The word from Serbia! Read up on Why Serbia is Strengthening its Alliance with Russia.
You really need to learn more about how the US works. However, I can see why you might prefer the Presidential Candidate backed by your very powerful & scary neighbor.
AngleSoft, you should be aware that if you’re going to install the ‘drumpf’ browser extension it has the unfortunate effect of altering the text inside quote tags. That can get you in trouble due to the rule about not altering text inside quote boxes.
I won’t warn you for this for two reasons. First, you’re not altering another posters words. In this case, you’ve simply altered a quote from an outside source. Not ideal, but not as bad as altering another posters text. Second, you’re not habitual about it.
Note, though, that further appearances of this may lead to warnings and other sanctions in the future. Please be aware of the issue this browser extension causes.
No. It was in reference to your claim about “candidate Obama talking about respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty” and how “after he became POTUS somebody sat him down and told him what was really going on there.”
Candidate Obama believed that there were terrorists hiding out in Pakistan and promised that Pakistan’s sovereignty would not stop him from acting against high-value terrorist targets there on the basis of high value intelligence.
If you have some quotes from candidate Obama about how he would not pursue high-value targets, or specifically how he would not use drones to do so (since that is what you are specifically talking about) please offer them up.
In fact here is a Politifact evaluation of the claim - made by members of the GOP in 2011 - that Obama had flip-flopped on the use of drones:
This is the “so much out there about Obama and drone strikes.” A disproven false accusation that you likely honestly remember as if it was factual, despite its being pants on fire untrue.
This hijack is actually very pertinent to the op. It illustrates how baseless accusations get made by the opposition and how despite their lack of any factual baseless people remember the accusations as if what the allege are something that occurred.
That is the crux of 99% of “all the negative things that Clinton has done.” They are at best false memories created by decades of dedicated oppo false accusations.
I have the best facts! It is a fact that the Clinton foundation either gets a failing grade or no assessment at all from many charity watch websites. The Clinton foundation has already just said they won’t accept overseas donations if Clinton becomes the President because of potential conflict of interest. So if thats a conflict of interest then surely accepting donations from foreign governments while secretary of state is also a conflict of interest?
You know you can still be a Clinton supporter while thinking a bunch of stuff she has done is slimy or at least poor ethical judgement and I put myself in that camp. Still better than Trump.
I apologize if this has been explained upthread, but I only just came in on this discussion and have not read all three pages.
Could someone please explain what the scandal exactly is about Hillary’s emails? All I’ve been able to glean from all the right wing harrumphing is that Hillary was receiving classified emails on a private server when she should have been receiving them on a different server.
Lemme put it to you this way. Why should I care?
From what I can tell, it gives the appearance of corruption. Okay, but are there any emails indicating corruption? Perhaps something like:
"Dear Clinton Foundation Fatcat Contributor,
I would be happy to put your nephew on the Committee for Sleazy Federal Pork Projects but the price you quoted me is too low. The position will cost you approximately twice as much, and you must also turn over your purebred Siberian Husky Snowball for sacrifice at the next Winter Solstice.
However, if you were willing to provide a human infant to offer to our Dark Lord Satan, (I understand your nephew’s wife is expecting in November?) you could keep all your money, and your little dog too.
Let me know what you decide.
Love and Kisses,
Hillary Rodham-Clinton."
Otherwise, why should I take the whole email thing SERIOUSLY?!! Really, I’d like to know.
Okay, that explains the whole email thing. Thank you.
Do I care? No.
Does anybody else?
The WikiLeaks stuff is when I started to get concerned… and her giving DWS a safety net.
Also… I heard a tape recording of her talking about a rape case where the evidence was tampered with by the cops and benefited her case.
And just talking about it in a callus way.
The Clinton Foundation, though, isn’t a “charitable giving” foundation; they are themselves a charity, mostly operating their programs themselves rather than giving money to other people’s programs. The very assessment to which you link says they meet all of the standards in fund-raising and program expenses; the standards they did not meet were 1) the chairman of the board was compensated as an employee; 2) the board did not have a written policy for assessing effectiveness; and 3) the board had not completed a written assessment of their effectiveness. That’s it; those are the ONLY standards not met.
The standard that requires a charity to spend at least 65% of its money on program activities? Yep, your own link says they did.
Snopes has an article about this - it includes the audio
She was chuckling about the irony of the case being such a mess that things which might have helped the prosecution ended up helping the defense.
Maybe it sounds callous to your ears in retrospect, but the Prosecution offered her client a deal where he pled guilty to a lesser charge. The Defendent pled guilty and might have gotten five years in prison, but the judge suspended the prison sentence, which is no one else’s fault. That happens today, too, after all, and back in 1975 people were more callous about rape, in general, than they are today.
In short - Hillary fulfilled her obligation to her client to the best of her abilities. Tone policing an interview she gave about it, thirty years ago, is seriously weak sauce.
You really need to broaden your news sources, MyFootsZZZ.
Saddam was hanged. That’s as much blame as you can levy on a person, surely. The sliver of blame I ascribe to Hillary is far from being worthy of capital punishment. Only that she shouldn’t be president.
And if you don’t give a flying fuck about the children of Iraq, then fine. If you think drone strikes are a brilliant idea, then by all means, vote Hillary with a clean conscience. I merely wanted to explain the view from abroad where people disagree with your valuation of their lives.
Oh, and also, let me just repeat something since people seem to have ignored the bit of my post where I wrote it first: I do not support Donald Trump. I think he’s an idiot, much like most of the planet. I am not saying Trump wouldn’t do the things that Hillary has done, either. Hillary is, I think, a poor choice to be president, completely independent of Trump. You have, in fact, two poor choices for president. But the question was about Hillary and so, that is what I answered. If you want to know what people abroad think of Trump it is “They aren’t going to elect this idiot for president, are they? Are they?” There. Much simpler. Though he’s a little less despised mostly, I wager, because when they quote him they take the time to translate his rants into grammatically correct sentences that bear some resemblance to eloquence.
Let me make this perfectly clear:
** Hillary Rodham Clinton had nothing whatsoever to do with imposing the sanctions on Iraq. **
It was George Herbert Walker Bush and the UN Security Council.
So not only is there not a sliver, there’s not a iota.
Ahh geez I’m sorry. I thought I got them all. I need to just take that thing off lol Thanks for the heads up.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment of Hillary, but as a non-American, you should understand that that’s not really the sort of concern the OP is asking about in this thread. He’s asking about all the bullshit rumors that follow her and her husband.
If you want to have a substantive discussion of Hillary’s policies, you might get a better response in the Hillary’s General Election thread.
I will say this - the drone program is a military weapon. The American President is the Commander in Chief of our military. Being willing to use our military weapons does not disqualify someone from being our Commander in Chief, even if we disagree about the manner in which those weapons are deployed.
Even Donald Trump’s inane questions about using nukes don’t disqualify him from being president. All our presidents, as Commander in Chief, have to be prepared to use nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances. It is part of the American President’s duty to defend the United States.
In Trump’s case, it’s his ignorance about why we don’t pre-emptively deploy nukes to achieve nebulous military goals that’s the problem.
Americans have far worse weapons than drones at our disposal. You should be far more concerned about the idiot who wants to drop nuclear weapons with the same ease as with we deploy our drones.
Hah - I hadn’t considered that Trump probably sounds more presidential in translation. That’s unfortunate. Cleaning up his sentence structure doesn’t really convey the full Trump experience.
But this is an opportunity to compliment you on your own command of English, Rugose. Your fluency needs no apology.
I didn’t hear that recording through the news, someone must have sent it to me. It did bother me, but whatever. I read this entire thread. I learned a lot.
What news sources do people here find trustworthy?
I’m trying to figure out how the division of the Ukraine was Hillary’s doing. She left the State Department in early 2013, a year before Russia annexed the Crimea. And even if she had been Sec of State at the time, I rather think the governments (and populations) of Russia and Ukraine would have played at least some small role in those events.
Personally, I don’t use just one source. I like to look at multiple sources, and try to look at each of them critically. I include international sources. Over time, I do develop a bias for certain sources as being more reliable, but never assume that ONE will have “The Truth”. EVERYthing has some kind of bias. (including myself)
One thing I NEVER trust is facebook postings, or stuff sent to me by “concerned friends”. Most of this turns out to be utter bilge.
It’s not apathy its lack of anything resembling “proof”. If she did something wrong I would change my opinion but so far I see a bad decision on emails… and a bunch of crap about murders, letting troops die, and other such nonsense.
I support Hillary with no reservations. She is a solid and dedicated her life to public service.
I use the BBC as my primary news source. As outsiders, they have a more neutral take on things.
But like Euphonius, I also get news from lots of other places, including CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post. I use Flipboard to help aggregate news so I see stories from all over. I also use news aggregator sites like Salon, Slate, Reddit, Metafilter, Huffington Post but I try to only look at stuff that is covered at other news sources, too.
Some of those sources aren’t especially trustworthy, (Reddit - lol) but they can spotlight links from more reputable sources.
I agree about avoiding glurge sent from friends and relatives. And memes. I can laugh at memes but they’re not for serious consideration.
My home page is Rueters, my main source for US political news is Politico, on TV I watch MSNBC, and there are a host of other articles and inputs I see @ random times - a magazine article, something linked to from here (so the SDMB counts a bit, too), etc.