HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » delrem » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:12 AM
Number of posts: 9,688

Journal Archives

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.

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?

what if, like, jeebus embraced the dowel? What then?

BUt tHunk.
jeebus would have to stop its goonish BrondoPAC from swiftboating the progressive/liberal-left base, and that won't happen because it's jeebus's trademark. It's what made $jeebus$ into $$jeebus$.

So we've got a ratfucked swiftboated progressive/liberal-left base, listening while these goons talk incessantly about how "Berniebros" are racist misogynists led by a tone deaf faker who pretends to be Rappaport. And that's just to start the day.

So it won't happen, not even given however number of "loyalty oath" posts which always follow after the swiftboat takes another turn down the rapids. As a reader/contributer to DU who, being a "progressive white guy", has been thoroughly swiftboated, I didn't take too kindly to the political experience. In my opinion, swiftboating should be left with the Republicans, since it defines Republican thought.

So I'd say NO. I don't think another loyalty oath thread will do the trick.

It's one of many issues that seem to be "non-partisan no-brainers",

but it seems aren't.

For the love of jeezbudakrishna and all the saints, why are Dems using black box voting machines, still.

Allowing them to be used in the coming GE.

Why haven't you got democracy even that far together, that you would use a black box machine and exit happily, not knowing what the fuck just happened?

"destabilization of both Libya and Syria..."

destabilization, after Afghanistan, Iraq, and what do we have now???

Holy shit. Time to bring in the inventors. Someone who can invent a likely story. Make it safe to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Really, I don't give a shit who you're "voting for".

If you're talking about actual issues of importance who you claim to be voting for should have no bearing on your argument. When you preface your posts with that information as prelude to typing out something that's counter-intuitive it doesn't make your case easier to understand.

Like for example that you're a "Sanders supporter" but you think running against the DLC/Third-Way/New_Democrat Hillary Clinton associated legacy is "lunacy".

I mean, like, yah right....
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »