Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums

2016 American Presidential Election


Recommended Posts

Susan Sarandon predicts Hillary will be indicted

June 3, 2016 | 10:22pm

Hillary Clinton will be indicted over her use of a private email server to conduct sensitive State Department business, some Bernie Sanders supporters are insisting.

Actress Susan Sarandon became the latest Sanders die-hard to predict that the former secretary of state would be criminally charged in the FBI investigation into the scandal.

“Nobody’s even talking about this indictment. What happens with that?” Sarandon, of Westchester, said on MSNBC Friday.

Reminded there was not yet an indictment, the activist actress added: “There’s going to be. I mean, it’s inevitable.”

Dave Handy, 27, a progressive New York activist who will go to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia as an at-large Sanders delegate, made a similar claim on Twitter.

“It’s going to be funny to watch when Hillary gets indicted, and all her supporters are like: #FeelTheBern,” he wrote.

Dan Metcalfe, a Democratic law professor and former Justice Department official, also predicted an indictment in a column in LawNewz, a site run by ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams.

“Given that the facts and law are so clear in Ms. Clinton’s case, it is difficult to imagine her not being indicted,” wrote Metcalfe, of American University’s Washington College of Law.

Meanwhile, Sanders backers from New York are vowing to stage protests outside and inside Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center when it hosts the convention in July, Politico reported Friday.

Among them is LGBT activist Allen Roskoff, who was busted last year after demonstrating at a Midtown banquet — dressed in prison stripes — to protest Gov. Cuomo’s refusal to grant clemency to convicts.

“If the Barney Franks and the Wassermans are going to have their way at the convention and degrade activists, it may be a serious problem,” he said, referring to former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).

Wasserman Schultz is the Democratic National Committee chair and Frank a co-chair of the convention’s rules committee. Sanders has called for both to be removed because they are ardent Clinton backers.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/03/susan-sarandon-predicts-hillary-will-be-indicted/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 382
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Susan Sarandon: Hillary Clinton ‘more dangerous’ than Trump

By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times - Friday, June 3, 2016

Hollywood actress and activist Susan Sarandon says former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be a more dangerous U.S. president than Donald Trump — provided she’s not indicted first.

Ms. Sarandon, a supporter of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, told a liberal news outlets this week that Mrs. Clinton’s track record portends a much worse future than anything Mr. Trump might catalyze as commander in chief.

“I believe in a way she is more dangerous,” the actress told The Young Turks on Thursday. “They’re both talking to Henry Kissinger, apparently. … She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things — and very callously. I don’t know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is. That scares me. I think we’ll be in Iran in two seconds.”

The former “Thelma and Louise” star said voters are being “fed” a message that Mr. Trump is “so dangerous” when his promises on illegal immigration amount to a wall being built.

“I don’t know what his policy is. I do know what her policies are, I do know who she is taking money from. I do know that she is not transparent and I do know that nobody calls her on it,” the Oscar-winning actress continued.

The activist also appeared on MSNBC on Thursday and predicted Mrs. Clintonwould be indicted by the Department of Justice for the secret email server she operated out of her New York home as President Obama’s top diplomat.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/3/susan-sarandon-says-hillary-clinton-more-dangerous/

Link to post
Share on other sites

It becomes more and more clear that many Sanders supporters, especially the outspoken ones, only seem to know black and white. It's nice if you want to stick to your principles but unfortunately that makes you unfit for a political office or if you want something get done because therefore you need a more pragmatic approach, you need to bring in a broader spectrum. And then there is this tendency to become quite agressive if someone tends to have a different opinion. Their opinion is all that matters and if someone makes a little mistake, be prepared to be grilled. In many ways Bernie supporters are just like SJW. And they are very selective in their criticism. Remember when Hillary falsely claimed the Reagans did something positive in regards to the HIV crisis and she later apologized, acknowledigng her mistake? They called her out, which is fine, but many started claiming she did nothing for the LGBT community. Fast forward to one week ago, when the Sanders campaign went after Peter Staley after Staley and others criticized the Sanders campaign for mischaracterizing the outcome of their meeting, Sanders’ policy director Warren Gunnels blasted Staley on Twitter, writing, “‘Activist’ who absurdly said @BernieSanders is running a campaign of hate made a fortune from big drug companies.” Of course the tweet has been deleted shortly after. But this is so wrong and makes you really question if they go after a person who together with a few others saved the life of millions of gay people and dare to put term activist in brackets and claiming he took money from drug companies (this is what they usually do to dicredit other people) when in fact he fought those drug companies when they wanted to cash in back then. Those comments are a no go and everyone should be appalled by this. Different to Hillary I have not heard an apology yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg I'm not a Bernie supporter. I voted for him months ago. End of story.

Xxl is Italian. He could care less about Bernie.

Chelle thinks it's hilarious that your only of defense is "you guys are just sore losers because you love Bernie" or "Trump is horrible vote for Hillary!"

Pud has always hated Hilary and always calls her frigid

And everyone else posts articles about all the shady things Hillary has been involved in, nothing to do with Bernie.

You guys are delusional and clearly have way too much sand trapped in your vaginas. all cranky and shit. Like your messiah

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting the full vid, it's a great speech. Very presidential :clap:

You're welcome Moka :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Problem With Hillary Clinton’s Attack on Trump’s Foreign Policy Is… Hillary Clinton


Yes, Trump has a record of odious, irresponsible pronouncements.


But Clinton has a lousy record



Hillary_Nationalism_AP_img1.jpg





In San Diego on Thursday, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, sharply rebuked her Republican rival, Donald J. Trump, for his lack of qualifications and foreign-policy smarts. Departing from her standard and often dull stump speech, Clinton issued a brutal and, at times, clever critique of her Republican opponent. Yet, as she drew out the differences between herself and Trump, it became depressingly clear that she is offering nothing new.


Mrs. Clinton told an adoring crowd that Trump simply “cannot do the job.” Trump’s ideas, according to Clinton, “aren’t just different—they are dangerously incoherent. They’re not even really ideas—just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.” In sense, Clinton—of Illinois, Arkansas, New York, and Washington, DC—was on home turf in San Diego, which plays host to some of the biggest players within the military-industrial complex. Defense contractors like BAE Systems, General Atomics, Cubic Defense, and Northrop Grumman contributed, according to one San Diego–based trade group, an estimated $24.8 billion to the local economy last year.


Clinton’s bill of indictment against Trump was not, however, totally unconvincing: Trump has made a series of reckless pronouncements in which he has indicated he would be fine with a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia. He has proposed a ban on Muslim immigrants. He has said he will bring back torture and “go after” the families of suspected terrorists. Clinton sarcastically mocked Trump for seeming to believe that holding a Miss Universe pageant in Moscow counts as some kind of foreign-policy credential. “This,” Clinton scolded, “isn’t reality television, it’s reality.”


All in all, devastating and formidable. Yet problems arise when Clinton rolls out the charge that Trump is “temperamentally unfit” for office. Perhaps he is. But her record also raises serious questions of judgment. And here a consideration of Secretary Clinton’s record in office is in order. New York Times reporter Mark Landler recounts in his recently released book Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Twilight Struggle Over American Power that on nearly every major foreign-policy decision that Clinton weighed in on during her time as the nation’s chief diplomat, she found herself to the right of the Pentagon.


A former aide recounts that Clinton “contributed to the overmilitarizing of the analysis” with regard to the president’s options in Afghanistan. Clinton initially backed Gen. Stanley McCrystal’s request to send 40,000 troops there and was among on coterie of advisers who forced President Obama’s hand in sending 30,000. Doing so resulted in, among other things, a wave of “green-on-blue” attacks on American service personnel by our alleged Afghan “allies.” Not surprisingly, twice as many US servicemen were killed in Afghanistan under Obama than under George W. Bush.


Seemingly heedless of the consequences, Clinton has repeatedly advocated for a “no-fly zone” over Syria and has said the United States should send lethal weapons to Ukraine. She exulted when she was informed of the gruesome rape-murder of Col. Muammar Qaddafi, uttering her now infamous, “We came, we saw, he died!”


Still worse, in the summer of 2010 she seemed positively eager to provoke a crisis with China, joining with then–Secretary of Defense Bob Gates in urging the president to divert an aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea in response to a North Korean torpedo attack by a South Korean naval vessel. According to Landler, Clinton was undeterred by a warning from the Chinese not to divert the American carrier, and, quoting Vince Lombardi, exclaimed to her aides, “We’ve got to run it up the gut!” The president wisely demurred.


And then there is her continuing hawkishness with regard to Iran. Rather than use the Iran nuclear accord to demonstrate the power of diplomacy (even if it was her successor’s doing), Clinton instead uses the deal as a prop to show how resolute she is vis à vis Iran. She repeatedly vows to audiences that under her watch Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon.


Yet who exactly says they want one? Not the Iranians. As President Obama has been at pains to point out, Iran’s supreme leader has gone so far as to issue a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.


In San Diego she told the crowd that her preferred strategy in dealing with the Iranians is to “distrust but verify.” This is an inversion of Ronald Reagan’s famous pledge to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that he would “trust but verify” during arms-control negotiations. Is Clinton signaling she is ready to out-Reagan Reagan?


In any event, “distrust but verify” can hardly be said to be a sound basis for the implementation of an international agreement. It actually sounds suspiciously like a catch phrase one would hear on reality television.



Clinton promises more of the same. Indeed, at times she sounded like she was channeling the ghosts of Republican presidential candidates past. She has repeatedly claimed that if Trump wins they’ll be “celebrating in the Kremlin.” She is clearly signaling that rather than seeking to engage with Russia over issues of mutual concern like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and climate change, she plans to continue the Obama administration’s ill-considered policy of isolation and containment toward Russia.


She also made the obligatory bows to Israel, claiming (without evidence) that it is “our closest ally in the region” and that the United States has a “moral obligation to defend Israel.” She warned the adoring assembly that a world shorn of American leadership will result in chaos—indeed, it is “not an outcome we can live with.” In other words: A President Hillary Rodham Clinton will do everything in her power to defend and extend American global hegemony.


And so voters are likely to be faced with a dismal choice this coming November: a choice between a candidate with a record of odious pronouncements, Trump, versus a candidate with a lousy record, Clinton. Given the options, there are of course reasons to pull the lever for Clinton come November, but she will need to be challenged by a revitalized peace-and-diplomacy movement within her party to counter her hawkish instincts. If the Sanders forces can move her leftward, towards a progressive realism, then all the better. But with apologies to Paul Simon: Any way you look at it, you lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton is one of the most biased Israeli supporters in U.S. politics today. Period. Under her watch U.S.-Irani relations will either go nowhere or deteriorate. Period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Michelle Obama trashes Trump: 'That is not who we are'


'Here in America, we don’t give in to our fears,' the first lady says.




Michelle Obama offered a scathing, barely veiled critique of Donald Trump on Friday as she delivered her final commencement address as first lady, warning graduates of City College in New York that while their diverse backgrounds are to be celebrated, they should beware of those who "build up walls to keep people out."


"They seem to view our diversity as a threat to be contained rather than as a resource to be tapped," Obama said. "They tell us to be afraid of those who are different, to be suspicious of those with whom we disagree. They act as if name-calling is an acceptable substitute for thoughtful debate. As if anger and intolerance should be our default state rather than optimism and openness that have always been the engine of our progress."


Invoking her travels as first lady, Obama remarked that she has visited dozens of countries over the last seven years. "And I have seen what happens when ideas like these take hold. I have seen how leaders rule by intimidation, leaders who demonize and dehumanize entire groups of people often do so because they have nothing else to offer. And I have seen how places that stifle the voices and dismiss the potential of their citizens are diminished, how they are less vital, less hopeful, less free."


"Graduates, that is not who we are. That is not what this country stands for," Obama continued, before alluding to Trump's Make America Great Again slogan. "No, no, here in America, we don’t let our differences tear us apart. Not here. Because we know that our greatness comes from when we appreciate each other’s strengths, when we learn from each other, when we lean on each other, because in this country, it’s never been each person for themselves, no we’re all in this together. We always have been."


In another allusion to Trump's call to build a wall on the border with Mexico, Obama remarked, "here in America, we don’t give in to our fears, we don’t build up walls to keep people out, because we know that our greatness has always depending on contributions from people who were born elsewhere but sought out this country and made it their home.”


The first lady then ticked through a list of cultural and historical landmarks created by people who were not born in the United States, including Google, eBay, the artificial heart, the telephone, blue jeans, Russian-born Irving Berlin's "God Bless America," the Brooklyn Bridge and the White House.


The greatness of the United States, she mused, has "never come from folks who climbed the ladder of success or who happened to be born near the top and then pulled the ladder up after themselves."


"No, uh-uh," she continued, to applause. "Our greatness has always come from people who expect nothing and take nothing for granted, folks who work hard for what they have and then reach back and help others after them. That is your story, graduates, and that is the story of your families. And it’s the story of my family, too.”


The story of the U.S., the first lady continued, is one of "the son of Polish immigrants named Jonas Salk who toiled for years in a lab until he discovered a vaccine that saved countless lives.


It’s the story of the son of Jamaican immigrants named Colin Powell who became a four-star general, secretary of state, and a role model for young people across the country."


"And graduates, it’s the story that I witness every single day when I wake up in a house that was built by slaves, and I watch my daughters, two beautiful black young women head off to school waving goodbye to their father, the president of the United States, the son of a man from Kenya who came here to America for the same reasons as many of you: to get an education and improve his prospects in life," she remarked.


While the United States' founders "never could have imagined this day," Obama said, "all of you are very much the fruits of their vision."




Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Some officials worry about briefing Trump, fearing spilled secrets


1464919516721848EfIrW1IUpQ.jpg


Some U.S. intelligence officials are concerned that Donald Trump's "shoot from the hip" style could pose national security risks as they prepare to give him a routine pre-election briefing once he is formally anointed as the Republican presidential nominee.


Eight senior security officials told Reuters they had concerns over briefing Trump, whose brash, unpredictable campaign style has been a feature of his rise as an insurgent candidate. Despite their worries, the officials said the "Top Secret" briefing to each candidate would not deviate from the usual format to avoid any appearance of bias.


Most of the officials asked for anonymity to discuss a domestic political issue.


Current and former officials said that the scandal over Hillary Clinton's use of emails also raises concerns about her handling of sensitive information. The likely Democratic nominee is facing an FBI probe into whether security was compromised and laws were broken by her use of a private email server for government business while she was Secretary of State.


"The only candidate who has proven incapable of handling sensitive information is Hillary Clinton," said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "If there is anyone they should be worried about it is Hillary Clinton."


But Trump's lack of foreign policy experience, his volatile style, and his little known team of foreign policy advisers make him a unique case, the officials said.


"People are very nervous," said one senior U.S. security official.


Intelligence and other security and foreign policy officials are also trying to determine "who on (Trump's) team are trustworthy, the official added. "We've never had a situation like this before. Ever."


A spokesperson for Trump's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.


Other officials downplayed such worries, noting that the traditional briefing, while classified as Top Secret, is mostly a broad overview of national security issues and does not include the most sensitive government secrets about intelligence sources and operations.


In the post-Second World War era, confirmed U.S. presidential nominees have traditionally received the briefing from intelligence officials -- including spy agency chiefs -- covering a broad range of national security issues.


The nominees are usually briefed shortly after their party nominating conventions, and are allowed to include one or two aides who must undergo security checks. Current and former officials say the nominees are explicitly warned not to share the contents of the briefing, which includes detailed intelligence assessments.


After election day, presidents-elect receive the same Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, that the sitting president gets, complete with material on the intelligence agencies' sources, methods, and covert operations.


Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Reuters that he shared some of the concerns over how Trump, who has never held public office, might use information from the briefing.


"I would be very concerned with Mr. Trump's ability to know what he can and can't discuss" publicly about the contents of an intelligence briefing, said Schiff, who has endorsed Clinton for president.


Schiff said one consequence of intelligence agencies' worries about Trump's reputation as a loose cannon could be that briefers circumscribe some of the information they provide to Trump and Hillary Clinton, his prospective Democratic opponent.


Trump has tended to make broad-brush statements on foreign issues rather than delve into policy nuances. He drew criticism from some former national security officials last month when, without evidence, he quickly tweeted that the downing of an EgyptAir flight appeared to be a terrorist attack.


Clinton is honing in on national security as a key potential weakness for Trump, and is set to deliver a foreign policy speech on Thursday designed to portray the billionaire businessman as unfit for the White House.


SAME BRIEFING FOR BOTH?


Officials familiar with the views and policy of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's Office, which will give the in-person briefings, say it will do its utmost to avoid any suggestions of political favoritism or bias.


Officials say the spy agencies' intend to follow past practice and give identical briefings to both nominees.


One former intelligence official said Clinton could have an advantage in the briefing because she would likely ask more probing questions than Trump, a newcomer to foreign policy.


The briefings provide an "overview of pressing issues and hot spots around the world," said former CIA officer David Priess, who briefed attorneys general and FBI directors, but not presidents.


One U.S. intelligence official said that Trump's style may not be such a risk because the briefings are general in nature and often track publicly available information.


"If he reads the papers every day, he won't hear much that will surprise him," the official said.


Current and former officials said that covert operations and the intelligence agencies' "sources and methods," which are among the nation's most tightly guarded secrets, are never discussed in the pre-election briefings.



Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Trump Accuses Hillary Of ‘Making Up Quotes’, So Hillary Sourced Every Single One, Then Put Him On Blast


A speech was given yesterday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on foreign policy and it could definitely be construed as an attack directed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump’s knowledge of foreign policy is sorely lacking, so much so that CNN now fact checks him in real time, so the average viewer can see plainly when he flip flops. For instance, when he said he believes that Japan should have nuclear weapons.


106ghg1.jpg


Not surprisingly, Trump was absolutely furious with Clinton and the things she said about him in her speech. In true Trump fashion, he’s chosen to strike back at her because of it. He did just that yesterday by taking to Twitter, and even went on to claim that he has never spoken out in favor of Japan having its own nuclear arsenal, insisting that everything Clinton had said about him in her speech was a lie.


30rleae.jpg


Hillary Clinton responded promptly with a link to her website, The Briefing. The link leads to a simple breakdown of her speech, quote by quote. Each and every thing she said Donald Trump had been quoted as saying was backed up with links to the interviews or press conferences where he said it.


The fully cited take down was scathing, from the time he was directly quoted as insisting he knows a lot more about ISIS than America’s military generals do to him saying that he has no issues with abandoning our allies in NATO.


It is also worth taking note that Clinton’s tweet linking to her website has gotten more retweets than Trump’s tweet claiming that she blatantly lied about his quotes.


With the election looming on the horizon, it’s more important than ever that Americans educate themselves and do their own fact checking when it comes to both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Susand Sarandon, but she really needs to get her head out of her ass on this one.

The Supreme Court is at stake this election. Simple as that. Susan will be throwing a fit if Donald Trump gets to appoint right wing loons to keep republicans happy and this country is taken back generations because of it. I doubt she would be singing the same tune then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And then there is her continuing hawkishness with regard to Iran. Rather than use the Iran nuclear accord to demonstrate the power of diplomacy (even if it was her successor’s doing), Clinton instead uses the deal as a prop to show how resolute she is vis à vis Iran. She repeatedly vows to audiences that under her watch Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon.
Yet who exactly says they want one? Not the Iranians. As President Obama has been at pains to point out, Iran’s supreme leader has gone so far as to issue a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.
In San Diego she told the crowd that her preferred strategy in dealing with the Iranians is to “distrust but verify.” This is an inversion of Ronald Reagan’s famous pledge to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that he would “trust but verify” during arms-control negotiations. Is Clinton signaling she is ready to out-Reagan Reagan?
In any event, “distrust but verify” can hardly be said to be a sound basis for the implementation of an international agreement. It actually sounds suspiciously like a catch phrase one would hear on reality television.

Just wanted to point out that the Iranians got screwed on that Nuclear deal. They totally fulfilled their part of the agreement but US screwed them over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some officials worry about briefing Trump, fearing spilled secrets
1464919516721848EfIrW1IUpQ.jpg
"If he reads the papers every day, he won't hear much that will surprise him," the official said.

:dead:

Well, we know he doesn't!

Oh and Ms Hilary Rodham Clinton slayed in that speech. :sassy:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to point out that the Iranians got screwed on that Nuclear deal. They totally fulfilled their part of the agreement but US screwed them over.

Of course

It's not just the US that screwed them over though, it's the entire Western community and the Vatican of course. The CIA, Israel, NATO, royal families of Europe and all Western intelligence agencies are just the Vatican's and Rothschilds' operative arm. It's more convienent to be in a perpetual state of war than working towards an actual solution to conflicts. Their solution is a means to a completely different end from stablity, prosperity and much less peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a noble campaign Sanders is running...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/282237-puerto-rico-democratic-party-denies-wrongdoing-in-primary

Prats also said certifying poll workers is out of the hands of the party and that the Sanders campaign did not allow much time before it began accusing the party of fraud.
"Inmate voting is handled not by the Democratic Party but by the Commonwealth's Absentee and Advance Vote Administrative Board," Prats said. "I have been told that the Sanders campaign submitted their prison pollworker list at 6:10 pm on the evening prior to inmate voting and began complaining early in the following morning that the Board had not completed their pollworker's certification. But in the end, despite the late submittal, the Sanders campaign had representatives at the prison voting places."
He also accused the Sanders campaign of stealing two boxes of ballots that had been cast by prisoners before delivering them to an election office.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a noble campaign Sanders is running...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/282237-puerto-rico-democratic-party-denies-wrongdoing-in-primary

Prats also said certifying poll workers is out of the hands of the party and that the Sanders campaign did not allow much time before it began accusing the party of fraud.
"Inmate voting is handled not by the Democratic Party but by the Commonwealth's Absentee and Advance Vote Administrative Board," Prats said. "I have been told that the Sanders campaign submitted their prison pollworker list at 6:10 pm on the evening prior to inmate voting and began complaining early in the following morning that the Board had not completed their pollworker's certification. But in the end, despite the late submittal, the Sanders campaign had representatives at the prison voting places."
He also accused the Sanders campaign of stealing two boxes of ballots that had been cast by prisoners before delivering them to an election office.

And what's so outstandingly noble about Hillary's campaign if I may ask? Except perhaps in the form. She easily makes Trump appear like an ignorant fool made good which he is but that's easy. She keeps lying to the American public about the nature and scope of US foreign policies and the real state of US economy. The fact that her statements don't sound dumb and provocative doesn't make her any more trustworthy and sane than he is, once in the White House that is.

I know everyone's entitled to their views, I would just like to understand those, living in the US in particular, that have this blind faith in Hillary Clinton as someone who is there to do the American public's best interests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what's so outstandingly noble about Hillary's campaign if I may ask? Except perhaps in the form. She easily makes Trump appear like an ignorant fool made good which he is but that's easy. She keeps lying to the American public about the nature and scope of US foreign policies and the real state of US economy. The fact that her statements don't sound dumb and provocative doesn't make her any more trustworthy and sane than he is, once in the White House that is.

I know everyone's entitled to their views, I would just like to understand those, living in the US in particular, that have this blind faith in Hillary Clinton as someone who is there to do the American public's best interests.

I never said anything about Hillary's campaign being noble and you can trash her all you want, but Sanders himself said at the beginning he was going to run a "positive, issues-focused campaign." And now it's just become a pissy old man and his sore loser followers. My point in posting the article is to show that he's really just another politician with better rhetoric and a fan base that is becoming fanatical.

Hillary's a sneaky bitch, we know that. I am not even sure she cares that people think that about her. Bernie on the other hand was supposed to be this "above the fray" candidate. Now his campaign is proving he's not.

I have no illusions about Hillary and I have said that many times in here before. I don't believe her to be a perfect candidate. I am well aware she is more hawkish than Obama even (although he's no peace dove either), and I already know her Presidency will be scandal-plagued and her chance of being a 1-termer are probably greater than 50%. Why support her? Several reasons:

  1. She's helping Democrats down ballot which means the Senate will have a better chance of being majority Democrat after the election and that means at least 2 Supreme Court justices will be appointed. Bernie isn't helping anyone's campaign but his own.

  2. She supports enhancing or improving the Affordable Care Act (not repealing it).

  3. She supports raising taxes on people who earn over $5 million and raising capital gains taxes.

  4. She supports raising the estate tax.

  5. She is not likely to propose cuts to Medicare or Social Security, and she is advocating allowing Americans 55 and up to join Medicare early.

I certainly wish she was more left on Climate Change and U.S. military intervention. However, while I think she will be more interventionist than Obama (in a military sense), her foreign policy is not that different than her husband's in the 90's and he advocated focused military strikes over mass land invasions, so the likelihood of another Iraq War seems unlikely, especially when she knows the liberal base is already wary of her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said anything about Hillary's campaign being noble and you can trash her all you want, but Sanders himself said at the beginning he was going to run a "positive, issues-focused campaign." And now it's just become a pissy old man and his sore loser followers. My point in posting the article is to show that he's really just another politician with better rhetoric and a fan base that is becoming fanatical.

Hillary's a sneaky bitch, we know that. I am not even sure she cares that people think that about her. Bernie on the other hand was supposed to be this "above the fray" candidate. Now his campaign is proving he's not.

I have no illusions about Hillary and I have said that many times in here before. I don't believe her to be a perfect candidate. I am well aware she is more hawkish than Obama even (although he's no peace dove either), and I already know her Presidency will be scandal-plagued and her chance of being a 1-termer are probably greater than 50%. Why support her? Several reasons:

  • She's helping Democrats down ballot which means the Senate will have a better chance of being majority Democrat after the election and that means at least 2 Supreme Court justices will be appointed. Bernie isn't helping anyone's campaign but his own.

  • She supports enhancing or improving the Affordable Care Act (not repealing it).

  • She supports raising taxes on people who earn over $5 million and raising capital gains taxes.

  • She supports raising the estate tax.

  • She is not likely to propose cuts to Medicare or Social Security, and she is advocating allowing Americans 55 and up to join Medicare early.
I certainly wish she was more left on Climate Change and U.S. military intervention. However, while I think she will be more interventionist than Obama (in a military sense), her foreign policy is not that different than her husband's in the 90's and he advocated focused military strikes over mass land invasions, so the likelihood of another Iraq War seems unlikely, especially when she knows the liberal base is already wary of her.

And no one goes into this wanting to be a one term president, so she will need to govern in her first term in such a way as to maintain the support of her base lest she be primaried in 4 years like Jimmy Carter was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath

In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:

But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.

This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.

In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton’s intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan’s peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton’s insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.

As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi’a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran’s influence in Syria.

This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time—in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to “defeat” Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.

Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran’s influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.

When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change.

In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: “Assad must go.”

Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first deposed. The US policy—under Clinton and until recently—has been: regime change first, ceasefire after. After all, it’s only Syrians who are dying. Annan’s peace efforts were sunk by the United States’ unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany a ceasefire. As the Nation editors put it in August 2012:

The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan’s] mission.

Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called “Friends of Syria” to back the CIA-led insurgency.

The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.

The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a “normal” instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?

This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d’état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don’t like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.

Removing a leader, even if done “successfully,” doesn’t solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d’etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia’s backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?

And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).

Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.

It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.

Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA. She has been the CIA’s relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Trump Responds To Accusations Of Racism With Fake Photo Of Black Supporters

trumpfake-1024x512.jpg

At a Friday afternoon rally in California, Trump sought to highlight his support from minorities.

“Look at my African-American over there,” he shouted.



He seems to have made things worse, with many noting that his phrasing implied ownership over the man.

One of the major hurdles for Donald Trump to win the presidency is his deep unpopularity among non-white voters. A recent survey found Trump is viewed unfavorably by 86% of black voters and 75% of Latinos.

Trump’s comments about the African-American man came after reiterating his belief that a federal judge should be disqualified from presiding over the Trump University fraud case because of his “Mexican heritage.” (The judge was born in Indiana.)

This morning on Twitter, Trump was back at it, highlighting the support of an African-American family.

wrg8di.jpg

Just one problem. The photo is fake.

qp15xy.jpg

It was not taken at a Trump event. Rather, it was taken at the “The 27th annual Midwest Black Family Reunion” held in Ohio in August 2015. The event featured “music, art, chess, children’s games and other activities.”

Last year, Trump attracted controversy when he retweeted fake statistics claiming 81% of white murder victims were murdered by blacks. The actual figure is 14%.

UPDATE JUN 4, 2016 2:21 PM

Speaking to BuzzFeed News, the parents in the photo -- Eddie and Vanessa Perry -- said they are not Trump supporters. They aren't endorsing or publicly supporting anyone. Eddie Perry called Trump's use of the photo "misleading" and "political propaganda."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/04/3784856/trump-responds-accusations-racism-fake-photo-black-supporters/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Trump rants about ‘unfair’ judge’s ‘Mexican heritage’ in bizarre CNN interview


a8-800x430.jpg


GOP candidate Donald Trump doubled down on his attack of a judge overseeing a lawsuit against his “Trump University” venture, which has been described by critics as a scam, cannot be unbiased in the case because he is of Latino descent, CNN reports.


On Friday in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, in which Tapper asked multiple times whether Trump thought it was right to invoke the race of the judge involved, Trump didn’t back down.


“I think that’s why he’s doing it,” Trump said, when Tapper questioned him. He insisted he should have won the case and would have, if the judge involved weren’t Latino.


“I have had horrible rulings, I’ve been treated very unfairly by this judge. Now, this judge is of Mexican heritage,” Trump said. “I’m building a wall, okay. I’m building a wall. I am going to do very well with the Hispanics, the Mexicans.”


Tapper then cut him off and pressed, “So, no Mexican judge can ever be involved in a case that involves you?”


Trump insisted the judge, who is an American citizen hailing from Indiana, is biased because Trump has vowed to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border.


“Jake, I’m building a wall, okay? I’m building a wall,” Trump said. “I’m trying to keep business out of Mexico.”


When Tapper pointed out the judge is American, Trump responded, “But he’s of Mexican heritage.”


Trump continued to insist that the only reason the case against Trump U hasn’t been dismissed is because of the judge’s Mexican heritage.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary has done WAY WORSE to Mexico. And she's done way worse to Honduras. I've posted about it here and nobody gives a shit. Everyone skips it. None of you give a shit about one of your business allies. Don't pretend you care. You only care when Trump says he's going to do something like build a wall, part of which already exists thanks to people like Hillary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
‘I Can Watch It on TV’: Excuses for Republicans Skipping a Donald Trump Convention


31convention-web1-master768.jpg

Supporters waited for Donald J. Trump at a campaign event in San Diego last week.


A wave of prominent Republicans have announced their intention to skip the party’s national convention in Cleveland this summer, the latest sign that Donald J. Trump, who last week secured the delegates needed to clinch the Republican presidential nomination, continues to struggle in his effort to unite the party behind his candidacy.


The list of those who have sent regrets includes governors and United States senators — almost all facing tough re-election fights this year — and lifelong party devotees who have attended every convention for decades. Some are renouncing their seats like conscientious objectors.


“I could not in good conscience attend a coronation and celebration of Donald Trump,” wrote one Indiana delegate, Josh Claybourn, in a blog post resigning his position.


The coolness toward Mr. Trump amounts to a remarkable rebuke. A broad range of party leaders are openly rejecting the man who will be their nominee. And the July 18-21 convention, usually a moment of public catharsis for political parties after contentious primaries, is shaping up to be another reminder of the disarray and disunity that is still rocking the Republican Party after a bitter 17-way fight for the nomination.


Even the two highest-ranking Republicans in the convention’s host state of Ohio — Gov. John Kasich and Senator Rob Portman, who is fighting to hold onto his seat — say they do not know if they will set foot in the convention hall.


Mr. Kasich, who only four weeks ago quit the presidential campaign and has not endorsed Mr. Trump, has no idea “what role if any he will have,” a spokesman said. He will be in Cleveland that week but has no plans, as of now, to partake in any official convention activities.


31convention-web2-master675.jpg+

Gov. John Kasich and Senator Rob Portman, right, at a campaign rally in March, are unsure if they will attend the Republican convention in their home state.


Several other of Mr. Trump’s former rivals for the nomination have said they will not attend or have not committed. Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, will not be there. Neither will Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.


“I’m sure it will be fun, I’m sure it will be entertaining,” Mr. Graham said last week. “And I can watch it on TV.”


Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who is a delegate as well as a former presidential candidate, has yet to decide. “T.B.D.,” a spokesman said. “The schedule is still being firmed up.”


At least two former competitors of Mr. Trump’s are expected to attend: Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who last week offered his services as a speaker should they be wanted.


Among those staying away include some major corporations like Coca-Cola, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard.


And some who do plan to be there might find the atmosphere somewhat uncomfortable.


Mr. Trump has still not fully reconciled with Speaker Paul D. Ryan, the convention’s chairman, who said in early May that he was not ready to support the nominee and would relinquish the role if asked.


Mr. Trump is also at odds with the head of the Republican Governors Association, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, who will lead her state’s delegation in Cleveland. Ms. Martinez has also withheld her endorsement, a slight that evidently prompted Mr. Trump to attack her performance in office last week.


Scheduling conflicts seem to be a surprisingly common excuse for missing an event that was announced a year and a half ago. Others offered mushy noncommitments.


“Just as they’re firming up the schedule, it kind of looks like there’s a lot of stuff for me to do,” said Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, explaining why he probably couldn’t make it.


Asked if Mr. Trump had anything to do with his reluctance, Mr. Johnson, who is in a heated re-election campaign, broke into a big smile and said, “Oh, of course not.”


Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan, a state Mr. Trump has said he believes the Republicans can wrest from Democrats this year, also might have more important things to do at home. “Michigan has some pressing challenges right now,” a spokeswoman said last week, “and state issues are his foremost priority.”


Mr. Snyder is one of at least nine Republican governors who are noncommittal or skipping the convention: Mr. Kasich, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Bruce Rauner of Illinois, Larry Hogan of Maryland, Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina, Matt Mead of Wyoming and Nathan Deal of Georgia.


“I don’t even want to be involved,” Mr. Hogan said in an interview in March. “It’s a mess. I hate the whole thing.”


Just about every Republican senator in a difficult race is staying away, fearful of what the association with Mr. Trump might do to reputations back home. Senator John McCain of Arizona will join four of the five living former Republican nominees in skipping the convention. “I’m in a very tough re-election campaign,” he said last week, explaining his expected absence.


Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, two of the most endangered Republican incumbents, will also be nowhere near Cleveland that week.


Mr. Portman, another senator in a tight race, said his time would be better spent holding a miniconvention of his own in Cleveland, which he plans to do with events for veterans, the homeless and his volunteers.


“I’ve spoken at every convention since 1996,” he said. “Nobody listens, nobody covers it.”


This mass avoidance might seem, on its surface, to be yet another example of party elites snubbing Mr. Trump in the kind of rejection that he would welcome as a professed political outsider. But it also reflects a deeper and more dangerous problem for him: Mr. Trump’s popularity with Republicans remains uncomfortably low.


The candidate’s own party generally delivers support in the 90 percent range. (Mitt Romney won 93 percent of his own party in 2012.) Mr. Trump’s support among Republicans, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, was 86 percent.


And the snubs keep coming from the upper echelons of the party and the rank and file. In New Hampshire, the former senator Judd Gregg was initially a delegate for Mr. Bush. But when Mr. Bush suspended his campaign, Mr. Gregg became unbound. He has instead opted to skip the convention, telling a local television station, “Don’t like large crowds.”


The Indiana delegate who renounced his place at the convention, Mr. Claybourn, would have been bound to vote for Mr. Trump on the first ballot, a step he said he simply could not stomach.


“Donald J. Trump is the Republican Party’s nominee,” Mr. Claybourn said. “But he will not be my nominee, and I will not attend a convention celebrating his candidacy.”



Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
President Obama To Endorse Hillary Clinton


HillaryObama-660x330.jpg


From the New York Times:


President Obama, after months of sitting on the sidelines of the rancorous contest to succeed him, is now ready to aggressively campaign for Hillary Clinton, starting with a formal endorsement of her candidacy as early as this week. The White House is in active conversations with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign about how and where the president would be useful to her, according to senior aides to Mr. Obama.


Advisers say that the president, who sees a Democratic successor as critical to his legacy, is impatient to begin campaigning. They say he is taking nothing for granted. It has been decades since a second-term president enjoyed the popularity to make him a potent force on the campaign trail and also an invitation from the candidate running to succeed him to be a major presence there.



Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...