HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » delrem » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »

delrem

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:12 AM
Number of posts: 9,625

Journal Archives

So David Brock's PAC counted it out. That's impressive.

You guys, I mean you, dispersing David Brock's PAC talking points, are very impressive.

You're like an energy bunny transformed into a roomba, set on its way by citizens united to do the work of idiots.

Do you think the guy is that smart, that he made all the connections?

It reads to me like the guy was playing the standard "Sanders=Trump and their supporters are identical" smear of "the extremes", the smear of "their supporters" which is the same meme as "Berniebros" and it has worked, at least so far. It's pretty easy to connect Trump with Nazi standards so the carry-over is more obvious the dimmer a person is, and this guy went there by force of habit. Then deleted.

So far there's been nothing of that nature played against Sanders that's anywhere close to the Rev. Wright, the "birther/muslim/Kenya" stuff and so on played against Obama. That was wicked and continues to be wicked. I have no doubt that Sanders' Jewish identity will begin to be played with a lot more professionalism than this clumsy oaf played this line. I'm assuming here that Sanders continues his wins, to show his political strength.

Perhaps this will be a time for education. After all, Hillary Clinton has expressed her closeness to Israel and Netanyahu both, and Netanyahu represents a right-wing incarnation of the country, so it's hard for me to see how an anti-Semitic card could be effectively played by her. I expect the Republicans will play it, though. You betcha if they run with Trump going for his ultimate "win" (that's Trump's only concept, repeated over and over, he's in it for the joy and self-aggrandizement of being a winner).

Hillary is responsible for her vote, and her very positive (in favor) speech before the vote,

so she's responsible for not just her vote but also for how she went out of her way to influence the Democratic party and fellow senators. Yes, she wielded influence! Her husband was POTUS, she was already being touted as a prospective POTUS in waiting, and nobody with any credibility can deny that her words had and have power in the Democratic party establishment.

In '08, even after half a million Iraqi innocents were slaughtered, their electrical and water grid bombed out of existence and their cities turned into burnt out husks, while millions more were fleeing or had already fled to points unknown as refugees with nothing but the clothes on their backs and their families in tow, while those families left behind had nowhere to turn for medical assistance and had to live with the sheer terror of seeing the tortured remains of bodies turning up daily on streets, with survivors looking for their loved ones in the lines of dead at makeshift morgues. After a torture regime that's still unknown in scope but included gitmo and abu ghraib, and for which nobody was held to account, Hillary said this:

"And I believe that at the same time that we have to make clear to the Iraqis that they have been given the greatest gift that a human being can give another human being the gift of freedom. And it is up to them to decide how they will use that precious gift that has been paid for with the blood and sacrifice and treasure of the United States of America.

Then she went on to assume power as SoS after Pres. Obama appointed her, and she followed her neocon advisers to totally destroy Libya. Her work secured the massive Libyan oilfields for the US and disregarded the rest, it being too insignificant to bother with. That's how much those lives mattered to her. She was more concerned with following her neocon advisers in setting up a "Friends of Syria" network of mercenary thugs to begin a war to effect regime change in Syria. Which is the situation that Obama has been trying to extricate the US from ever since.

You can say anything you want about how Hillary Clinton is innocent of all that because you've got some quotation from someone who says so. But you aren't speaking the truth.

Do you have any idea how many 1,000,000 deaths is, and what it means in terms of total devastation and desolation for the survivors?

It all depends on us, that we're educated to be wary of their tricks.

So we keep on message.

Both Warren and Sanders are excellent leaders in that way, in not only staying focused themselves but in helping us stay focused and determined - or at least those of us who are attuned to the same issues as they espouse.

This 2016 US election cycle has attuned me to the power of money and fame.
Nothing in my life prepared me to be faced with a pic of Kim Kardashian's selfie with Hillary Clinton, on the front of those weird tabloid/movie/exploitation magazines that they flog at the cashier stations of supermarkets.
This being a centerpiece of Hillary Clinton's campaign. It was part of her campaign.
It didn't give me a pounding headache. I survived it even though I don't understand it, or like it.
Maybe I'm like a cockroach in that way, that I can survive just about anything.

Hillary Clinton is essentially connected to the current state of the ME wars. Period.

Anyone who would deny that is a liar.

Hillary Clinton, already well connected and already considered by pundits to be a future POTUS, made a speech before she authorized George W. Bush's plan. She used George W. Bush's exact same words, exact same arguments, to justify her vote both before and after. She has never shown herself to be morally capable of understanding what she did.

Then she was made SoS and she destroyed Libya. That was her "friends of Libya" moment. She followed that with a "friends of Syria" moment that Obama has had to spend his entire second term desperately trying to dial back. And he succeeded. With Kerry he did succeed on several important fronts - that wouldn't have been possible if HRC had any hand in it at all.

She is far and away a Kaganesque parody of a neocon warmonger, responsible for probably more than a million deaths, many more millions of refugees. She's responsible for the terror of a family left behind who can't feed or nurture their loved ones, who don't have medical facilities because they've all been bombed and the pharmaceuticals put under interdiction, and the entire countries' electrical grid has been bombed into the stone age, and there is no secular social infrastructure left at all. She laughs and back slaps with Madeliene Albright, and I bet all the men women and children in the middle east just love Hillary Rodham Clinton, for liberating them.

Yah, it's a pattern. Fuckheads is what it is. They're of all kinds.

It doesn't matter much to me what "candidate" or "party" they talk about, they're just fuckheads.

bwaaaaahhaaaaahaaa! Way to go ericson00!

The very first thing that Hillary Rodham Clinton promised to do is to follow up the Republican/Netanyahu disrespect for Pres. Obama by inviting Netanyahu to the White House for a rapprochement. She has already invited him, several times in articles and speeches. This is her promise to reset things in a Republican/Netanyahu-centric way, a way that for her triangulates out to be the winning strategy of being the most Republican of all Republican candidates on matters of war and economics.

Gotta give her credit, she outdoes Trump in her total disrespect.

shrug. It's reality, Betty. Reality.

It seems to be a winning formula.
Unfortunately.

I'm a Canadian.
I'm very invested in US politics because Canada is part of NATO and NAFTA,which are US defined and controlled agreements.
Wow, do you guys ever keep on trying to draw us into your web.

So I want to input my point of view, and in my opinion the only political voices in US presidential politics that echo the general Canadian point of view, that voted in Justin Trudeau and are *hoping*, are Pres. Obama and Bernie Sanders.

That's a fact.

Single Payer Universal Health Insurance, for all citizens. Guaranteed.

Whether the citizen is homeless or a 1%er.

Hillary says she cares, through her Clinton Foundation, for example. But her platform has been to protect the ground for investment capital in every sector, including that of private health care insurance.

Hillary Clinton has made this very clear.
___________________

War Profiteering.
Hillary's record is a bucket of tears thrown into a river of blood.
She's relentless. She followed her Iraq war vote with the destruction of Libya, she initiated the war to effect regime change in Syria. She proved that she totally identifies with the neocon direction of Kagan, Kissinger, and the dark side of US politics generally. It is part of her platform. It's what she's running on.

On war and war profiteering, Hillary Clinton is more solidly "establishment republican" than any out there.

Is it a real charity or is it a private foundation,

100% controlled by the private interests of one political family?

OK, I'll grant that it's defined legally within some very lenient, not quite to say totally unregulated, bounds.

But Clinton =/= Gates, or even the sleazy Zukkerberg. Clinton private income all derives from politics, a massive amount from speeches given with exorbitant prices, to the tune of $160 million plus since Bill Clinton was president and Hillary was advertised as having it in the bag to be next, so there isn't the same intrinsic base for the Clinton Foundation as the Gates Foundation. People should think about this, about what is happening here.

For example, what Clinton Foundation monies are spent for what? How are contracts awarded? Who profits from the contracts? Are they no-bid? And so on. I'm sure that all the charitable spending is on worthy causes, but I question how it is done. I also question whether this is the best way for a politician to be pro-active about bettering the world, rather than putting her ass on the line and declaring that Single Payer Universal Health Care is the goal, regardless of the loss of potential profits for capital investment in the health care insurance business.

It's something to think about, at least.

But also, who is donating, and when? For example The House of Saud is a big donor, but nobody in a rational universe thinks that The House of Saud is at all "progressive" in any sense, not even some of the crazy senses that the term is endowed with in some of the more outlier of DU posts. So, when did the Saudi despots donate? Were they doing arms deals with the US gov't in that window of time, and were those deals assisted by a Clinton, acting as a politician? Are wars fought for profit being eased into existence by war profiteers, who donate to the Clinton Foundation charitable fund?
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »