HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » delrem » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

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

Journal Archives

That's very solid. Congratulations must be given to Hillary for this.

I don't understand it, though.
I don't understand why.

I won't listen to some diatribe about the awfulness of "white progressives" as an explanation.
I won't listen to some diatribe about how "white progressives" are racist.

It is what it is.

I don't think Hillary Rodham Clinton can win without "white progressives" and "the liberal left".
I don't.

How do you win after putting "economic justice" against "social justice" as your center piece, then calling those who promote economic justice ... racists? BernieBros? White supremacists? And also misogynist sexists?

I mean, wtf?

So how does Hillary Rodham Clinton intend to walk this back? How can she pull back the ratfucking swiftboating Brock and substitute something unifying, to make everyone forget?

Tell me.

Some people care about the victims of war profiteering con artists.

Others don't.

It has nothing to do with "hate".
It's a difference between having a moral sense and not having one.

Some people want wars of choice to stop, because wars of choice are always for private profit. Some people want to see an end to war profiteering, or at the very least some minimal regulation put on it.

Who would imagine that?

Some people want to see all the countries of the world put people first, ensuring universal healthcare, regardless of the lost profit of private insurance companies who've learned how to use pain and death as a lever to extract dividends, and who're now told they can't do it anymore.

Some people just want a fair minimum wage for plain ordinary daily toil.
Imagine that.

I want to see the test!

Because you know, I'll bet the contents of her speeches were boring as boring as boring as you know.
And for sure, I wouldn't read through them. No way. I don't care what they said.

Maybe the real problem is the payola. The cash in hand.
I mean shit. She and Bill brought home something like $200,000,000 in the past 15 yrs, doing "speeches".

Back when I was a kid I'd say "Holy Cow!"
That must mean something.

The problem is that the private server mixed personal and government matters.

Then, because it was a private server, it was "wiped" of the "personal" stuff, and only a carefully redacted version was shown to the people. But there is no real way of knowing what was "wiped" and what was not. Because that's Hillary's own secret.

The game of Clue.

Hillary Clinton. In politics. With lies.

Now a person only has to figure out the crime.
War profiteering for insider investment capital.

That's a start, I guess.

You figure it'd be worth $200,000,000?

The problem isn't the emails, it's the private server. That's why.

The details of the emails, carefully vetted and redacted, is a red herring. That isn't the issue, or shouldn't be.

The problem is the private server which separated her political activities from scrutiny from EVERYONE, including the Dem admin. Including Obama. Nothing being released hasn't been vetted by her, first. And believe me, she was doing the vetting all along - this isn't some last minute thing. From her experience with Bill Clinton as POTUS she knew exactly what she was doing and it was planned from the start.

She DELIBERATELY scrambled her "private family emails" with her most high level gov't correspondences, to give her an excuse to "wipe" her "private family emails" before "transparently" handing over the rest. But of course there is no way to know what she wiped. No way. It's a charade.

It's like everything else with her. The Clintons are masters of throwing out red herrings.

eta: same thing with "the transcripts". The details of what she said isn't the issue - no doubt she said marshmallow nicely-nice things to her audience along with a few jokes according as a flunky speechwriter wrote it up. Both she and Bill are pro's at it, they could do it in their sleep. The issue is she got paid enormous money for nothing, just because she's obviously being pushed by the mover/shakers in the Dem party to be candidate for POTUS. The issue is PAYOLA and GRAFT, not "the transcripts". I very much doubt that when "the transcripts" are released they'll contain anything like a 47% quote. Because that wouldn't be needed. The issue is Bill speaking in favor of a free trade agreement with Columbia and cashing in big time, to the tune of millions, at the same time as Hillary is currying votes by promising she's against it - then Hillary going on to promote it, once in office. That kind of thing. Sleaze buckets.

There won't be any "charges". There just won't be.

Look what Cheney and co. got away with, the investment bankers got away with.
It's absurd to think that "justice is blind" to wealth and power. It isn't.

Just, FFS, use your brains and don't actually VOTE for them!
If you do, you deserve everything you get.
Only problem is, the rest of the world doesn't.

No. Her supporters like war. They hate Snowden.

They like expanded powers for the NSA.
They like deregulation of investment banking.

They do!
Every one of them back her on her promotion of war. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and all the nods and winks toward Iran -- and onward!
Every one of them. Else they wouldn't back her. Not in 2016, after the history of it.

Every one of them are on side with her total commitment to Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and the most unregulated war profiteering and privateering capitalism as is possible. Made in the USA. Plunder is the name of their game. It isn't a "free market" to them, it's government contracts for rebuilding after bombings. It's government sanctioned and enabled selling of cluster bombs, and the entire US arsenal to the favored despots.

To that end they're totally invested in the NSA being in control of our speech via total capture of it, for their own purposes.

That isn't "fear". That's the apex of predation.

Not Hillary alone. But for the love of truth, presidents and their spouses set the agenda.

You do understand that, don't you?
These aren't children you're talking about, they are persons in power at the top of their game.

Compare the Obamas. They've done NOTHING like this, and certainly Michelle hasn't.

Oh, I disagree with a lot of what Obama has done - but he's been a breath of fresh air for the USA and his second term, without Hillary hanging around his neck like an albatross, has seen some very good changes. I'll take that.

Do you really want to go back in time, to before the Obamas, to ... such things as where Hillary Clinton called Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic looney tune" who victimized her husband? Like, a 22 yr old intern victimized a 50 yr old POTUS? And on and on and on and on, from bad to worse to Henry fucking Kissinger for god's sake? Really? You want that? You don't give a shit about anything? So you dismiss even this??

It's just.. awful.

She has a machine.

First and foremost, it's a cash machine.
But more than that, it's a political cash machine.
More than that, it's a political cash machine where war profiteering is the prime economic mover.

Investment bankers and war profiteers love her because she and her husband have done so much to construct and invent the machine that serves them.

Electing her is the end.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »