@Lash,
Lash, you seriously need to get help. This election cycle seems to be tearing you up inside with wild conspiracy theories and hate. You just accused millions of voters of being ill informed and childish. Sour grapes much?
I do believe the question on this thread has been answered, unless she is, which I doubt, she is charged with something to do with her emails, she will be the democrat nominee.
Clinton Victories Spell Beginning of the End for Sanders
I suppose we need to tell all those voters they childishly voted for Clinton.
@revelette2,
I don't know, anyone that would think of voting for Hillary must be " ill informed and childish". That's really the only reason as she is such a complete and utter failure as a human.
The author of this thread is a thorough-going conservative. His intention was to suggest that Clinton carries with her too much baggage, and would not last as a candidate. His silence for some time now has been deafening.
@Setanta,
I have noticed he has not been on this site for some time, but then, several have disappeared. I suppose they are on facebook or twitter (my sister does that) or just not into internet political discussions anymore.
I don't think that describes O'George. I do hope that he is in good health.
@georgeob1,
Quote:Hillary increasingly looks like badly damaged political goods to me
Get your eyes checked ,OLD BOY!
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/27/11504272/hillary-clinton-hawk
Quote:Is Hillary Clinton really the foreign policy super-hawk she is portrayed to be?
interesting analysis at the link (with a lot of links to follow while there)
Quote:Clinton's record of hawkishness and dovishness
Clinton's past record is the area where she does indeed appear the most hawkish. She has, by far, the longest record of any candidate of supporting or participating in military interventions. But she also has by far the longest record of supporting or participating in diplomatic efforts meant to avoid or reduce conflict.
In both cases, one big reason for this is that she simply has the longest record of working directly in foreign policy. So it is difficult to know how to compare her to other candidates.
Of the five candidates, for example, only Hillary Clinton actively participated in planning and executing the 2011 Libya intervention. But only Hillary Clinton has held a job where it was even possible to do such a thing. John Kasich has not participated in launching any military interventions during his five years as Ohio governor. Neither has Donald Trump in his zero years of government service. Does that make them less hawkish than Clinton?
<enormous snip>
Quote:It is pretty easy to determine whether a presidential candidate will expand or shrink, say, access to health care while in office. It is much harder to say whether that candidate will expand or shrink American military engagement in the world.
When we ask, say, about Hillary Clinton's reputation for hawkishness, there is no agreed upon thing we are measuring or metric by which to measure it. Different people can look at the same candidate and reach widely different conclusions based on the same data. But, looking at Clinton, it seems that the reality is more complicated and less categorical than the reputation.
@ehBeth,
Her stated policy on the Israel/Palestine conflict is troubling to me. She has made it pretty clear where she stands.
Her position is in line with the Democratic establishment and not that different from the Republican line... but it is far to the right of many rank and file Democrats and far to the right of most of the rest of the world.
@maxdancona,
Really? I think you are wrong.
@ehBeth,
This post is a whitewash. It ignores the middle east isdue entirely and argues that Clinton is somehow to be credited for the deal with Iran, which is factually false.
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
That's really the only reason as she is such a complete and utter failure as a human.
As are you, for posting the above comment.
@cicerone imposter,
Beth linked to a lengthy post by some beekeeper (second time I see her do that: Post here some unqualified dude's personal opinion) saying the Hillary "opened talks with Iran, which would culminate in the nuclear deal". I rate this claim: MOSTLY UNTRUE.
Here's a small word of encouragement for any Hillary supporters out there who find themselves in need of some positiveness amid all the slamming of their candidate.
When and if Hillary locks up the nomination, I see Obama coming out and campaigning hard for her - maybe harder and more determinedly than ever.
Lest we forget, whatever else people say against Obama, he is still pretty well liked among Democrats, and he ain't that bad at campaigning and drawing crowds. He has the extra added incentive of fighting not to let his legacy be dragged through the cesspool of a Trump presidency. I think the impact of a motivated Barack Obama throwing his weight behind Hillary could be momentous.
Not to mention - I think Liz Warren might also make her presence felt in a team effort to keep Drumpf out of the White House.
Take heart!
