delrem
delrem's JournalThe game of Clue.
Hillary Clinton. In politics. With lies.
Now a person only has to figure out the crime.
Kagan.
Kissinger.
War.
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.
Why does anyone? Why do people with blue or brown eyes support Hillary?
The first and most obvious response is: some do, but not all do.
So how does such a question arise and why would anyone expect there to be an answer?
Your question seems to be more about HRC's campaign strategy, how she has presented this "truth", that women and blacks are her firewall, etc. But remember, it's a CAMPAIGN that we're discussing. It's a CAMPAIGN's version of "truth".
It's more on the order of an assumption - something put out there to be discussed - but it isn't any more than that.
HRC is putting issues about racism, sexism, and so forth to the front.
In fact it's a good thing that these issues are front and center.
I don't agree with HRC's ways and means.
The assertions by HRC, Steinem and Albright, were shudder inducing.
Holy shit, talk about time for a reassessment if that's the extent of "feminist leadership in 2016".
She takes certain "identifiable" constituencies ('black', 'latino', 'female') for granted, as if by right, as being her "base".
Then IMO it isn't good that her campaign goes with a Rovian/Brockian "BernieBro" "BernieSplain" type methodology, which is the lowest of the low kind of politics which doesn't discuss but instead accuses, separates. Creates hate. Her campaign goes what I'll call "dirty" and I don't think this is good for the country, it isn't good for what it does to her supporters, it isn't good for what it makes of those of her supporters who go along with it. It isn't good for what it does to the Democratic party, that's for sure.
If you push your finger in the swamp, there's no telling what you'll touch.
The problem isn't in describing in detail each individual noxious item, it's the fact that it's a swamp.
What she SAID in those speeches isn't essential - in fact it's meaningless. What's essential is that she was PAID, and paid again and again and again, to the tune of over $150 million between her and her husband, straight to their personal account, by lobbyists. The lobbyists didn't want WORDS, they didn't care if she read "My Pet Goat" to them, they cared that they bought her.
People are being "incrementally" shafted.
Statistics prove it.
There is nothing forward about HRC's "incrementalism", it's just an empty slogan.
What does it mean re. Health Services? The first and ONLY thing you need to know is that it means that she backs private health insurance companies, EXCLUSIVELY. It means that she puts the parasitical profits of private insurance companies in the lead, as the ONLY consideration to account for and guarantee, then bullshits about how on that basis some kind of "incremental" movement toward "universal health care" will be forthcoming.
After which it's entirely a game of semantics. Because most countries with universal health care also allow citizens to supplement it with private insurance, they deny that such countries have single payer universal health care, ignoring or denying the fact that the only way that universal base is guaranteed and so can be *called* universal is through the single payer (gov't) insurance. I'm Canadian and Hillary Clinton's arguments are boggling, and I find it boggling that they have any traction.
I dunno if she could've beaten McCain/Palin in 08.
She has NONE of the charisma of Obama.
She inspired nothing. She was already running on empty.
People already knew who she was.
Now in 2016 she couldn't beat a turnip. The MSM and her billion dollar campaign can spin it as they want, but in a GE she won't inspire anything but revulsion at the idea of a president owing to such an incredible backlog of payola and graft. Her militarism is front and center - it's what she is, a hawk who will bring death and destruction to the tune of fat profits in a way not seen since Reagan. People won't want that on their conscience. They just won't - people have had enough and more than enough of the war profiteering, the payola, the corruption.
She hasn't a chance.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:12 AMNumber of posts: 9,688
