national security challenges that collectively are greater than any president has inherited in some decades," Vickers said.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how ... cy-n653596
"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 Luther Blissett » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:47 pm

The debate was very touchy-feely compared to what a typical feminist critique of Clinton consists of.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Nordic » Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:28 pm

Image


MAD Magazine!
"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 Nordic » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:41 am

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/27/ ... vel-trump/

I follow this guy on FB. He's a very cool guy. He fucking nails it here.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

Fear Level Trump

by JOHN STEPPLING


Email
I remember a time when a cabbage could sell itself by being a cabbage. Nowadays it’s no good being a cabbage – unless you have an agent and pay him a commission. Nothing is free anymore to sell itself or give itself away. These days, Countess, every cabbage has its pimp.”
― Jean Giraudoux, The Madwoman of Chaillot

This election seems to have traumatized the usually, and increasingly, somnambulant public in the US to the degree that a number of various mental affects are activated, and maybe even some old wounds finally surfacing again, but most of all it has generated a new level of panic among the bourgeoisie.

There was a piece in the New York Review of Books on Trump the candidate, written by Jonathan Freedland. And it touches on the strange almost surreal resiliency of the Trump campaign. There was another odd bit of fluff at the Guardian (where fluff is becoming the norm) on Claire Danes bottled and excessive tan at the Emmy awards show, which the author attributed to, or equated with Trump and his sun lamped skin. One TWEET (quoted by the Guardian) went…“Claire Danes’ bronzer is threat level TRUMP,”.

The NYRBs is, of course, a pretty reactionary rag these days, notwithstanding my fondness for the minor esorterica it includes (Mesopotamian art exhibits or reviews of obscure medieval history books, etc). But Freedland (arch liberal though he is) pretty cogently summed up Trump and the seething anger that drives his followers. Or the visible followers anyway. For there may be more. And if Trump, as even I have wondered, isn’t in it to win, then he could well be playing out the political version of Mel Brooks The Producers. And the possibility of polls being wildly wrong this election is, I’d say, very high. But Trump the candidate is now, at the least, part of american folklore.

Trump’s tan is the semiotic read for success — gold, Vegas, penthouses and fake tans. Claire Danes was only looking to enhance her brand, even if unconsciously, or sub consciously.

Now, running through all of this are questions of pedagogy.For perhaps the most glaring deficiency of contemporary life in the West is education. For this is now a generation (and maybe its more like the second or third generation) that no longer reads. I’ve had conversations both in person and on social media with students from Oxford and NYU and in all cases (for there are others) there is shocking inability to reason. Fifty years ago Debord suggested the Society of the Spectacle was creating a generalized autism. And in a sense I think this is true and that it is almost the opposite of schizophrenia. People read text as if it is code. They are stunningly blind to tone and metaphor, to irony (its only “irony”) as well as simply employing a not very expansive vocabulary. They cannot make distinctions. And this is true on the left and the right.

This election has revealed as never before the ugly reactionary core of white american liberals. Their silence on Clinton’s crimes is shocking. And one suspects there are two explanations involved. One is that their hysteria about Trump is fueled by seeing far too much of themselves in Trump’s racism and bigotry and even style. For while they abhor his vulgarity, they also know this is the aesthetic endgame for America. And they are, or think they are, the gatekeepers of those aesthetics. The other reason is that they fear the losing of their own bourgeois privilege if Trump wins. These are white educated liberals who support gun control, and were shocked at the Brexit vote, support same sex marriage, and have exactly no idea why the lumpen proletariat in the US is so angry. Or why workers in the Eurozone are so angry. Or what it means to be poor and black in the US today. Because if they did they would fear Hillary just as much as Trump. More. No, Hillary represents their own privilege. She is the candidate of the status quo. And in a weird kind of meta ironic metaphor, her illness and perhaps mental incapacity, is the perfect expression of the morbidity of the Democratic Party today. The DNC is an unbalanced aging wreck on the verge of collapse.

So, the white liberal bourgeoisie is voting Clinton. And the pretext is to save us all from Trump and fascism. But this is the strategy for the Democratic Party every four years. There is always a bogeyman. And there is always the demand to not *waste* votes on third party candidates (the metaphors and similes of popular culture always reflect finance capitalism). And the result is that the Democratic Party continues to veer to the right. Today Nixon would seem a liberal Republican if not a moderate Democrat. The lesser evilism strategy is simply capitulation. And even those who encourage voting for Jill Stein tend to see in Trump something genuinely fascistic. And I am afraid I don’t. Firstly, it is impossible to know exactly what Trump believes because he contradicts himself weekly and sometimes daily. One of the reasons so many neo-con Republicans are voting for Hillary is that they fear what Trump would do to the economy. None of them care about U.S. foreign policy, certainly, or an intensified domestic authoritarianism. And 99% of Americans don’t care either. Ask the average American about the Saudi war on Yemen and you will get blank stares. But in fact the U.S is deeply complicit with the crimes of the Saudi military in their attack on Yemen. There are U.S. military advisors who meet daily in Riyadh with Saudi military personnel to coordinate the attacks and bombing on Yemen. Attacks that targeted schools and hospitals. It is now estimated that over 320 thousand children are severely malnourished in Yemen. The U.S. sold 90 billion in weaponry and aircraft to the Saudi’s over the last five years. The UK has done the same. There are U.S. advisors in Yemen. But nobody cares. Secretary of State Clinton has all but put a hit out on Bashir Assad. And has openly suggested attacking Iran, and supports the most extreme policies of Israeli aggression. She has a long and close relationship with the Saudi monarchy. But nobody cares. This is all far away. But Trump, the Donald, is right here. On TV, with this ridiculous hair and outrageous pronouncements. And the liberals, and many on the left too, and many I admire, are warning of the dire consequences environmentally if Trump is president. Except, Clinton is a cheerleader for TPP and TTIP (and the back up TISA aggreement) and most of all is the most hawkish candidate for president in history — and the U.S. military is one of the worlds great polluters. Ask the people of Iraq, or the former Yugoslavia, or Libya. Ask how depleted uranium has effected their lives. She also supports fracking. So neither major candidate is exactly green.

And while in the purest sense, all reform is bound to fail in the end, the landscape has changed over the last forty years. When millions went out into the streets in that period leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there followed a sense of numb resignation when the U.S. invaded anyway. The state, this pretend democracy, had utterly ignored them. Many blamed Bush. And sure, the neo-con cabal was awful and fascistic, but then Obama was elected and nothing at all changed. In many ways most everything got worse. Deportations increased, the military expanded and even more military bases were built on foreign soil. Draconian trade agreements were written in secret and drone assassination was normalized. And now, after 8 years of Obama, the Clinton machine has returned. Like the return of repressed material, like a foul nightmare, the unbalanced (literal and figurative I guess) war monger that is Hillary — after a disastrous stint as secretary of state — is the democratic nominee. Like a dog returning to its vomit. After stealing California from the fraudulent loud mouthed Bernie Sanders, the only thing standing in her way is Donald Trump. And Trump is the most contradictory and strange phenomenon in the history of US electoral politics. All of which is to say, there is much in this current climate to applaud about concrete reform. Real people are provided with, at least, some temporary relief. And those at work with prison reform and anti penalty work, as well as BLM activists are the only positive coming out of the current U.S.

Trump is not Hitler. He is Berlusconi. And aides like Roger Stone are right when they point and say ‘the factories are closed’. But most liberals don’t work in factories and many sort of just don’t work. What do liberals fear so much from Trump that they seem not to fear from Hillary? A wall? There is already a wall. Deportations? They are already at record levels. What exactly? Reproductive rights and the Supreme Court? Ok, I suppose women’s rights is valid point…sort of. I mean the women murdered and the families destroyed in Honduras after Hillary’s coup might argue this. Same in Haiti, and Libya or Gaza. But here is where the liberals start a campaign of shaming those who want to vote for Jill Stein. Firstly, the binary vision of politics is deeply embedded in the liberal class today. More so than on the right even. A vote for Stein/Baraka is seen as a *wasted* vote. Why? Because there can only be two candidates. Ever. Period. Two parties ensures there is only one party. As Mumia Abu-Jamal said, if the cost of killing off neo liberalism is a Trump victory, so be it. And Margaret Kimberley said, she will vote Stein and hope for the death of the Democratic Party. And I am with that sentiment. But for the white bourgeoisie, this election is about much more than a fear of the guy with the bottled tan. It is about their sense of impending loss of privilege. And that privilege is baked into the erosion of education, the growing police state (which does not patrol affluent white neighborhoods) and with an expanding permanent war state globally. And most of all because WINNING is what matters. Period. Full stop.

Hillary Clinton has called Putin a new Hitler. This is hardly the language of mature statesmanship. Does none of this sink into the brain of the white liberal? I think it is simply a matter of not caring. White educated liberal America doesn’t give a fuck about the rest of the world. They care about their own position in a failing America. Now, it is scary on one level to watch a Trump rally. But not for the casual racism, because that is everywhere everyday in the USA. No, it is the sense of suppressed rage in the lumpen working class finally coming out. And how long it must have been festering. And this brings me back to my first point, really. The sense of things surfacing — and in a way its like Vietnam. The trauma cut across all classes. Everyone was hurt. This election is for a variety of reasons reactivating old traumas, guilt, shame. Pain.

The hostility of this culture. The angry snarky bitchy self involved narcissistic hostility. The only places I find deep comradeship is in the social justice movement. In BLM and in prison rights. Not on the left, not in left parties or left intelligentsia . Mostly I find a tacit policing of thought on the left.

The largest prison strike in US history is going on but there is a media blackout. I don’t hear much about it in left circles. There are new death penalty legislation being over turned. But I hear little about it in any media, left or right. These things have to be taught. Milosevic was exonerated (even if it was to justify a bogus conviction of Karadzic..also innocent) and the media ignored it. What was once the trial of the century, the trial of the *Butcher of the Balkans* is now simply ignored. Claire Danes’ tan mattered more.

And that is the Trump phenomenon. He is a vision of success to the masses in 2016. He is the kitsch King of Success. Never mind his deep ignorance (and his sons….oh geez….) or his crude bullying. He IS success for the New America. Flashy, vulgar, and loud. That makes him rather perfect in a sense. I don’t care. I fear Hillary much more is all I know. A vegas President? Who cares. Kennebunkport becomes Atlantic City. The logic of finance capital results ….after everything…in Donald Trump.

Andrew Levine wrote recently:

“If the debates this year were run, say, according to the old League of Women Voters rules, Stein and Johnson would be in. Even if they were, Clinton would still win the election – she has too much media support and too many political machines working for her to lose, no matter how awful a candidate she is. But the quality of political discourse would improve a hundred-fold or more. The benefits of that, especially after the election is over, would be incalculable.”

Pedagogy. Levine goes on to make on the best observations of this entire election season. And that is, when speaking of Trump … “What comes out of his mouth are not policy prescriptions at all; they are emotive utterances. He is not voicing ideas; he is conveying an attitude.”

And that is the heart of this. The King of Success, gold tan, gold hair and gold checkbook. And finally,ignorance. He has already picked the vile James Wolsey for his team. So the same guys will run things whoever wins. Which is why it makes sense to vote commitment and vote Stein/Baraka. At least, at the very least, you can feel less complicit in the final solution looming for Gaza or the nuclear confrontation with Russia, or the destruction of Syria when Clinton wins, or the total destruction of Yemen. For Hillary will make regime change the national pastime. And I suspect that deep down most Trump supporters know their man is an ignoramus. But they are angry. And nobody, on a deep instinctual level, could get behind Ted Cruz. His hips were wider than this shoulders. There was something deeply unwholesome about Cruz. And actually the same might be said of Rubio. Or even Sanders. This was a charisma vacuum. And in walked the mack daddy of Atlantic City. Mr Trump Towers. The man with the tan.

The fact that Trump is so deeply ignorant and yet so popular is sort of unsurprising. I mean Bush was ignorant. Reagan was ignorant. Is Trump dumber about world affairs than Reagan? Its too close to call. The problem with most discussions of Trump vs. Clinton is that such discussions are reductive. Pick any issue you want. Gun control? The U.S. is the worlds leading exporter of weaponry. The defense industry is the biggest in the world. Can one really separate that fact from guns on the streets of America? Especially in the hands of the police. Many police are returning Iraqi or Afghan vets. But it is more than that, it is the ideological vision of conquest and class segregation. The U.S. authority structure treats the poor, especially the black poor, as colonial subjects. Poor neighborhoods are viewed much as the U.S. military views towns in Iraq. There is a need for pacification. One cannot be the worlds leading maker of guns and bombs and bullets and expect your own streets not to be infected with the same violence you impose on the poor of other countries you invade. Take the environment. No major candidate save Jill Stein has said anything remotely coherent about the environment. You cannot support destructive trade deals and militarism, not to mention the defense industry, and then say you want to protect the environment.

So, no, Trump is disturbing in his off handed misogyny and bigotry. He is a mean spirited creep. But at the same time he said he wants to talk to Putin, not attack him. So there is that. Still it is likely the exact same neo-con war architects would inhabit his administration as would Hillary’s. But none of this is, finally, relevant. Because Presidents are not Czars. They do not rule by decree or fiat. It is a system of rank exploitation and naked corporate fraud, of a racist judicial system and a growing gulag with the most prisoners in the world. How much worse, even domestically where presidents traditionally have little real power, will life be under a Trump? Will he amp up the surveillance state? Perhaps. Although its acutely bad already. Can he unleash the National Guard on protesters? I sort of doubt it. And who will either of these two candidates pick for their cabinet? Trump tapped the vile James Woolsey, already. Clinton is eyeing Michelle Flournoy and already picked Ken Salazar. These are horrible choices. Neo fascistic choices. Does that sound good? And the recent U.S. attack on the Syrian army at Deir ez-Zor suggests (as Diana Johnstone observed) that Hillary, the presumptive winner anyway, is already exercising decision making power. Why validate more of this same Imperialist blood letting globally, and more of the police state violence domestically. Both major candidates reach peak nightmare status.This is why it matters to vote with a conscience. Vote for Stein and Baraka. Its not about winning. Because electorally you all have already lost. It is about a vision for a future without these ghouls


John Steppling is an original founding member of the Padua Hills Playwrights Festival, a two-time NEA recipient, Rockefeller Fellow in theatre, and PEN-West winner for playwriting. Plays produced in LA, NYC, SF, Louisville, and at universities across the US, as well in Warsaw, Lodz, Paris, London and Krakow. Taught screenwriting and curated the cinematheque for five years at the Polish National Film School in Lodz, Poland. A collection of plays, Sea of Cortez & Other Plays was published in 1999, and his book on aesthetics, Aesthetic Resistance and Dis-Interest was published this year by Mimesis International.
"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 » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:01 am

Damn Nordic, that was one helluva an opinion piece! And yes, very sad hardly anyone pays attention to what the US and Saudis are doing in
Yemen, or Clinton and Obamas destruction in Libya.

But this right here, from the op-ed piece...

As Mumia Abu-Jamal said, if the cost of killing off neo liberalism is a Trump victory, so be it. And Margaret Kimberley said, she will vote Stein and hope for the death of the Democratic Party.


You look at how close the Bush and Clinton families are in private and in public, as with the Obamas and Bushes; and Clintons with the likes of Kissinger and neocons...and it's near impossible
to ignore everything and want to pencil in that dot next to Hillary Clinton November 8th.

The amount of pretzyl logic gymnastics I'm seeing Democrats and the left now playing when it comes to dismissing Clinton(and even Bush's crimes) these days is astounding
"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 Grizzly » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:49 am

I don't know what frightens me more, the power that crushes us, or our endless ability to endure it.

Gregory David Roberts
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:09 am

I don't know what frightens me more .....fucking Trump or the number of fucking men who will not stand up and denounce Trumps fucking misogynistic racist islamophobic being ...they will make up any excuse in the book to let him be president...fuck you women...who cares about you? You women are a fucking joke....We hate Clinton...that's all that matters to us white men...not our mothers ...not our daughters....not our wives...helping a fucking hate monger be your president .... that is all that matters to us..period

Live with a fucking Trump president ...you deserve it ..you fat ass Rosys'

Women start your wire hangers!

Image
A picture of Donald Trump, with his daughter Ivanka, perched atop two concrete parrots having sex.


“Rosie O'Donnell is disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she's a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I'd fire Rosie. I'd look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, 'Rosie, you're fired.'

"We're all a little chubby but Rosie's just worse than most of us. But it's not the chubbiness — Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out."

He also took a job at her love life and managed to offend the LGBT community at the same time: "Rosie's a person who's very lucky to have her girlfriend. And she better be careful or I'll send one of my friends over to pick up her girlfriend, why would she stay with Rosie if she had another choice?"
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:30 am

seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:09 pm wrote:I don't know what frightens me more .....fucking Trump or the number of fucking men who will not stand up and denounce Trumps fucking misogynistic racist islamophobic being ...they will make up any excuse in the book to let him be president...fuck you women...who cares about you? You women are a fucking joke....We hate Clinton...that's all that matters to us white men...not our mothers ...not our daughters....not our wives...that is all that matters to us..period

Live with a fucking Trump president ...you deserve it ..you fat ass Rosys'

Women start your wire hangers!


Misogynistic - like the child rapist she defended, and her attacks/intimidation of the women Bill raped

Racist - superpredators

islamaphobic - Iraqi, Libyan, Syrian women and children starved/raped/murdered by her husband, government colleagues, and State Department subordinates.

The only alternative to Trump has a track record in hard actions, rather than just bluster and rhetoric
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:34 am

typical white man response

fuck you women ...fuck you......just sit down and shut up...we will not come to your defense ...we will make up any excuses necessary to keep you in wire hangers...Trump for President!

Give him the codes....give him the codes!

We love a man that will nuke the world ...just because he can

Trump actually rapes a woman ...but that's ok with us ...we love men that rape...at least he's not a woman



Trump Rape Accuser to Refile Suit in New York
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/2 ... w-york.htm

Ex-Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel ‘Violated’ During Sex
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... g-sex.html

Here are all the times Donald Trump has been accused of rape or attempted rape
http://fusion.net/story/328522/donald-t ... l-assault/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:55 am

Sure - he's a rapist. And she is the protector, wife, and champion of rapists. Makes for a great election
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:57 am

but you want the actual rapist to be president ...thanks for putting the blame on a woman for the acts of a man...typical

of course men aren't responsible for anything...it's always the woman's fault ...she made me do it...she deserves that black eye ...she deserves to be raped...she deserved to be killed

sure he's a rapist...so what....who fucking cares...it was only a woman that was raped...or a child as the case maybe

women ...children who cares....... if you are a white male who would love to see a Trump president...he is our guy

we hate women so much ..we would rather have an actual rapist for president than a woman
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:08 am

I dont want either of them to be president.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:08 am

yea right

one of them is going to be president and you have made your choice ..don't hide behind that old warn out excuse
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests