Statistically.
Mrs. Clinton deliberately did that in order to avoid the intent of FOIA? WOW!
When was that proven?
I certainly think the possibility should be investigated for the next two years and that Clothahump-gate should be added to the list of Clinton’s felonies.
Well, people are talking about it.
It’s all bullshit. I don’t give a shit about anything she’s plausibly been accused of.
Whaddaya, think you’re entitled to anime characters as presidential candidates?
Johnson - Goldwater
Nixon - Humphrey
Nixon - McGovern
Carter - Ford
Bush - Dukakis
Clinton - Bush
Clinton - Dole
Bush - Gore
Gore - Kerry
You think people were frothing at the mouth to vote for any of those fuckers?
Learn a little about the history of the process.
You forgot Reagan-Carter, but point taken. I think.
Yep. I loved Scoop Jackson- second place to Carter. I still voted for Carter. Gore was good, but hardly exciting.
Yeah, I left out Kennedy, Reagan and Obama because they all arguably had charisma, although Reagan never really impressed me as that way, he was mostly in the right place at the right time, boy was he ever.
I’m just getting sick of the whining about no good final candidates. They always suck. Grow up. Steak or fish. You can write in ice cream if you want, but you’re not getting it, and if you vote ice cream, I’m telling you in advance I’m making you eat steak or fish and you’re not going to have a choice about which one, OK?
Yep, since Kennedy, Obama was the first to not be the "lesser of two evils’- altho yes, in some cases it was “The bad choice vs the boring choice”.
Obama was a outlier.
I’m voting for Hillary, but once again, she has been absolutely shit when it comes to crisis management. She can’t give a straight answer, and it just fuels criticism and fits the narrative of her. Calling the GOP full of shit is one thing; Colin Powell is not your typical GOP cheerleader.
That’s right, I had the lasagna.
Would Benghazi even have happened if the Repubs in Congress had approved the funding for embassy security?
I had the impression it was a bit like when they all pointed and laughed at the boondoggle volcano research funding, and then the volcano blew up. Funny how that shit comes back to bite you in the ass. Could they have blamed the eruption on Hillary?
Something like it would certainly have happened. There have been other deaths among embassy personnel, as they go outside of their safety zones to try to do their jobs. If it hadn’t been Benghazi, it might have been some other town in Libya (throws a dart at a map.)
More spending on security is probably a good thing; the State Department asked for more funding, and didn’t get it. But perfect security can never happen.
(It’s like training accident deaths in the military. No matter how you soften things up, a certain number of recruits are just going to die in basic training. People are like that.)
I can only answer from the perspective of the foreigner: She’s belligerent, and stand a good chance of causing the already fragile nature of international peace to deteriorate further. Trump’s insane, but he would get zero traction in his attempts to do anything. The House and the Senate might even dig up some ancient constitution-like documents and discover those checks and balances that people keep mentioning. Executive power is limited for a reason. Trump would be useless and funny in a black humor kind of way for four years and then vanish into well-deserved obscurity. Hillary’s good at gaming the system and represents some sort of apex of the modern American foreign policy which is frequently indistinguishable from a war crime.
She is an ardent supporter of the use of drones, and has not registered any opposition to the White House’s contention that the president can order the murder of anyone, anywhere on the planet, for secret reasons the executive branch is not beholden to disclose to anyone at any point.
This alone should render her unfit for any political office.
She also supported (and, unlike Obama, still does support) the War in Libya which was nothing but a disaster for everyone involved. She voted for the war in Iraq. Victoria Nuland and the disaster that broke Ukraine in three parts was either her doing or, if independent of her, a complete failure of her duty to manage the State Department. Speaking of her acts in the State Department she may have supported the putsch in Honduras, though this, at least, is not entirely evident.
In the future she promises to antagonize Russia and China even more, two powers with nuclear arsenals, vast armies, and virtually inexhaustible resources. She promises to continue the foreign policy paradigm which has brought the world at large nothing but grief.
This is not remarkable, she’s another in a long line of warmongers that have brought disgrace on the office of the president, only a bit more of a neocon than Obama himself. Their difference to the Republican flavor of neocon is that they are slightly more competent in how they pursue their end, preferring targeted murders and the destabilization of countries to boots on the ground.
She’s remarkably ill-suited domestically as well, though no more than any recent president. In her role as the First Lady (which, seeing as events from it are used to lionize her seems fair game for criticism) she offered enthusiastic support for NAFTA and the draconian and socially cancerous Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I believe that it was she who made the rightly infamous ‘Superpredator’ speech. She did not, as far as I know, directly support the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, but she failed to distance herself from it which she is beholden to do, if she does not actually support it, given her use of the previous Clinton presidency as a point in her favor. The FSMA, as is widely known, was a key ingredient in the crisis of 2007/2008, especially in its changes to the investor standards for large institutional buyers of securities.
Note that I am referring to acts that indisputably happened, not half-baked conspiracies. If she *did * cause four Americans to die in Benghazi (an unlikely contingency) this surely pales in comparison to the human toil of the sanctions imposed on Iraq which, according to UNICEF, number 500 000 children. Hillary counts as an ally and friend Madeline Albright who, monstrously, defended this act.
Now, you might say that these are old things, or that they are circumstantial. And they would be if I wanted her tried in the Hague. What I am trying to illustrate is why the rest of the world regards her ascension to the most powerful political post in the world with grim resignation. What I am trying to illustrate is a pattern of behavior which illustrates her judgement. Every time she could decide about war, every time she could weigh human lives, she decided for war and weighed human lives, especially human lives of foreigners, lightly indeed.
I think this above all, disqualifies her from holding any position of authority. In the past, she has not wielded what power and influence she had responsibly. To give her more is am ill thing.
Let me forestall a few objections: I am not *for *Trump. His saving grace, the only one in evidence, is that his incompetence may shield us from his malice. That’s the extent of my positive opinion on him. I am utterly unconcerned about her being a woman. Fifty-odd women have served as heads of state, any number of which served with honor and distinction in this role. Hillary does not, in my opinion, deserve to be numbered among them. Elizabeth Warren, now, would be a different story.
Why is she not criticized? Because that is the OP’s question, I believe? Because nobody sufficiently disagrees with her positions. Even those who criticize her and who might truly disagree with those positions generally pick some scandalous thing-or-other instead because to point out all of the above is to be met with shrugs. And the Republicans who want to attack her can’t use the above because, of course, their positions are, at best, the same.
Lastly: English is not my native language. I apologize for any miscommunication caused by my unsteady grasp of it. Further, I am not, nor have I ever been, in America, and so my view is inherently that of an outsider, keeping an eye on the news, largely in order to know when to duck.
I won’t comment on your Clinton claims, as I do not know about them. I do think it’s weird that you say this doesn’t differ from Obama, and Obama is fairly well-liked abroad.
I will, however, point out that the above is a misunderstanding of how the U.S. works. The checks and balances don’t really work very well on the military level. Sure, only Congress can declare war. But the president is Command-in-Chief, and can do a lot of things. He has unilateral power to launch nukes, for one thing.
I really don’t think an authoritarian like Trump will go quietly into the night, either. He has shown no propriety at all. And there’s just too much stuff held in place by propriety. For example, he has basically infinite pardoning power for anything federal.
I think that, as an outsider, you underestimate the power of the President. We’ve had presidents who completely defied the Supreme Court when they told him something was not allowed.
At least Clinton has to put up a veneer of propriety.
People have somehow made voting into a personal moral choice rather than the collective procedural choice that it’s supposed to be. You’re not voting to raise your personal moral profile. You’re voting to choose the best offered choice to run the country. Nobody really cares about what you’re personally morally able to support except you.
True. It was like, sixty-something killed on Dubya’s watch, wasn’t it?
Not that I’m trying to make a point, or anything.
Yes, but was Clinton SecState then?
Like Trump wouldn’t use them? :dubious:
Along with 77 other senators and about 300 Representatives. The war that *GWB *conned Congress into supporting.:rolleyes:
You can’t say Trump voted for it- since he couldn’t having never held Office. But he did support the war before it started:
Sanctions? It is to laff:
*The sanctions against Iraq were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the Iraqi Republic. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait,…
*
Do you know who was president in 19fucking90? George Herbert Walker Bush. Do you know who imposed those sanctions? UN Security Council.
Do you know who wasnt in national politics in 1990? Guess. Hint- Her initials are HRC.
NAFTA? You know who brought NAFTA in? U.S. President George H. W. Bush. Hillary never even voted on it. Her support has gone back and forth:
At a debate hosted by CNN in November 2007, Clinton said, “NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that’s why I call for a trade timeout.”
You know what? Hilary didnt assassinate Archduke Ferdinand either. :rolleyes:
I like how they blame Hillary for sanctions on Iraq, but not, you know… Saddam.
Like Iraq was just sitting there minding its own buisiness. Like everyone forgets how Saddam admitted he wanted us to think he had chemical weapons, which has to be the greatest mis calculation of all time. But nope, its all Hillary’s fault. 100%.
And UNICEF says a bunch of Iraqi children died? Who gives a flying fuck? We have a right to decide who we do - and don’t - trade with. We do not have any moral obligation to help people in other countries, especially those our enemies.
I also hope she drone strikes twice as many people as Obama.