Hillary Clinton has no opinions, values or beliefs.

She is a poll statistics regurgitator. All she ever has been, all she ever will be.

When the polls say exterminate a race, she'll exterminate the race. When the polls say that drake is a big hit among youths, she'll hit up drake for an endorsement.

I don't support donald per se, but he speaks his mind and maintains opinions on the things he seems to value the most, similar to Bernie sanders. Yet all hillary does is say gay marriage is bad one year then support it when it's hip. She voted for Iraq, not even Bernie did that, trump didn't support it either.

Why would you trust a person to be our leader when she's by definition a follower? When she's a pancake? When they are incompetent by all means and riddled with scandals?

In old times, if you were highly controversial, you didn't get to be royalty. You would probably be assassinated or exiled. Yet we welcome such folk into public office now.

If she can't protect some people in Benghazi, why would we let her protect 400 million people.

The logic is nowhere to be found.

Crooked Hillary will regurgitate whatever polls say. Unless she can cash in, of course. Then she can even ignore polls.

You know who let Putin buy 20% of US nuclear energy? Crooked Hillary Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/

You may ask. Karl may or may not answer.

Yeah, why don't poor people just decide to not be poor?

you make me think that not everybody should have freedom of speech

I think we can learn something about Trump from his enemies, and the majority seem to absolutely despicable. Clinton, Bush Republicans, the media, the military brass, all these folk are just awful, and it makes me kinda like Trump.

Anyway, Clinton will likely deploy ground troops to Syria(since Al-Qaeda can't keep fighting her battles), and have the US army at the gates of Moskva. That's enough of a reason to not vote for her, unless you're an absolute immoral person.

Edited 8/5/2016 16:14:53

Or, idk, if you're the kind of person that gets their news and analyses from places that aren't sketchy blogs with either no citations or citations that literally say the exact opposite of what they're claiming they say.

But you do you, I guess.

Or, idk, if you're the kind of person that gets their news and analyses from places that aren't sketchy blogs with either no citations or citations that literally say the exact opposite of what they're claiming they say.

But you do you, I guess.


You get your news from the US government, I'd say I have the more accurate pieces of news. Anyway, I have provided evidence for Clinton supporting Al-Qaeda to fight Assad.

If you need it again, here you go:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

I thought Trump had a 25% chance of winning. After the most recent events, I lower it to 15% now.

Anyways neither will be good presidents, but Clinton will likely run the show pretty much like Obama did. Lots of talks about women rights, black lives matter or gun control while close to no nothing will change.

Trump in the other side is a wildcard we don't know what he will do, and I'm seriously concerned of how he will handle the nuclear arsenal. Will he decide to bomb Beijing if China insulted his hair? Invade Mexico if they don't pay for his useless wall? We can't say. For all purposes stick with the devil you know.

Trump in the other side is a wildcard we don't know what he will do, and I'm seriously concerned of how he will handle the nuclear arsenal. Will he decide to bomb Beijing if China insulted his hair? Invade Mexico if they don't pay for his useless wall? We can't say. For all purposes stick with the devil you know.

lol this is such a retarded position

Nah, Obama was a solid president, and Clinton isn't much different. She's also very similar to Bill, who was also good.

Obama was a solid president

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

Bill, who was also good.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Obama was/is terrible Ox

Obama was a solid president

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

And a civil war in another country reflects upon Obama's presidency how?

Bill, who was also good.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

A bad situation which Clinton handled well, imo. Forceful U.S. intervention helped lead to the end of conflict in Bosnia few years before, and similar intervention was likely the best policy option here. If anything, Clinton should be applauded for the stance the U.S. took.

Edited 8/5/2016 17:57:12

A bad situation which Clinton handled well, imo. Forceful U.S. intervention helped lead to the end of conflict in Bosnia few years before, and similar intervention was likely the best policy option here. If anything, Clinton should be applauded for the stance the U.S. took.

So he helped a terrorist group take control of Kosova by killing hundreds of Serbs, then helped them by letting them commit ethnic cleansing in Kosova, and that's good? Milosevic has gotten exonerated already, so it's obvious that the "genocide" NATO claimed happened didn't happen.

And a civil war in another reflects on Obama's presidency how?

He supported terrorists to overthrow Assad. It greatly aggravated the situation, and led to ISIS's rise.

You're acting like any president hasn't intervened in anything.

The first ones were the worst; they were the ones that supported slavedriving.

The first ones were the worst; they were the ones that supported slavedriving

US still has slavery. Look at all those non-criminals in prison, being forced to work.

You're acting like any president hasn't intervened in anything.

There were presidents who had little to no intervening. Anyway, acting like intervention is ok because others do it is acting like slavery is ok because others do it.

A bad situation which Clinton handled well, imo. Forceful U.S. intervention helped lead to the end of conflict in Bosnia few years before, and similar intervention was likely the best policy option here. If anything, Clinton should be applauded for the stance the U.S. took.

So he helped a terrorist group take control of Kosova by killing hundreds of Serbs, then helped them by letting them commit ethnic cleansing in Kosova, and that's good? Milosevic has gotten exonerated already, so it's obvious that the "genocide" NATO claimed happened didn't happen.

Wasn't Milosevic a war criminal on trial at the Hague when he died? Didn't he aid and abet the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of thousands of Croats and Bosnians in previous conflicts in the former Yugoslavian republic just before the Kosovo conflict? Wasn't he using strident, ethnically-based, jingoistic language and policy promoting Serbs over Albanians in Kosovo, the same language he used in the previous conflicts? Language that led to conflicts where thousands of innocent civilians died? Conflicts that were only resolved the forcefull intervention by NATO led by the U.S? And you're saying the the U.S. should have stood by and given Milosevic a free hand in Kosovo?

And a civil war in another reflects on Obama's presidency how?

He supported terrorists to overthrow Assad. It greatly aggravated the situation, and led to ISIS's rise.

You have an interesting interpretation of events.

It is unclear where Obama directly supported terrorists. I read the link you posted earlier -- I don't come away with the indication that Obama supported terrorists (presumably you are referring to Al Qaeda in Iraq).

Indeed I think it is quite clear from Obama's record that he went out of his way to not support Al Qaeda in Iraq. You will recall that some Republicans in the U.S. have criticized Obama quite heavily for not intervening in Syria earlier. His defense has been (in part) that they couldn't find reasonable parties amongst the opposition to support. That his to say, the Obama administration actively avoided supporting terrorists in the Syrian opposition.


M.G.S.B. I don't think the color of the sky in your world is the same as it is in mine.

Wasn't Milosevic a war criminal on trial at the Hague when he died?

And he was cleared recently of the charges against him. He's dead, but they didn't give up trying to paint him as a Serb hitler.

Didn't he aid and abet the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of thousands of Croats and Bosnians in previous conflicts in the former Yugoslavian republic just before the Kosovo conflict?

No one could produce a single order sent by Milosevic to Serb fighters in Croatia or Bosnia.

Wasn't he using strident, ethnically-based, jingoistic language and policy promoting Serbs over Albanians in Kosovo, the same language he used in the previous conflicts?

Milosevic was a socialist dedicated to a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia, as the ICTY acknowledges.

Language that led to conflicts where thousands of innocent civilians died?

Neither the Nationalist Serb conflict in Croatia and Bosnia, nor the Kosova conflict were created by the Yugoslav government.

Conflicts that were only resolved the forcefull intervention by NATO led by the U.S?

The US doesn't get props for siding with terrorists in Kosova.

And you're saying the the U.S. should have stood by and given Milosevic a free hand in Kosovo?

Are you saying that the US should side with nationalist terrorists who start wars? Because that's what the KLA was.

It is unclear where Obama directly supported terrorists. I read the link you posted earlier -- I don't come away with the indication that Obama supported terrorists (presumably you are referring to Al Qaeda in Iraq).

The memo identifies AQI as one of the opposition groups, and identifies that the west (NATO) supports it.