she fancies the murder of people around the world (for the sake of profit, further hegemony, whatever the case being) and she has a rather idiosynchratic knack of lying over just about anything. And she uses the political platform to make herself rich.
and he...well, he just doesnt like Mexicans (latinos in his language) and Muslims and want to expel them all out and cares more about the size of his thingiemagic than the actual wellbeing of the people he wants to preside over..
Hate to break it to you but you're being fed 30 year old bullshit from the Gingrich Era and eating it up because it fits the narrative you wish was true.
Also you should go back and read the previous articles I've posted in this thread. They're very informative.
to quote from Jeffrey Sachs, who is not known for hyperbole, left or right
Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.
Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman’s collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.
Yet Hillary’s connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don’t want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Donna, you're becoming more overtly nasty with age (please note that I never called you any names as you do now). Your intelligence, however, has not improved in proportion.
"The Democrats are running the one person in their party who could lose to Donald Trump. Hillary is totally corrupt."
Hillary is almost certain to lose to Trump in November, true, but there aren't any other serious candidates on the Dem side of the aisle right now who could beat him either. Decades of Clinton cronyism and Obama ineptness have left the party gutted of any real talent. Sanders would probably come closest, but the DNC hate his guts and want nothing to do with him. So that's not going to happen. Who's left after that? Biden? ROFLMAO.
Trump only just started beating on Hillary in earnest with his amazing speech in NYC yesterday, and she's already BTFO. The debates are going to be humiliating for her, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she gets so upset she has a stroke and goes aphasic or something right there on stage. Her health is sh*t already, and she has a reputation for exploding at even mild criticism. Trump is going to nuke her from orbit.
And now I have to stop commenting on this thread for awhile because you know what I'm doing? Spending hundreds of dollars of money and hours of my time preparing and serving a dinner at my home for ten people I do not yet know but have been connected with through a local initiative to move our city in a progressive direction as part of a 100-year-long project known as a Ben Franklin Fund, which includes An Evening of 100 Dinners as a way to make sure the progressive visionaries in our town all know one another and work together.
So I can continue bitching on the internet with a bunch of keyboard warrior denialists, or I can work hand in hand with a group of neighbors who understand the long, slow work it takes to make the world better.
Even if everything you say about her is true, which I don't believe it is, anyone would be preferable to that unstable, abusive, violent, moron.
He does not even know what the triad is. Do you want someone with the nuclear codes that does not know what they are connected to?
He does not even know that the Speaker of the House controls the legislative process. How can someone run this country if they can not pass a high school civics test?
Do you actually think that someone who bilked thousands of people out of their life savings in a get rich quick scheme(Trump University) has the where with all to run the economy?
Even Sarah Palin is more qualified that this 2 bit con man.
Im confused as to why we cannot consciously decide to boycott the election. This is not an act of laziness. Laziness would be voting for the candidate that you've managed to passively digest. The genius of this corporate coup that's been taking place over the decades is the use of Complacency rather than force. The tortoise style takeover. Slow and steady...
tduds Pretty neat how easily the far left picked up the hyperbolic rhetoric of the far right.
I was actually thinking of a similar subject but with a different take. in certain ways, Trump is right about Clinton and Clinton is right about Trump. One is pointing to the other's shit while remaining oblivious to their own. Similarly, the rhetoric of the republicans and pro-Trumpeteers with regards to Clinton (that she is a liar and corrupt) is true. And the rhetoric of those who support Clinton wrt to Trump is also true (racist and so on). One does not exclude the other.
What is ridiculous, however, is to assume that remarks being made are inherently dismissable simply because the republicans also make use for their benefit.
has the extent of polarization here become so extreme that logic is no longer measured against observable facts and logical debate but based on the purported truths of the tribe that you feel compelled to join only to counter the other tribe? Because it does seems like a tribal thing now.
"has the extent of polarization here become so extreme that logic is no longer measured against observable facts and logical debate but based on the purported truths of the tribe that you feel compelled to join only to counter the other tribe?"
tduds: You need to read up on Hillary's graft career, starting with the Guccifer 2.0 dox, and the FBI email investigation, which is looking more and more likely to result in at least one felony indictment. Wikileaks is starting to release the goods on her too. Assange says he has enough documentation to assure her indictment.
The lawsuits against Trump are obvious political hit tactics with no substance. First off, they're both civil suits, not criminal. Anybody can file a civil suit for anything, which is often exploited in situations like this. The Trump University suits are being pushed by a Clinton-supporting law firm. And the Epstein-related rape accusation against Trump, which is NOT being filed as a criminal suit, is very recent and obviously being pushed to draw attention away from Bill Clinton's long and cozy relationship with Epstein. It's obvious bullshit. The earlier suit filed by the same complainant in California was summarily dismissed for being a hoax and political hit. Trump may be a lot of things, but a child rapist is obviously not one of them. Bill, on the other hand, is a known sexual predator. And Hillary has a long track record of enabling that behavior while actively destroying the reputations of women who have accused him of sexual assault and rape.
What is ridiculous, however, is to assume that remarks being made are inherently dismissable simply because the republicans also make use for their benefit.
Sorry if what I was saying came off as assuming that. I wasn't implying anything was inherently dismiss-able because the GOP said it, I was implying that they're not worth regurgitating because they're almost universally false.
I'll concede Jeff Sachs op-ed has some legitimate criticisms, despite couching them in exaggerated alarmist language (If he said "staunch" one more time I'd have a bingo), but most of the attacks on Clinton don't really hold up to serious scrutiny. It's one thing to have a spirited debate on conflicting schools of foreing policy, but it's another entirely to suggest that her explicit or tacit support for something is tantamount to her somehow masterminding the whole thing. Again I'd implore you to check out the links I posted throughout this thread, since the pace at which you're responding suggests you haven't taken the time to read them yet.
gwharton: Convenient how the allegations against the candidate you support are "political hit tactics with no substance", while the allegations against the candidate you don't support are going to bring about an indictment any day now (except for the past 25 years any day now hasn't arrived).
Do you really not see the bias in your thought process?
Chatter, you are a condescending, uninformed, lazy asshole. So Donna I agree with you.
I" it is people like sameolddoctor who sat on their lazy ass, condescendingly criticising the Occupy movement (whose advocates later, along with others, gathered behind that person..what is his name...Bernie Sanders) and the like while, towards the end, tell you there is no choice but those two clowns."
Its funny that you pick at me for name-calling, then proceed to do the same. For the record I never gathered "behind" the neo-utopian thinking of Sanders.
Frankly, whoever even tries to justify Trump's existence in this race, to this advanced level, is immediately a racist, misogynistic, gun loving douchebag (yes Im calling names), so why do I even read your comments? gwharton are you serious?
tduds: like how you didn't read any of the links I provided to substantiate my claims and just dismissed what I was saying as political bias because you disagree with it? Do you really not see the bias in that "thought" process?
The Trump University thing is obvious bullshit to anybody who is familiar with licensing agreements and knows anything about how Utah real estate scams play people, both their marks and the legitimate businesses they rope into their dealings, which I assume most people here are not. And the fact that the law firm pushing the whole thing has close ties to and has donated lots of money to the Clintons is relevant to motive for why it stays active despite being obvious bullshit.
The fact that the rape allegation against Trump was summarily dismissed by a judge in Los Angeles because it was obviously false, and that the complainant in that case was then found to be shopping for alternate jurisdictions to file another suit (and apparently found one in NY) is also relevant. That is EXACTLY what bullshit lawsuits look like.
The FBI investigation of Hillary is relatively new, and is now encompassing her activities associated with the Clinton Foundation as well. There are dozens of career investigative attorneys at FBI who are investigating this full time now. That doesn't happen unless they think something really seriously bad has been going. Just FYI.
And Bill Clinton really does have a well-documented and long-standing cozy relationship with Epstein, and is known for a fact to have regularly flown on Epstein's "Lolita Express."
So, keep making your excuses, playing that confirmation bias, and dismissing information that contradicts your narrow little belief system to justify your defense of the indefensible. But don't pretend that it's in any way rational.
A vote for Drumpf, is a vote for a Right Wing Conservative court for the next two generations. Choke on that for a while. While you conservative douchecanoes, and whining, white, progressive, elitist Bernie-Bros, bitch like the fucking dicks you are, poor women, poor black women, poor white women are going to lose what remaining access to birth control, and reproductive rights they have left.
So go, fuck, yourselves. This doesn't matter. Fuck you.
I will personally rear naked choke any of you flabby armed Bernie Bros, and any of you felching Drumpf supporters, if Hillary loses.
As for her being a liar, quite watching Fox News, your Alex Jones is showing.
#imwithher
Jun 23, 16 5:35 pm ·
·
b3tadine,
Either of them are possibly will have very short terms in office. At this point, I'm looking at who is their running mate are going to be. As both parties candidates may have very short term in office so I am looking to who they will have as their running mate.
Anyone who thinks Trump or Hillary has the people's interest in mind is delusional. Theu will pander to their base, but at the core they are fundamentally serving the same master.
Yes. He's what you call a "gavone" in Italian slang.
Vote Gary Johnson 2016!
Jun 23, 16 6:52 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor,
My concern with Hillary is a Federal indictment over her actions in the Benghazi case and being literally the first U.S. President to be put in cuff during inauguration.
My concern about Trump is he'll be assassinated or put us in war with Mexico and a bunch of other countries that are currently allies.
So, in either case, I am looking at what the options are. Only Republicans and Democrats can be elected as Presidents in this country. The Electoral College can only place votes either to a Republican or a Democrat. It is how it works. There is no way any other party candidate can get elected as President. The election system is rigged to these two parties.
I have to look now to who the VP candidates are going to be.
I don't like the choices for the Presidential candidates.
LOL. Even if such a thing were to actually happen, which it won't, Mexico would lose in about 30 minutes flat, just like they've been BTFO every other time in their history when they come into military conflict with the USA. They know it. We know it. Everybody knows it. So there won't be a war unless the Mexican Army suddenly decides to commit suicide.
Trump is the most anti-war candidate any major party has fielded as nominee in a very long time. That's one major reason the neocons hate him.
Hillary, on the other hand, is belligerently pro-war and wants to start some serious shit with Russia (which is not a pushover in any form whatsoever). Which is why the neocons love her. She's basically a female George W. Bush with less charisma and more baggage.
Jun 23, 16 7:06 pm ·
·
"gavone" is an Italian-American slang. It's derived from the actual Italian word 'cafone'.
"My concern with Hillary is a Federal indictment over her actions in the Benghazi case and being literally the first U.S. President to be put in cuff during inauguration."
Why the fuck are the Republicans SO CONCERNED about Benghazi, when their president Bush lied through his nose and led us all into a war that was totally unnecessary (yes i know Hillary voted yes for it, but that was if there were indeed any WMD found). I dont think any of the Bushes or Cheney will ever go to jail.
Gwharton, you are literally clutching at straws. Trump is the most incendiary, violence seeking mofo out there, isnt it obvious from his speeches and the way they boo off minorities? Or are you wearing your blinders like a horse?
Jun 23, 16 7:12 pm ·
·
gwharton,
It's U.S. against all the nations of the world declaring war against the U.S. because of Trump's mouth. He has a mouth that pisses people off. U.S. can not win a war against the rest of the world without basically destroying the world which include self-destruction.
Jun 23, 16 7:13 pm ·
·
Bush Jr. is son of ex-CIA director who was also the CIA supervising agent overseeing JFK's assassination. That family is crooked as hell but you can't do anything about that because if you do, you're dead and your family is dead... in just a matter of time.
On the other hand, Hillary is just a politician. Not an CIA-insider or family member of CIA.
two clowns from the same circus
Pretty neat how easily the far left picked up the hyperbolic rhetoric of the far right.
ok tduds, how do I phrase this otherwise...
she fancies the murder of people around the world (for the sake of profit, further hegemony, whatever the case being) and she has a rather idiosynchratic knack of lying over just about anything. And she uses the political platform to make herself rich.
and he...well, he just doesnt like Mexicans (latinos in his language) and Muslims and want to expel them all out and cares more about the size of his thingiemagic than the actual wellbeing of the people he wants to preside over..
she fancies the murder of people around the world for the sake of profit
Example? Like a real one too not just a war that happened while she was Sec of State.
she has a rather idiosynchratic knack of lying over just about anything.
Except, no
And she uses the political platform to make herself rich.
You mean her speaking fees?
Hate to break it to you but you're being fed 30 year old bullshit from the Gingrich Era and eating it up because it fits the narrative you wish was true.
Also you should go back and read the previous articles I've posted in this thread. They're very informative.
chatter of clouds, you're a condescending asshole.
Does anyone want to vote on that?
Trying to stay above the fray. As best I can I'm just going to respond to absurdity with citations.
to quote from Jeffrey Sachs, who is not known for hyperbole, left or right
Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.
Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman’s collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.
Yet Hillary’s connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don’t want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
again Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine
Donna, you're becoming more overtly nasty with age (please note that I never called you any names as you do now). Your intelligence, however, has not improved in proportion.
The Democrats are running the one person in their party who could lose to Donald Trump. Hillary is totally corrupt.
"The Democrats are running the one person in their party who could lose to Donald Trump. Hillary is totally corrupt."
Hillary is almost certain to lose to Trump in November, true, but there aren't any other serious candidates on the Dem side of the aisle right now who could beat him either. Decades of Clinton cronyism and Obama ineptness have left the party gutted of any real talent. Sanders would probably come closest, but the DNC hate his guts and want nothing to do with him. So that's not going to happen. Who's left after that? Biden? ROFLMAO.
Trump only just started beating on Hillary in earnest with his amazing speech in NYC yesterday, and she's already BTFO. The debates are going to be humiliating for her, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she gets so upset she has a stroke and goes aphasic or something right there on stage. Her health is sh*t already, and she has a reputation for exploding at even mild criticism. Trump is going to nuke her from orbit.
Hey, thanks for that advice, chatter! I'm *really* going to take it to heart as your opinion matters SO MUCH to me!
What advice? I didn't give any. I know a hopeless case when I see (read) one.
And now I have to stop commenting on this thread for awhile because you know what I'm doing? Spending hundreds of dollars of money and hours of my time preparing and serving a dinner at my home for ten people I do not yet know but have been connected with through a local initiative to move our city in a progressive direction as part of a 100-year-long project known as a Ben Franklin Fund, which includes An Evening of 100 Dinners as a way to make sure the progressive visionaries in our town all know one another and work together.
So I can continue bitching on the internet with a bunch of keyboard warrior denialists, or I can work hand in hand with a group of neighbors who understand the long, slow work it takes to make the world better.
I hope there's another election in my lifetime where I can vote for someone.
Even if everything you say about her is true, which I don't believe it is, anyone would be preferable to that unstable, abusive, violent, moron.
He does not even know what the triad is. Do you want someone with the nuclear codes that does not know what they are connected to?
He does not even know that the Speaker of the House controls the legislative process. How can someone run this country if they can not pass a high school civics test?
Do you actually think that someone who bilked thousands of people out of their life savings in a get rich quick scheme(Trump University) has the where with all to run the economy?
Even Sarah Palin is more qualified that this 2 bit con man.
Who could've foreseen this thread going sour?
Im confused as to why we cannot consciously decide to boycott the election. This is not an act of laziness. Laziness would be voting for the candidate that you've managed to passively digest. The genius of this corporate coup that's been taking place over the decades is the use of Complacency rather than force. The tortoise style takeover. Slow and steady...
Why is the "corrupt" candidate the one who isn't the simultaneous defendant in a fraud suit and child rape accusation?
Anyone who failed to vote in a primary should probably check out of any discussion of this sort.
Would probably make all these discussions very brief.
tduds Pretty neat how easily the far left picked up the hyperbolic rhetoric of the far right.
I was actually thinking of a similar subject but with a different take. in certain ways, Trump is right about Clinton and Clinton is right about Trump. One is pointing to the other's shit while remaining oblivious to their own. Similarly, the rhetoric of the republicans and pro-Trumpeteers with regards to Clinton (that she is a liar and corrupt) is true. And the rhetoric of those who support Clinton wrt to Trump is also true (racist and so on). One does not exclude the other.
What is ridiculous, however, is to assume that remarks being made are inherently dismissable simply because the republicans also make use for their benefit.
has the extent of polarization here become so extreme that logic is no longer measured against observable facts and logical debate but based on the purported truths of the tribe that you feel compelled to join only to counter the other tribe? Because it does seems like a tribal thing now.
"has the extent of polarization here become so extreme that logic is no longer measured against observable facts and logical debate but based on the purported truths of the tribe that you feel compelled to join only to counter the other tribe?"
Yes. Yes it has.
tduds: You need to read up on Hillary's graft career, starting with the Guccifer 2.0 dox, and the FBI email investigation, which is looking more and more likely to result in at least one felony indictment. Wikileaks is starting to release the goods on her too. Assange says he has enough documentation to assure her indictment.
The lawsuits against Trump are obvious political hit tactics with no substance. First off, they're both civil suits, not criminal. Anybody can file a civil suit for anything, which is often exploited in situations like this. The Trump University suits are being pushed by a Clinton-supporting law firm. And the Epstein-related rape accusation against Trump, which is NOT being filed as a criminal suit, is very recent and obviously being pushed to draw attention away from Bill Clinton's long and cozy relationship with Epstein. It's obvious bullshit. The earlier suit filed by the same complainant in California was summarily dismissed for being a hoax and political hit. Trump may be a lot of things, but a child rapist is obviously not one of them. Bill, on the other hand, is a known sexual predator. And Hillary has a long track record of enabling that behavior while actively destroying the reputations of women who have accused him of sexual assault and rape.
What is ridiculous, however, is to assume that remarks being made are inherently dismissable simply because the republicans also make use for their benefit.
Sorry if what I was saying came off as assuming that. I wasn't implying anything was inherently dismiss-able because the GOP said it, I was implying that they're not worth regurgitating because they're almost universally false.
I'll concede Jeff Sachs op-ed has some legitimate criticisms, despite couching them in exaggerated alarmist language (If he said "staunch" one more time I'd have a bingo), but most of the attacks on Clinton don't really hold up to serious scrutiny. It's one thing to have a spirited debate on conflicting schools of foreing policy, but it's another entirely to suggest that her explicit or tacit support for something is tantamount to her somehow masterminding the whole thing. Again I'd implore you to check out the links I posted throughout this thread, since the pace at which you're responding suggests you haven't taken the time to read them yet.
gwharton: Convenient how the allegations against the candidate you support are "political hit tactics with no substance", while the allegations against the candidate you don't support are going to bring about an indictment any day now (except for the past 25 years any day now hasn't arrived).
Do you really not see the bias in your thought process?
Alright this went about as well as it could have. Enjoy the links, I'm done.
Chatter, you are a condescending, uninformed, lazy asshole. So Donna I agree with you.
I" it is people like sameolddoctor who sat on their lazy ass, condescendingly criticising the Occupy movement (whose advocates later, along with others, gathered behind that person..what is his name...Bernie Sanders) and the like while, towards the end, tell you there is no choice but those two clowns."
Its funny that you pick at me for name-calling, then proceed to do the same. For the record I never gathered "behind" the neo-utopian thinking of Sanders.
Frankly, whoever even tries to justify Trump's existence in this race, to this advanced level, is immediately a racist, misogynistic, gun loving douchebag (yes Im calling names), so why do I even read your comments? gwharton are you serious?
tduds: like how you didn't read any of the links I provided to substantiate my claims and just dismissed what I was saying as political bias because you disagree with it? Do you really not see the bias in that "thought" process?
The Trump University thing is obvious bullshit to anybody who is familiar with licensing agreements and knows anything about how Utah real estate scams play people, both their marks and the legitimate businesses they rope into their dealings, which I assume most people here are not. And the fact that the law firm pushing the whole thing has close ties to and has donated lots of money to the Clintons is relevant to motive for why it stays active despite being obvious bullshit.
The fact that the rape allegation against Trump was summarily dismissed by a judge in Los Angeles because it was obviously false, and that the complainant in that case was then found to be shopping for alternate jurisdictions to file another suit (and apparently found one in NY) is also relevant. That is EXACTLY what bullshit lawsuits look like.
The FBI investigation of Hillary is relatively new, and is now encompassing her activities associated with the Clinton Foundation as well. There are dozens of career investigative attorneys at FBI who are investigating this full time now. That doesn't happen unless they think something really seriously bad has been going. Just FYI.
And Bill Clinton really does have a well-documented and long-standing cozy relationship with Epstein, and is known for a fact to have regularly flown on Epstein's "Lolita Express."
So, keep making your excuses, playing that confirmation bias, and dismissing information that contradicts your narrow little belief system to justify your defense of the indefensible. But don't pretend that it's in any way rational.
Just for the record I haven't endorsed Clinton in this thread. I've only sought to deflate the rhetoric to a reasonable chatter.
Didn't work, so I'm out.
Oh, FFS.
A vote for Drumpf, is a vote for a Right Wing Conservative court for the next two generations. Choke on that for a while. While you conservative douchecanoes, and whining, white, progressive, elitist Bernie-Bros, bitch like the fucking dicks you are, poor women, poor black women, poor white women are going to lose what remaining access to birth control, and reproductive rights they have left.
So go, fuck, yourselves. This doesn't matter. Fuck you.
I will personally rear naked choke any of you flabby armed Bernie Bros, and any of you felching Drumpf supporters, if Hillary loses.
As for her being a liar, quite watching Fox News, your Alex Jones is showing.
#imwithher
b3tadine,
Either of them are possibly will have very short terms in office. At this point, I'm looking at who is their running mate are going to be. As both parties candidates may have very short term in office so I am looking to who they will have as their running mate.
archinect, Is there a way to filter everything that these idiots say:
gwharton
Rick B
LOL. It's always the same with these folks.
Every. Single. Time.
Speaking of "teapublicunts", b3ta, how do you feel about the Koch Brothers giving the thumbs-up to your girl Hillary? And the Bush Neocons love her.
Corporate interests own both sides. They can't lose.
Gwharton, is that why your teapublicants need guns? To shoo away them "folks" when they make their statements, point out issus and claim victory?
Or is it the small penis syndrome that urged YOUR folks to kill all of the 4 gun control bills in congress.
Oh and this is only one of the issues.
I love the term Teapublicant.
Anyone who thinks Trump or Hillary has the people's interest in mind is delusional. Theu will pander to their base, but at the core they are fundamentally serving the same master.
1. He's a coward
2. Small Hands
3. Hillary has bigger balls
Trump is a weak man. Anyone who talks that much shit about being "tough" is a pussy.
jla, isn't it always like this in the real world?
Yes. He's what you call a "gavone" in Italian slang.
Vote Gary Johnson 2016!
sameolddoctor,
My concern with Hillary is a Federal indictment over her actions in the Benghazi case and being literally the first U.S. President to be put in cuff during inauguration.
My concern about Trump is he'll be assassinated or put us in war with Mexico and a bunch of other countries that are currently allies.
So, in either case, I am looking at what the options are. Only Republicans and Democrats can be elected as Presidents in this country. The Electoral College can only place votes either to a Republican or a Democrat. It is how it works. There is no way any other party candidate can get elected as President. The election system is rigged to these two parties.
I have to look now to who the VP candidates are going to be.
I don't like the choices for the Presidential candidates.
"put in war with Mexico"
LOL. Even if such a thing were to actually happen, which it won't, Mexico would lose in about 30 minutes flat, just like they've been BTFO every other time in their history when they come into military conflict with the USA. They know it. We know it. Everybody knows it. So there won't be a war unless the Mexican Army suddenly decides to commit suicide.
Trump is the most anti-war candidate any major party has fielded as nominee in a very long time. That's one major reason the neocons hate him.
Hillary, on the other hand, is belligerently pro-war and wants to start some serious shit with Russia (which is not a pushover in any form whatsoever). Which is why the neocons love her. She's basically a female George W. Bush with less charisma and more baggage.
"gavone" is an Italian-American slang. It's derived from the actual Italian word 'cafone'.
"My concern with Hillary is a Federal indictment over her actions in the Benghazi case and being literally the first U.S. President to be put in cuff during inauguration."
Why the fuck are the Republicans SO CONCERNED about Benghazi, when their president Bush lied through his nose and led us all into a war that was totally unnecessary (yes i know Hillary voted yes for it, but that was if there were indeed any WMD found). I dont think any of the Bushes or Cheney will ever go to jail.
Gwharton, you are literally clutching at straws. Trump is the most incendiary, violence seeking mofo out there, isnt it obvious from his speeches and the way they boo off minorities? Or are you wearing your blinders like a horse?
gwharton,
It's U.S. against all the nations of the world declaring war against the U.S. because of Trump's mouth. He has a mouth that pisses people off. U.S. can not win a war against the rest of the world without basically destroying the world which include self-destruction.
Bush Jr. is son of ex-CIA director who was also the CIA supervising agent overseeing JFK's assassination. That family is crooked as hell but you can't do anything about that because if you do, you're dead and your family is dead... in just a matter of time.
On the other hand, Hillary is just a politician. Not an CIA-insider or family member of CIA.
CIA = CORRUPT INTERNATIONAL ASSHOLES
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.